Commentary from Mark Chandler, Cisco’s SVP and General Counsel, on Apple’s infringement of Cisco’s iPhone trademark:
Today’s announcement from Cisco regarding our suit with Apple over our iPhone trademark has spurred a lot of interesting questions. Most importantly, this is not a suit against Apple’s innovation, their modern design, or their cool phone. It is not a suit about money or royalties. This is a suit about trademark infringement.
Cisco owns the iPhone trademark. We have since 2000, when we bought a company called Infogear Technology, which had developed a product that combined web access and telephone. Infogear’s registrations for the mark date to 1996, before iMacs and iPods were even glimmers in Apple’s eye. We shipped and/or supported that iPhone product for years. We have been shipping new, updated iPhone products since last spring, and had a formal launch late last year. Apple knows this; they approached us about the iPhone trademark as far back as 2001, and have approached us several times over the past year.
For the last few weeks, we have been in serious discussions with Apple over how the two companies could work together and share the iPhone trademark. We genuinely believed that we were going to be able to reach an agreement and Apple’s communications with us suggested they supported that goal. We negotiated in good faith with every intention to reach a reasonable agreement with Apple by which we would share the iPhone brand.
So, I was surprised and disappointed when Apple decided to go ahead and announce their new product with our trademarked name without reaching an agreement. It was essentially the equivalent of “we’re too busy.” Despite being very close to an agreement, we had no substantive communication from Apple after 8pm Monday, including after their launch, when we made clear we expected closure. What were the issues at the table that kept us from an agreement? Was it money? No. Was it a royalty on every Apple phone? No. Was it an exchange for Cisco products or services? No.
Fundamentally we wanted an open approach. We hoped our products could interoperate in the future. In our view, the network provides the basis to make this happen—it provides the foundation of innovation that allows converged devices to deliver the services that consumers want. Our goal was to take that to the next level by facilitating collaboration with Apple. And we wanted to make sure to differentiate the brands in a way that could work for both companies and not confuse people, since our products combine both web access and voice telephony. That’s it. Openness and clarity.
At MacWorld, Apple discussed the patents pending on their new phone technology. They clearly seem to value intellectual property. If the tables were turned, do you think Apple would allow someone to blatantly infringe on their rights? How would Apple react if someone launched a product called iPod but claimed it was ok to use the name because it used a different video format? Would that be ok? We know the answer – Apple is a very aggressive enforcer of their trademark rights. And that needs to be a two-way street.
This lawsuit is about Cisco’s obligation to protect its trademark in the face of a willful violation. Our goal was collaboration. The action we have taken today is about not using people’s property without permission.
Cisco’s Press Release on this issue is here: http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2007/corp_011007.html
So Cisco tried to leverage their way into a Very Good Thing™ and got spurned. That’s their side of the story, at least. If so, Cisco is having a silly hissy fit in public. Whatever.
Related articles:
Apple calls Cisco’s ‘iPhone’ trademark lawsuit ‘silly,’ says ‘very confident we’ll prevail’ – January 11, 2007
Cisco sues Apple for ‘iPhone’ trademark infringement – January 10, 2007
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
I think their position is entirely reasonable.
I’m a big Mac fan but even I can see Cisco has a point. Apple can’t have it both ways with copyright and Steve’s behaviour on this is straight out of the Microsoft manual of dirty play – and all because Apple were determined to use the iPhone name in the keynote.
Any sane court will hand Cisco a win on this one.
Here’s where this is going, whether Steve, MDN, or anyone else wants it to or not:
The Apple phone will NEVER be called “iPhone” unless a settlement is reached to Cisco’s satisfaction. The trademark belongs to them. Period.
Steve either gets beat by Cisco or calls the gadget by some other name than the one he announced on Tuesday.
Then, his defeat will be immortalized on the face of every Apple phone forever and ever – a billion reminders that, this time at least, Steve didn’t get his way.
grow up mdn. yes, apple’s iphone is cooler and more important than cisco’s, but intellectual property is intellectual property, and apple are in clear violation.
Uh…Apple is infringing the trademark so I’m not sure what they are thinking. both products use wifi and are called iPhone so it’s not like Apples to Oranges or whatever. What do you think will happen when Cisco puts out an iPhone that looks a little like the Apple phone, but it is just a touch screen cell phone Zune playing piece of garbage. Jobs is a little too arrogant for his own good here, I think…
If they can resolve this it looks like we may have the “MacPhone” or “Apple Phone” in June.
To Dirty …
Who ever said the courts were sane???
