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
Apple had better do it right this time.
The process of change from “Rendezvous” to “Bonjour” was horrible, and no matter how many Suave French Twists you apply, you’ll never get a name as great as Rendezvous for that technology. I miss “Rendezvous” as a name.
Let’s hope Apple does not lose as much in the change from “iPhone” to whatever (assuming it changes; and how could it not with Cisco already producing their device of the same name. Are they going to change? No way.)
Nothing to do with Cisco, but 2 random questions:
To what extent did Apple “ditch the clickwheel” (virtual or otherwise) as a result of the Creative lawsuit settlement?
Clearly the UI is redesigned, could it be that or that a virtual click wheel turned out to be a bitch to program in reality?
First off, can you all stop talking about ‘patenting’ iPhone. It’s called a trademark, damnit.
Second, if Apple owns the iPhone.org domain, all that Cisco can do is offer them money for it – UNLESS Apple are passing themselves off as Cisco, which they weren’t.
Finally, even if this is some cunning stunt and it’ll eventually be called the podPhone or whatever, I can still see myself getting a half-dozen or so emails from my Windoze weenie mates tomorrow having a laugh at we Mac fans’ expense.
🙁
Attn: big jerk
If I file the first trademark registration for your domain name, and you fail to challenge it within the statutory time period, I can probably take your domain name.
You should check uspto.gov and make sure noone has registered a trademark for your name. If no prior registration exists, you should consider registering the trademark yourself.
Phil Schiller, Apple’s head of worldwide product marketing, said yesterday that this was the first use of the name as a cell phone, whereas Cisco’s device is a cordless phone.
This might be the crux of Apple’s arguement that the products are in different categories. It doesn’t seem reasonable since it can been seen to cause confusion in the marketplace and a dilution of Cisco’s trademark.
Apple might have been betting on iPhone trademark abandonment. If they hadn’t reintroduce an iPhone recently, then the trademark could have been considered abandoned (after 3 years of non-use).
Perhaps Apple will argue that Cisco only held onto the name and introduced a product line simply to get money from Apple, knowing full well that both the media and public associate the iPhone moniker with Apple. If Apple hadn’t planned to release a phone with that name, Cisco would have not released phones under that name.
I agree with qantas in calling it ‘iPod Phone’.
It is legally safe, launches on the back of the iPod and then WE will shorten it to iPhone when talking about it. How hard was it to call it something else after Cisco launched their iPhone. This is just a fight for more money. Apple will give in because their have already increased in value more than any name might cost.
why would apple ditch the clickwheel that it invented? I am really missing something here.
Personnally, I think the phone was great, but since cisco came out with its iphone, I would rather it had a different name. You’ve got to wonde what was going thru their mind at apple to use a name they didn’t have the rights to. (esp. since a phone was alreayd released with that name)
But Cisco is stupid they should sell the trademark to apple and be done with – get a butt load of money and rename their phone — which no one would buy unless they thought it was apple’s iphone.
Names…
What about iChat Mobile?
Apple will win this case and will pay a great deal for it. Steve Job is too stubborn to pass the name back to CISCO. The phone was supposed to surprise us by the end of April instead of the promised June release but now it seems that the delay was an actual time-cushion to take care of legal issues that may come up. Oh well… back to the estimate release time!
It’s an iPod. The name iPod is generic enough that you can use it as a brand..
Just call it the iPod+Phone or simply iPod Phone…
We all know that a stripped down version with no phone capability is coming. What’s that one going to be called? iPhone Lite?
iPod: widescreen music and video player with internet capability
iPod+Phone: widescreen music and video player with phone and internet capability
I never liked the name iPhone and still don’t!!!
Can someone say iMac.
1997.
Sounds to me that Apple might have a good case of I right. They created the iLife, IPhoto, ITunes…… I think Apple is I.
The big guy on the block has good reason to maintain a strong legal department!
This Apple has done!
It also go to show just what a “piss poor” company Cisco really is!
iFone, duh
jim,
Exactly what I was thinking. They started the whole iName revolution. It is unlikely any products would be named iWhatever without Apple’s influence.
Jeff
PodPhone (MacPhone?)
Apple should just buy Cisco and shut them down!
Nothing like pissing in CISCO’s lemonade by calling it the ‘iPhone’ all day yesterday. CISCO was probably wanting too much for the name, and Apple was just taunting them on the issue since this product doesn’t reside on the market yet. In court, Apple can just say that the name has yet to be resolved. In the meantime, Apple will argue that CISCO has benefitted by the publicity.
Apple doesn’t care because they will make billions on this product — regardless of the name.
If the folk’s at Cisco are smart they will lease the name to Apple, Inc. for some fee for each “iphone” sold. Allow Apple to build a brand name they own and profit in doing so.
Personally I think the Apple phone is very nice, the smudge factor will be annoying but what’s worse is Cingular, that is the reason I won’t be purchasing it no matter what they call it.
BREAKING: Apple buys Cisco
wouldn’t apple to have SELL an iPhone first before getting sued?
As far as I can tell from the photos I’ve seen of it, nowhere on the device does it say “iPhone”. So there is room for Apple to maneuver. Perhaps it will be called ApplePhone, but with the apple icon rather than the word? I’d like that; this “i” stuff is getting old with me (iRetch).
According to uspto.gov, Infogear filed their iPhone trademark registration on March 20, 1996
According to pir.org whois, Apple registered iphone.org on December 16, 1999.
According to wipo.int, noone has challenged Apple’s registration of iphone.org seven years ago.
phone
phonephone
phone
phone
phone
phone
phone
phone
MacPhone BABY!!!!! Its so much better suited, its more a mac than anything else.
I never heard of iPhone until recently, and every time I heard of it it was with something to do with Apple. Yesterday it was solidified as an Apple product. I’m sure not very many knew Cisco had a trademark on it. If a company trademarks a name or whatever, then does nothing with it, then tough luck I say.
But anyway does anyone else think it kinda cool that Apple is getting sued left right and center? They are obviously a powerful force that must be toppled at all costs.
You meant BREAKING WIND, right?