Cisco Suing Apple For iPhone Trademark Infringement

[Zadillo]

Everyone assumes that Apple was ready to go to market and was caught by surprise by Cisco.

I disagree.

It seems, of late, that Apple is the one not ready to go to market. Many months ago Apple announces the iTV, but says it is months away from being able to deliver -- then changes the name to AppleTV.

Now Jobs announces the iPhone, but states that it won't really hit the market until summer.

Sounds to me like Apple jumped the gun because they had nothing else to introduce in January.

Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the iPhone. It looks great, and is certainly a better phone than the other high-end phones out there -- but does it really do anything new? Can't you send e-mail while on the phone now? (I do it all day long.) Can't you surf the net while on the phone, or listen to tunes? (I'll admit that multitouch is great, but it could have been introduced in the next gen of iPods just as easily.)

In the end, Cisco and Apple will settle and Apple will get their one percent of the phone market. Yippee.

I can send e-mail on my Treo, but the e-mail client on it stinks. The third party Palm app Chatteremail is somewhat better, but not by much. And I can browse the web on my Treo too, but only with the Blazer browser, which is terrible (or I can use the Opera Mini browser which forces my Treo to reset after a couple of minutes).

And I can listen to music on my Treo, but the music players for it are pretty mediocre, and none of them have anything close to the navigation interface that the iPhone does.

I think that Jobs' explanation for why they introduced the iPhone now makes sense. They have to get FCC approval, and if they waited, the iPhone stuff would leak out in FCC documents instead. It's a lot better for Apple to control the unveiling of the product and be the one showing what it is and what it does.

 

[clevin]

The canadian trademark is the proof that the US application using the Ocean moniker is Apple

Either way it will be interesting to see what happens. I for one really don't care what they call it, I just want one!

i changed my view, sounds like apple asked ciciso for the name first, when being refused, they didn't enter negotiation, but rather turn around used ocean xxx to try to get a trademark.

I know this is normal business tricks, but very annoying, personally, i don't like these tricks, and apple is very disappointing on this.

"Each time, Apple was told that Cisco was not interested in ceding the mark to Apple," Cisco's complaint reads.

Apple apparently was not willing to accept Cisco's decision, so it created a Wilmington, Del.-based front company called Ocean Telecom Services that applied to use the trademark in the U.S. on September 26, 2006, according to Cisco's complaint. That company, Cisco says in the filing, is "owned or otherwise controlled by Apple and is the alter ego of Apple." Around the same time on September 19, 2006, Apple also filed for the trademark for iPhone in Australia.

Longtime Apple watcher Roger Kay, an analyst with Endpoint Technologies Associates, was blunt in his assessment of the situation.

"This was just brass balls on the part of Steve (Jobs), to go in there and just grab that trademark and not pay a license for it or negotiate. It's the height of arrogance," Kay said. "He basically thinks he can get away with it."

http://news.com.com/Cisco+sues+Appl...demark/2100-1047_3-6149285.html?tag=nefd.lede

 

[Digital Skunk]

I say call it the iEverything

Everything you will ever need in one device.

 

[The Scotsman]

No, because they couldn't keep it a secret for much longer - there's an article on thinksecret, appleinsider, or macrumors or somewhere.

Apple have to get FCC approval and for that all devices become public knowledge. If Apple didn't announce it, FCC would have made it public knowledge.

Yes but it was already public knowledge that apple was releasing a phone device due to the patents. remeber when you patent something it also becomes public knowledge so yes fcc would have made it public to a certain extent eg Apple has a phone in testing at the moment but hey that
1: would have added more to the rumors and would have added more excitement regarding what it would be like/when it would be released etc and 2: we knew about it anyway but still would have been a surprise when macrumors posted "press and officials have been invited to a special event" think of the excitment knowing its coming but not knowing the content hey its like christmas

 

[Mac'Mo]

those freaking jerk faces!

 

[scotthew1]

Technically there has not been a breach of copyright. Sure Apple has said that they would call it "iPhone" but they haven't sold anything yet. I think cisco just sees how great it is and want some profits. Don't think they have much of a chance.

 

[matthewroth]

Quick note to all who say apple should drop the i Prefix. The i is in right now, i means'i gotta have it' and every one will want one if it has the i, its all about fasion, marketability and niche.

i can see every one having one with the i name, with out i think they will struggle to get the one% market share!

 

[swingerofbirch]

I hope Apple takes this as a good opportunity to rename the iPhone.

I mean they really ARE quite similar devices which COULD be confused and they do have the EXACT same name and Cisco had the trademark FIRST in the US, where the Apple phone will first be released.

I like the name iPod because it can mean anything. iPhone is a limiting name in my opinion. When you have a great brand like iPod, why change it? I mean people are smart enough to say yeah I've got the iPod with video, so they can say I've got an iPod with phone and Internet. It could be iPod ____something, like iPod nano.