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” /> I am open on this one. Apple is not shipping product so how can vaporware be infringement? As MDN says, maybe this is just more negotiation efforts. ??? Maybe the name will be “apple phone” and Apple is using a known lawsuit to allow them to change the name without anyone giving them grief. Afterall, I don’t remember seeing the words “iPhone” on the phone anywhere.
Either way in will probably be interesting, ….. in a soap opera kind of way.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” /> LOL
N.
Is it possible for “iPhone” to “Apple iPhone”?
I agree with the posts above. I, too, am a huge Apple fan since 2001 when I switched platforms. However, if the scenario above is true, then Apple, Inc. is in the wrong here. Why they just didn’t call it an “ApplePhone” or something like that? Does that name possess less of a ‘cool’ factor? (I guess ‘iPhone’ sounds better than ‘ApplePhone’ — or are we just used to it from all the rumors). Too bad SJ & Co. weren’t willing to settle the details of this issue by the time of the Keynote address. I’m sure it’ll get settled by June, but I wonder why they are dragging their feet right now.
I think Cisco’s view is reasonable, but it’s no slam-dunk.
There are lots of companies using the term iPhone–just search Froogle and/or Amazon–in the VOIP space and they predated Cisco’s recent introduction. Apple can argue that their product does not infringe as much as those others b/c their phone is not VIOP.
Courts will not be eager to hand Cisco a win against Apple if they failed to defend their rights against others.
Apple is definitely playing fast and loose here, but as I said, Cisco’s case is not necessarily a winner.
Sorry Apple…. have to agree with Cisco here.
Besides, should it really be called iPhone?
It’s so much more than a phone.
Working title iTV became <apple-symbol>TV
Working title iPhone should, likewise, become <apple-symbol>Phone
I don’t know… can chevy call their new car the Chevrolet Ford Taurus? Think about it, genious.
Apple needs to be careful here. How long before Skype is on the phone to prove that it does violate even Apple’s own narrow definition of Cisco’s Patent. Skype would make the Apple iPhone also perform the bulk of the Cicso product’s functions. Apple should either make a fair deal with Cisco to share the trade mark or call it the Apple Phone.
If apple prevails and sets such a narrow precedence on trademark restrictions, then it may face encroachment on their own trademarks. Don’t get me wrong, I am the biggest Apple fan (evangelist) out there, but sometimes even the best make mistakes. In this case Apple is in the wrong. Cisco should make a very concerted effort to be fair as their own iPhone will get much more publicity from it being mistaken for the more popular Apple product.
As usual, MDN attacks anything and anybody that dares to challenge Apple or say anything negative about apple. Whatever you all the stuff on this web site, you sure can’t call it journalism!
This quote says it all for me:
“We know the answer – Apple is a very aggressive enforcer of their trademark rights. And that needs to be a two-way street.”
The lame name is not worth fighting over. Just call it ApplePhone (like AppleTV) and be done with it. Moving on…
I think they should call it “iZune”
Yep – I’m with Cisco here too. And I would not call it the iPhone anyways. Like has been said above; too many other things to name it just a phone. Get a cool name for it…
Lawsuit number 2:
The iPhone is a direct design ripoff of LG. Note that the LG was released BEFORE the iPhone was anounced.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/11/iphone-and-lg-ke850-separated-at-birth/
-Bryan
If Cisco thinks that Apple will share and use their technology just because Apple wants the name, they have another thing coming. Steve might be strong arming them, he’s a business man, and sometimes yu have to be a real dick in business to get the results you want. Maybe too far this time though.
-Pi
It really should be called MacPhone since that realy is what it is; a Mac in the form of a phone.
Or, they should call it what it really is, badassPhone.
Either way, trademark or not it sounds like Cisco is suffering from a major case of sour grapes.
Having worked with Apple products since 1991, I appreciate the hardware and software on a daily basis. I’m not appreciative of much that occurs in Corporate America and the parallels that occur in the government.
This episode, in addition to the possible skirting of legalities with the stock options, smacks of the hubris and arrogance that has been exhibited in our government. Lets hope Apple and Mr. Jobs has as much sense as technical and aesthetic acumen and doesn’t give the press and their competitors a petard on which to hoist them. And remember, the truth stands on its own regardless of opinion.
Peace
Cisco has a legal obligation to defend their trademark, otherwise it is invalidated. However, if they’ve failed to defend it from other users, they may have screwd themselves.
Also, it really isn’t clear what kind of “interoperability” they were looking for, but Apple’s contract with Cingular may restrict how open they can make it as a platform anyway.
In any case, I don’t think it matters if Apple calls it iPhone. Just like they moved away from iTV, Apple may want to get away from putting “i” in front of every product in their line.
In this case Apple, Inc. was wrong.
They’re right!
