Cisco today announced that it has filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Apple, Inc., seeking to prevent Apple from infringing upon and deliberately copying and using Cisco’s registered iPhone trademark.
Cisco obtained the iPhone trademark in 2000 after completing the acquisition of Infogear, which previously owned the mark and sold iPhone products for several years. Infogear’s original filing for the trademark dates to March 20, 1996. Linksys, a division of Cisco, has been shipping a new family of iPhone products since early last year. On Dec. 18, Linksys expanded the iPhone family with additional products.
“Cisco entered into negotiations with Apple in good faith after Apple repeatedly asked permission to use Cisco’s iPhone name,” said Mark Chandler, senior vice president and general counsel, Cisco, in the press release. “There is no doubt that Apple’s new phone is very exciting, but they should not be using our trademark without our permission.
“Today’s iPhone is not tomorrow’s iPhone. The potential for convergence of the home phone, cell phone, work phone and PC is limitless, which is why it is so important for us to protect our brand,” Chandler concluded.
With its lawsuit, Cisco is seeking injunctive relief to prevent Apple from copying Cisco’s iPhone trademark.
MacDailyNews Note: Yesterday, Cisco issued official comments on the Apple iPhone announcement: “Given Apple’s numerous requests for permission to use Cisco’s iPhone trademark over the past several years and our extensive discussions with them recently, it is our belief that with their announcement today, Apple intends to agree to the final document and public statement that were distributed to them last night and that addressed a few remaining items. We expect to receive a signed agreement today.”
Either Apple doesn’t really to use the name “iPhone” upon release (it is much more than just a phone, after all) and they’re just using it for the built-in free publicity or this is just part of a tough negotiation process. It isn’t really much of a worry either way. Remember, Apple’s “iPhone” isn’t available for pre-order, much less being sold, yet. This naming issue will be worked out by June – probably much sooner.
Related articles:
The only thing really wrong with Apple’s iPhone is its name – January 09, 2007
Briefly: Apple changes corporate name; Cisco expects agreement on ‘iPhone’ trademark today – January 09, 2007
Apple debuts iPhone: touchscreen mobile phone + widescreen iPod + Internet communicator – January 09, 2007
If the trademark is better known as an Apple phone, does it automatically become Apple’s property? iPhone of Cisco systems is almost totally unheard of.
iMac Nano
Attn: iDave
I disagree. A trademark owner can take an infringing domain name from a registrant, and there are legal processes to do that. Cisco should have sued Apple over the domain name – or gone to WIPO for arbitration – and won.
As the owner of the iPhone trademark, Cisco is required to defend their rights. But they have neglected to do so for years.
Cisco rushed the latest iPhone to market just so they could say in court that they were using the name.
Everyone should know by now that if it starts with an ‘i’ it belongs to Apple.. DUH!
“Now, Steve pays through the nose for the name he wants (translation: higher phone price) or he finds another name.”
You’re comically wrong. Any settlement they get will be peanut crumbs compared to how much they’ll make.
“Apple Newton Personal Communicator”
Remember, you heard it here first.
MDN magic word “waiting” as in, I’ll be waiting for my royalties. Well ok, not really.
the guys just want 150 million , apple probably think this is worth it for the publicity
This patent will slip thru their fingers as if their fingers were fingers from a 90 year old woman with ky jelly spread all over them.
WERD!
To me this seems obvious…
Apple was in negotiations for years (admittedly, from the facts from both companies) to use iPhone from Cisco… The fact that the negotiations took years obviously point to some enormous disagreement on value of the name. (I’d even wager that as the iPod has exploded so much over the past two years, Cisco’s named price was changed multiple times).
I’d bet a few duckets that Apple took Cisco’s siege/negotiation tactics personally, and INTENTIONALLY chose to use the name yesterday with NO INTENTION AT ALL of using iPhone permanently… just to piss off Cisco.
On the other hand, something else might be obvious too…
Apple knows that iPod is a temporary naming phenomenon because soon all cell phones will have music players built in and will be to some degree “smart,” and “iPhone” is the stronger name for the future of the industry… And Cisco knew the value of their name and is still trying to stick it to Apple for as much as they possibly can.
So,
Call me obviously confused.
Have a Nice Day.
I still say they should have just called it The Guide.
I wonder if it turns into a bird…
for that price?
iouPhone…
actually, uPhone sounds ok,
black and red could be u2Phone, or
etPhone-outta this world!
The 1Pod-the only one you need.
should be MacPhone or PodPhone
phone
I from what I understand the Cisco patent for “iPhone” deals with integrated telephone communication with computerized global information networks. They released their VOIP phone recently, this may be part of the reason why Apple has not responded yet.
How about these names for the product:
1. iMobile
2. iGen
3. iComp
4. iNeed
Chrissy
WTF?
-did you ever get any sleep?
There was a story in.. I believe Popular Mechanics years ago. I just remember the cover said World Phone. That’s kinda catchy when you think about the potential of Google Maps and GPS.
Call it MacMobile, CrackPod, Newton – pick anything other than iPhone and get on with it. Why risk being confused with Cisco’s iPhone products in the future?
It was noted that the device was not physically marked as an “iPhone.” Injunctive relief just means that Apple can’t use the name. Even if they don’t come to an agreement, I can’t see any damages over this.
Attn: Optimist
If you register your trademark long after I’ve owned a domain with the same name… well, no, you can’t take it from me. Things just don’t work that way.
I know this one:
“I’d bet a few duckets that Apple took Cisco’s siege/negotiation tactics personally, and INTENTIONALLY chose to use the name yesterday with NO INTENTION AT ALL of using iPhone permanently… just to piss off Cisco.”
Those were my thoughts exactly!
@ TT
Snow day in western Washington today, so I stayed home to spend some quality time with y’all. ^_^
tt: For the sake of all things holy, do NOT use “ky jelly” and “90 year old woman” in the same sentence
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
blah blah blah, nothing will stop the exponential Apple curve this year and next, my smug factor is set at 3.
why didnt Apple just sign the agreement before taking the stage. i hope it doesnt cost them a lot to settle this.
@ Oooops! / WHY? / whatever other names you’re using –
You’re great. I love you!