 

[MacNut]

This was all a ploy to get money from Cingular in saying you get the rights to iPhone for 2 years. Sorry we don't own iPhone anymore its now open to all.

 

[Digital Skunk]

"Each time, Apple was told that Cisco was not interested in ceding the mark to Apple," Cisco's complaint reads.

Apple apparently was not willing to accept Cisco's decision, so it created a Wilmington, Del.-based front company called Ocean Telecom Services that applied to use the trademark in the U.S. on September 26, 2006, according to Cisco's complaint. That company, Cisco says in the filing, is "owned or otherwise controlled by Apple and is the alter ego of Apple." Around the same time on September 19, 2006, Apple also filed for the trademark for iPhone in Australia.

Longtime Apple watcher Roger Kay, an analyst with Endpoint Technologies Associates, was blunt in his assessment of the situation.

"This was just brass balls on the part of Steve (Jobs), to go in there and just grab that trademark and not pay a license for it or negotiate. It's the height of arrogance," Kay said. "He basically thinks he can get away with it."

Yeah WHATEVER.... but when MS monopolizes the computer world everyone bows down to suck Gates' toes.

Whatever... freakin aussie! Apple is a company just like any other company (especially Microsoft) I wouldn't expect anything better from any other company in the world... and if I were in Jobs' place I would do the same thing.

Look at all the underhanded things that MS is doing and NO one has anything to say.... If you buy a Dell in the next few months you will HAVE to by that crap Vista... Gates got rich off of that.

Blind FOOLS

 

[clevin]

Quick note to all who say apple should drop the i Prefix. The i is in right now, i means'i gotta have it' and every one will want one if it has the i, its all about fasion, marketability and niche.

i can see every one having one with the i name, with out i think they will struggle to get the one% market share!

"i" was "in" 3 years ago, now a new "i" product aren't in anymore.

 

[Stella]

We didn't know what those patents were exactly for. Apple makes a lot of patents it doesn't use - the rumours continue.

We didn't know 100% that an iPhone would ever come - it was all rumours.

When a product is sent to FCC - they will publish photos etc. We would then know what it was all about - a 100% cell phone, thus blowing away Apple's thunder.

Apple wanted to announce the iPhone and the element of surprise.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/10/how-the-iphone-avoided-being-leaked/
http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/10/commentary/lewis_fortune_iphone.fortune/index.htm

Yes but it was already public knowledge that apple was releasing a phone device due to the patents. remeber when you patent something it also becomes public knowledge so yes fcc would have made it public to a certain extent eg Apple has a phone in testing at the moment but hey that
1: would have added more to the rumors and would have added more excitement regarding what it would be like/when it would be released etc and 2: we knew about it anyway but still would have been a surprise when macrumors posted "press and officials have been invited to a special event" think of the excitment knowing its coming but not knowing the content hey its like christmas

 

[matthewroth]

I hope Apple takes this as a good opportunity to rename the iPhone.

I mean they really ARE quite similar devices which COULD be confused and they do have the EXACT same name and Cisco had the trademark FIRST in the US, where the Apple phone will first be released.

I like the name iPod because it can mean anything. iPhone is a limiting name in my opinion. When you have a great brand like iPod, why change it? I mean people are smart enough to say yeah I've got the iPod with video, so they can say I've got an iPod with phone and Internet. It could be iPod ____something, like iPod nano.

ARG, they are not the same product, only a fool would confuse them, look at the patents, one is VOIP landline one is mobile!!!!!

 

[notyourattorney]

This is not my area of law, and I don't know all the facts, but I think it shakes out like this:

Cisco has a pretty good claim to the "iPhone" trademark, because they market a product under that name and registered it as a trademark. The selling of the product is actually more important than the registration, incidentally. Trademark registration is more of an administrative thing.

Apple also has some claim to the mark, because they have sold products under an "i" naming scheme for years, which are functionally and aesthetically similar to the Cisco product. In fact, Apple appears to have a pretty good claim for "dilution" against Cisco, which is basically a lawsuit saying that you have decreased the value of my trademark by doing something very similar.

Given their competing claims, and the importance of this name, they were apparently negotiating something. I'm not sure what exactly, since both seem pretty invested in the name.

However, Apple had a pretty hard deadline for announcing the product, MacWorld wasn't going to move. And I guess they couldn't work something out beforehand.

Once Apple announced, Cisco's lawyers undoubtedly told them that they should file a claim to defend "their" mark. This is because an important factor that courts look at to decide who owns a trademark is if someone is defending it against infringment. By moving quickly like this, Cisco strengthened it's claim to "iPhone." To have not done so, they would have weakened it.

Now the parties will almost certainly negotiate something, and Cisco will drop the lawsuit.