Apple should be a little more considerate than this. Still, I don’t particularly like the iPhone moniker… and never have. It sounds a little dated and clunky to me. Apple could be fully intending to rebrand the product at release date. I hope so.
There has been no trademark infringement yet. However, once the product is sold then that will be true.
At this point I sounds like CISCO wanted more than what they are announcing. In fact their statement is not as “clear” and “open” as they say. The details of the negotiation will need to be seen before any side is accused. At the same time, Apple should have not taken such a risk at and launch a product and loose its reputation for a “silly” remark by CISCO. This case will settle without any long-term effect on either side.
I think Cisco is on the right side on this one. Worst case for Apple is that they have to change the name some time in the next six months. Best case is Apple and Cisco work something out.
IMHO, this isn’t a huge issue.
The public was anxiously waiting for Apple to introduce the iPhone. Cisco took advantage of that in December announcing the long awaited iPhone. Apple knows that they had to introduce the iPhone and now that they have they can change the name to Apple Phone. I don’t think that they would every be willing to dilute their product with Cisco’s. They have an evolutionary product and Cisco has an ordinary product. Sharing the iPhone name only dilutes what Apple has. The need exclusive rights to the name or a new name. I think that they will opt for a new name. Cisco may end up having to pay Apple’s legal costs for suing for something that doesn’t and may never exists.
I’m a huge fan of Apple, but I think Cisco have every right to be pissed at Steve for doing what they did.
Trademarks are Trademarks, no matter who you work for or what you design.
Come on Apple, be the man and sort this out.
Well that’s a very polite and open explanation for why they are trying to sue Apple. I’m quite impressed that its not some money-grabbing royalty thing.
I think that SJ might have wanted to capture everyone’s attention by announcing it as iPhone and have everyone remember its amazing UI and form factor. Then, come June, they will rename it to something like Apple Phone (to match the Apple TV convention), but yet everyone will still recognise it. If this is what they’re trying to do, and capitalise on the iPhone moniker, then its a very smart play. But I guess as usual with Apple, we’ll never know until it happens.
Personally, i think its far more apt to call it OSX Mobile or something else to express its myriad functions and capabilities. It really is a new platform for Apple.
I dunno. Sure Cisco has the trademark but they tried to leverage it for more than it is worth and the name iPhone is relatively worthless to them and even THAT will become even more when Apple’s phone actually comes out.
Apple does not want to sleep with you Cisco. They just want a minor thing and you got greedy. Bad call. I guess I am with Steve on this (assuming of course that he offered some substantial cash for it).
It seems Apple may have a stronger case than at first appears, or than I first thought.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm
In order to serve as a trademark, a mark must be distinctive — that is, it must be capable of identifying the source of a particular good.
iPhone sounds like the source is Apple.
———–
Thus, for descriptive marks, there may be a period after the initial use of the mark in commerce and before it acquires secondary meaning, during which it is not entitled to trademark protection. Once it has achieved secondary meaning, trademark protection kicks in.
Apparently there are four iPhones out there, somewhere, but I hadn’t heard of them till Cisco’s a few weeks ago.
———–
The rights to a trademark can be lost through abandonment, improper licensing or assignment, or genericity. A trademark is abandoned when its use is discontinued with an intent not to resume its use. Such intent can be inferred from the circumstances. Moreover, non-use for three consecutive years is prima facie evidence of abandonment.
Did Cisco abandon or squat, maybe not literally as they had an iPhone product (how many did they sell) but in effect?
———–
Trademark rights can also be lost through genericity. Sometimes, trademarks that are originally distinctive can become generic over time, thereby losing its trademark protection.
Apparently adding an ‘e’ to a word (eg ecommerce) and calling that distinctive enough for a trademark is not upheld.
———–
If a party owns the rights to a particular trademark, that party can sue subsequent parties for trademark infringement. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125. The standard is “likelihood of confusion.” To be more specific, the use of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods. In deciding whether consumers are likely to be confused, the courts will typically look to a number of factors, including: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the proximity of the goods; (3) the similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the similarity of marketing channels used; (6) the degree of caution exercised by the typical purchaser; (7) the defendant’s intent.
Apple wins 1, 4, 5, and 7.
There are some other potential loopholes (looking through lawyers eyes!) too.
There are some good comments here too:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/01/10/ilawsuit/
Call it something else.
It’s more than a phone anyway – and needs to differentiate itself on that level.
Yes, Cisco is correct and if they didn’t have an agreement but……are they freak’n nuts? If in 6 months when it actually comes out you have a case, now you really don’t. Six months from now when all the boxes, advertising and such is completed, then you have leverage. Idiots.
