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
Agreed… iPhone is a lame name…
It is really and iQod… like in IQ..
or
iNstein
or
Mac Micro
…
…
iPod Extreme
I don’t want my iPod to be ‘Extreme’.
I picture the guys from Harold and Kumar…
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO…
::
::
Silly Solution to a silly problem Apple should’ve solved before going public
Rename to
Apple π
Ion, ion = in Greek “to go”
A sexy, little device like that should be called…
iPoon.
I would think it would be called “ApplePhone” as well.
It just works for me.
this is all smart marketing for both Apple and Cisco.
So, who was Cisco again?
Likely nobody will see my suggestion, anyways. Here I go.
iPhod
wePhone
I have it on good authority Apple will call it Q-Tip so that people will automatically want to shove it in their ear.
I agree….iMobile…iMobile !!!!
Mini-Mac
@everyone who keeps saying “patent” in the comments, please place your cursor on the word, and do CMD-CTRL-D. The little dictionary will give you a definition. Now do the same with “trademark.” Cool, huh?
@podster: the Creative lawsuit was over the menu system on the iPod, not the clickwheel. Could it be that has some bearing on the different style of the menus on the iPhone?
@piece of the pie: yeah, there’s no doubt the other guys aren’t sitting still. But any phone they come out with has to go thru the same FCC approval as Apple, and they will be way behind Apple in the approval queue. I don’t see how they can beat the iPhone launch, other than glomming some crappy software on an existing crappy phone. At any rate, it should be interesting to watch. Like watching RIM and Palm stock yesterday during the keynote. Heh.
@macaholic: “I vote for CrackPod! It out cracks the crackBerry, making it a dingleberry.” Thank god I hadn’t yet taken that sip of tea. You win the comments.
MW: “Movement”, like how zunes keep your movements regular, but there’s a risk of dingleberries.
< test >
Phone
Phone
Phone
Phone
<u>Phone</u>
<strike>iPhone</strike>
< /test >
Pronounciation: Apple Phone
Apple could call it the thingamajig or talkamajob or convergaphone or whatever. Folks, are still gonna want the “iPhone” and pay Apple Inc money for it even if it comes in a box without a label or a brand name or with a sticker saying “Not a Cisco iPhone inside, really!”.
iPhone = Automatically syncs.
Zune = Automatically sinks.
Cisco is merely trying to take advantage of the “i” prefix that Apple has already successfully exploited on many of its other innovative products. Apple is the comapany that has given that prefix its cache. Cisco doesn’t have a product that is even close to Apple’s iPhone. It seems as if every time Apple introduces another innovative product (which it has done over and over) some AH out there wants to rain on its parade. Is this the kind of competition we need in this industry. Follow Apple’s lead and strive for excellence.
I knew it. Apple is using the name recognition of “iPhone” from all the pre-announcement rumors. Once everyone is aware of iPhone, Apple will make a big deal about being force to change the name (for more free media coverage) and give it a more appropriate name. I’m sure Apple has one picked out already.
ÜberPhone
Cisco Bad Fellas, We are behind you Apple !!!
On the name of the company… there’s been litigation over the years, and Apple Computer did pay money to Apple Corps at one point in time. They won the most recent suit based on an agreement which specified how each could use the name and included Apple Computer paying millions to the Beatles.
I believe that originally Apple agreed to stay out of music, and when they added a MIDI device settled (paying millions). In the latest suit, they won because, essentially, they’d already paid.
In this case it’s hard to see anything wrong with Cisco’s mark (it predates the iMac, and has been used.) Cisco says it’s not about money and they’re willing to share. But there’s gotta be some reason Apple didn’t sign.
In the end, this is a negotiation, and Apple is playing hardball. Cisco really had no choice but to file after the announcement.
It’s also interesting to read some of Cisco’s comments. They know this will be a very popular product and don’t want to get bad PR by looking like they’re trying to stop it.
The funny thing is, EVERYONE knows that iPhone means “iPod phone” whether Apple calls it that or not. I haven’t seen a reasonable legal argument spun on that yet.. but it’s an unusual wrinkle. Really, society has diluted Cisco’s mark… but I’m not sure if it’s dilution in a legal sense.
(By dilution I mean when a trademark becomes a generic word in the language and thus no longer trademarkable.)
It does seem odd that Apple –who has been rather belligerent in their trademark protection lately (all references to “pod” being taboo and going after poor “iBuzz”)– would make a rather dicey decision to challenge a fully registered trademark.
Whether Apple will prevail is less than certain. Even if they win, Apple’s argument against all things “pod” or anything starting with a small “i” becomes weakened.
I can’t help but think this is an iffy strategy.
Cisco must be getting inundated by intellectual property lawyers faxing their resumes.
Name suggestion:
podiphone™
“podiphone” is a trademark of the i Wiseass Corporation. All rights reserved.
The iWiseass Corporation will license “podiphone” or “podiphile” to Apple Inc. for $.01 per unit sold.
Serious inquiries (no actual podiphiles or pedophiles) to the above email. Contract lawyers are standing by.
Cisco are holding out for as much as they can get but I’ll bet the stubborn Mr Jobs wants it.
That said, the name is largely irrelevent as argued by Dan Eran as he dismisses all the other inane arguments against the iPhone here:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/4DD0941D-9097-4FAE-A3BB-29DA5CA07199.html
Looks to me like it’s iPod revisited from 2001. It will be the same story, soon crowned, probably never successfully copied or bettered…
For another name I’d live with “ApplePhone”, I have several “Apple Macs”, and an “Apple iPod” and shortly no doubt an “AppleTV” too.
“phone” is fun but impractical, and it sure doesn’t live up to a maxim of ‘easy to use’. What were the key strokes again? And what are they on a “Ex-OS XcopyVista”?
Talk…i like it.