A strange business move to Cisco, frankly. Everyone knew an Apple iPhone was coming, and Apple has tremendous brand equity in white shiny tech toys called "i" something. And the two products are not very different, and will become much less so when Apple inevitably embraces VOIP (which they will pretty much do automatically when they let 3rd party apps run on the phone, I should think). By releasing the product first they might force Apple to pay them off (but they might also have found themselves on the wrong end of a diltuion claim), but Cisco is a HUGE and very profitable company, they hardly need a few million bucks from Apple, and will have wasted a lot of time and money on the whole thing. This is the sort of stunt a dinky startup would usually pull, not a market leader. And even if they somehow (not gonna happen) convince Apple to change, or agree to market them both, they are in for years of brand confusion in the marketplace, which serves nobody.

 

[clevin]

Yeah WHATEVER.... but when MS monopolizes the computer world everyone bows down to suck Gates' toes.

Whatever... freakin aussie! Apple is a company just like any other company (especially Microsoft) I wouldn't expect anything better from any other company in the world... and if I were in Jobs' place I would do the same thing.

Look at all the underhanded things that MS is doing and NO one has anything to say.... If you buy a Dell in the next few months you will HAVE to by that crap Vista... Gates got rich off of that.

Blind FOOLS

Jesus, you sure can bash M$ anywhere, everywhere, anytime.

 

[Digital Skunk]

This was all a ploy to get money from Cingular in saying you get the rights to iPhone for 2 years. Sorry we don't own iPhone anymore its now open to all.

That would be SO wonderful if it were to happen....

"Dear tech God.... Please let Jobs find a way to remove this crap 2 year contract thing with Cingular by June so I can just get the iPhone with my current service, or no service at all . Amen..."

 

[phungy]

I'm surprised this thread has gone to page 9 in only 3 hours.

 

[clevin]

ARG, they are not the same product, only a fool would confuse them, look at the patents, one is VOIP landline one is mobile!!!!!

firefox is a browser,
firebird is a database,
still mozilla had to change their name from firebird to firefox. its a trademark.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Jesus, you sure can bash M$ anywhere, everywhere, anytime.

M$ made it nice and easy for me...

Try it it's not very hard....

p.s. I really have nothing against M$... It just grinds my gears when people try to stick up for M$ by bashing Apple or any other computer company. Like M$ was the greatest gift to computers.

Pssh!

 

[macintel4me]

Apple has no legal leg to stand on. Cisco has all the money to pay lawyers to go after Apple. In other words, this should be a first round knockout for Cisco over Apple. However, I place my bet that Apple gets the "iPhone" moniker without giving up too much. Why?? Because Steve Jobs simply wills things to happen they way he wants it. Its happened before and it will happen again.

 

[Gurutech]

Yeah WHATEVER.... but when MS monopolizes the computer world everyone bows down to suck Gates' toes.

Whatever... freakin aussie! Apple is a company just like any other company (especially Microsoft) I wouldn't expect anything better from any other company in the world... and if I were in Jobs' place I would do the same thing.

Look at all the underhanded things that MS is doing and NO one has anything to say.... If you buy a Dell in the next few months you will HAVE to by that crap Vista... Gates got rich off of that.

Blind FOOLS

even M$ doesn't do things like this.
Apple is trying to steal the trademark.
We are Apple fans. I understand urge to defend Apple Inc. However, Cisco is right on this one.
Would you feel ok if M$ decide to use iMac or iPod trademark without negotiation (well such negotiation is impossible but oh well) and announce iMac or iPod as their own product?
This act is definitely illegal.
I consider it worse than M$ including IE in Windows as bundle.

 

[matthewroth]

firefox is a browser,
firebird is a database,
still mozilla have to change their name from firebird to firefox. its a trademark.

apple rec. is the name of a recording company in the good old uk, apple renamed themselfs apple inc. this would make them in HUGE breech of the court decision a few months ago unless the names could be considered differently

 

[bigraz]

Name is played out anyway.

The name iPhone is now overused and the phone is truly not just a phone. I would prefer MacMobile, MobileMac.

There is the Mac Mini, iMac (this should just be The Mac), and Mac Pro in the computer line, ... so why not make the phone line as follows - 4GB MacMobile Mini, 8GB MacMobile, and 80 GB hard Drive version, (I can dream) - MacMobile Pro.

Let Cisco have iPhone, People will buy whatever is branded with the Apple.

They can call it Phone an it will still sell.

 

[The Scotsman]

name

Stella previous point taken read your links and am corrected Thanks.

I agree with iPhone being overused now and it is not just a phone icommunicate or imedia or MacCommunicator oh I like that one

 

[Zadillo]

i changed my view, sounds like apple asked ciciso for the name first, when being refused, they didn't enter negotiation, but rather turn around used ocean xxx to try to get a trademark.

I know this is normal business tricks, but very annoying, personally, i don't like these tricks, and apple is very disappointing on this.



http://news.com.com/Cisco+sues+Appl...demark/2100-1047_3-6149285.html?tag=nefd.lede

I don't get this though, why did Cisco imply on the 9th then that negotiations were almost done, if they are now saying Apple never negotiated? Something doesn't add up.