Print
Email
Comment
Facebook
Digg this
January 11, 2007 at 11:16:00 AM | more stories by this author
Internet infrastructure giant says it owns the "iPhone" trademark and seeks an injunction to stop Apple from using it for its landmark new device.
Well, that didn't take long.
Steve Jobs unveiled the iPhone Tuesday.
In the much-hyped run-up to Apple's iPhone announcement Tuesday, many industry insiders wondered how Apple had sorted out any potential legal tussle with Cisco over the name of the product, as Cisco had trademarked the name for its subsidiary Linksys' VOIP phones, the latest of which hit stores last December.
It hadn't.
Apparently believing that Cisco's legal argument is shaky, Apple chose to go ahead and use the name without any agreement with Cisco. In his keynote address at MacWorld in San Francisco Tuesday, Apple chief Steve Jobs unveiled the device, saying, "We have reinvented the phone."
Cisco filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in US District Court in San Francisco yesterday, seeking an injunction that would prevent Apple from using the word.
Cisco General Counsel Mark Chandler told the Wall Street Journal that Apple had approached Cisco repeatedly about using the iPhone name, going back as far as 2001. Chandler said the companies held "intensive discussions" over the matter starting several weeks ago.
iPhone vs. iPhone
He said the two sides seemed to be headed toward an agreement that would allow for "differentiation" between Cisco's iPhone product and Apple's, as well as some way to make it possible for the two products to work together.
But Apple chose to walk away from the deal, Chandler told the paper, forcing Cisco to file its lawsuit upon the announcement of the device. "All we're asking them to do is to not use our brand without our permission," he said.
Apple thinks Cisco will have a tough time convincing a court of its argument.
"We think Cisco's trademark lawsuit is silly," Apple spokesman Alan Hely told the Associated Press. "There are already several companies using the name iPhone for Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) products. We are the first company to ever use the iPhone name for a cell phone, and if Cisco wants to challenge us on it we are very confident we will prevail."
Cisco obtained the iPhone trademark in 2000 after completing the acquisition of Infogear, which previously owned the mark.
12 Comments
Oldest First | Newest First"Cisco knew what that were doing when the named the iPhone, and the evidence is in the fact Cisco tried to make a deal with Apple to make the 2 iPhones interconnected and compaitble. Apple of course declined and then Cisco esculated their law suit."
not holding water.
yes cisco knew what they were doing. they created a product similar to the original iPhone that was filed before even your observation of Apple's naming convention. chances are they used some of the same patents seeing as they bought the company to begin with. and they used the trademarked name that THEY legally owned that existed 5 years before the iPod, 11 years before Apple's iPhone, and 1 year before your observation of apple's naming convention. NOT TO MENTION that company, Infogear, filed similar "i something" trademarks even earlier than that.
Infogear even had a product called the iPhone released back in 1997.
the reality is, did Cisco use it because apple used a similar naming convention. maybe. but THIS trademarked name existed long before apple's iphone, long before apples ipod, and even before apple began using the i convention according to your own info.
Cisco approached Apple cause they knew Apple was going to try use the name when Cisco owned is for 7 years already and WAS CURRENTLY USING IT. Apple walked away because theoretically they think they have a case to ignore Cisco's trademark, but few legal experts are agreeing.
---------------------------
then its worth noting that Cisco DIDN'T come up with it. they got it when they bought the company that filed the original trademark.
guess when THAT company first filed the "iPhone" trademark.
1996.
kinda blows a hole in that excuse too doesn't it.
I wonder how many people even ever heard of the Cisco iPhone until Apple launched their iPhone?
Also its certainly worth noting that Apple started their naming convention of i_____ in 1997. Cisco named their iPhone 4 years later, geeesh i wonder how Cisco came up with that name ???
Cisco knew what that were doing when the named the iPhone, and the evidence is in the fact Cisco tried to make a deal with Apple to make the 2 iPhones interconnected and compaitble. Apple of course declined and then Cisco esculated their law suit.
I am not a die hard Apple fan, my last Mac computer was the "blue and white" and I just gave up iTunes for WMP and Creative MP3 player.
I'm rooting for Cisco.
It's not like many of the people who sue companies because their controllers use similar technology to their patent, this is about a name. Imagine a Samsung Razr or something like that. It's the same thing. You would do the same thing if someone stole the name of your product, especially one that's a similar product. I have no respect for people like steve jobs who steal, and have no regard for the law. Though you may be in love with steve jobs, at least be man enough to admit when he does wrong.
Once you start to protect silly things you must then make silly nonsensical arguments to rebuke. I have even noticed in an ad recently the name "Orange" was trademarked, funny. The world is a big place and redundancy is bound to happen, it's how you define yourself that makes the difference. I am sure their must be pages of law offices with the name "Bernstein Associates".
Which brings to question~ do most people think i_______ (anything) is an Apple product ? why did Apple not protect i_______(anything)... think ; iPod, iMac etc. This is a naming trend i_____ and e_____ or whatever. In Cisco's infinite wisdom has asked for this case, but I think Apple's rebuttal is in the wrong vein.
Apple could go to the table "like mature adults" and negotiate to use the name properly without infringing on Cisco's trademark. Cisco's trademark was legally obtained and has existed for years. Apple has admitted they know of the trademark, they simply decided that the trademark doesn't apply to them, and went ahead with their plans. this is out of Apple's own mouth.
Apple's the one that, with full knowledge and intent, ignored the existing trademark and refuses to negotiate for its use properly
~fin~
~fin~