It’s just sabre rattling at this point from both sides. It doesn’t change the fact that Cisco’s version of an iPhone is lame as hell, while Apple’s is revolutionary.
Who cares what it’s named in the end, Apple clearly has a winner on their hands and Cisco has a phone that virtually nobody is going to buy. Cisco would just like a piece of Apple’s action for free, that’s all.
This naming controversy will all blow over soon enough, it’s certainly not a big deal at all and it has no real impact on the product itself.
iPhone is a lousy name for the device, so Apple should come up with something better. Perhaps even iPod phone, since “iPod” suggests something of more general purpose, which this thing definitely is.
And yeah, MDN, Cisco is 100% in the right here. Apple is flexing it’s muscle, and Cisco has every right to defend its intellectual property. So stop defending the indefensible. I swear…if Apple decided to gas half of San Francisco, you’d probably back them on it.
I like how people are calling Cisco greedy when it is Apple that’s trying to steal.
While I do believe that Cisco’s case is legitimate, I didn’t even KNOW Cisco made a phone named iPhone until they annouced their new model a few weeks back. They should be thanking Apple for the free press!!!
@Bryan – who says LG isn’t the manufacturer for the Apple iPhone? I haven’t heard anything either way on who’s manufacturing it.
And asking for an “open approach” from Apple is as natural as pooping out of your mouth. Everyone knows full well that Apple uses a closed system for their products, so it’s foolish of Cisco to think they could somehow weasel their way in just because they have a marginally similar product with the same name. And they interoperate anyway, they’re phones!!!
Apple should settle w/Cisco and purchase a license to use the name. That’s it. None of this open approach interoperability nonsense.
I can’t believe that SJ would be this stupid. I have a feeling something is missing here…
facts:
MDN was, is, and will be childish
CISCO owns the name iphone
Apple’s phone will always be known as iPhone
Jobs knows this well, and intended the media hoopla to branded for him. regardeless of trademark.
CISCO will not get anything from Apple.
MDN will continue its behaviour of onesideness
It’s a good thing that none of you so called goody-goody fools that post here run Apple. Nothing would ever get done. Sometimes when you do actual business in the real world, you have to do some things that fall into gray areas to get anything of note accomplished.
The real business world is cut throat, not some socialist utopia (unless you’re in certain parts of Europe or in China). That’s something you obviously will not ever understand though. I’m sure Steve Jobs doesn’t give a rat’s ass if you like his tactics or not either.
Cisco’s statement sounds nice but as the lawyers are explaining there are other considerations to trademarks. I’m sure we are not getting the full story from either side.
iphone.com does not link to Cisco — why have they not enforced their use of the trademark with respect to that domain registration? I’m certain Apple’s lawyers have reviewed this in great detail for the last 5 years.
And finally, if Cisco waited until the product arrived people would be saying they should have sued when the product was announced — before all the expense of packaging, marketing and such. If they are going to sue, now is the correct time.
I’m a big Apple fan but I hope they don’t look back at the inter-operability proposal Cisco has offered them and rue the day they cut off their nose to spite their face?
Cisco’s position sounds reasonable – but I’m also of a mind that this is not the open and shut case its being made out to be.
1) Apple is not the only one infringing upon Cisco’s apperent intellectual property.
2) Its clear that, since Apple’s iPhone is in no small part a protable and powerful networking device, that Cisco believes that they should automatically get their name pinned on the product right along side of Apple’s, just because…
If Apple has done a bad thing, then let them pay the price and get on with what Apple does best, but there better be a clear precedent and obviously good cause or the courts are going to see this as just what it looks like to me – bogus corporate jealousy.
My thoughts:
1) Cisco owns the trademark.
2) With the iPhone trademark, Cisco tried to play hardball with Apple
3) Apple wrongfully used the trademark without Cisco’s permission AND rightfully did not agree to play hardball with Cisco.
4) Result: Apple gets the bang for announcing the long awaited “iPhone” When it finally is released, it WILL have a different name.
5) The lawsuit is dismissed because no “real” product was released that violated the trademark.
@RC…cripes chill out. People here aren’t wrong. Cisco owns the trademark. Apple knows it can get the name for a variety or legal reasons especially well pointed out by Gandalf above.
The iPhone and Apple association has been out for awhile. Cisco did nothing,. Their hold on it is tenuous at best. Their protection of it was non-exsistent. Judges seriously take into account intention,,,ergo, Ciso loses here!
nuff said!
MacDailyNews, are you guys a bunch of 1st graders? I can’t believe some of the stupid sh** you say in your MacDailyNews takes. Cisco is 100% right and 100% legally right and 100% reasonable — and you guys are saying that they’re having a hissy fit?
Grow up, MacDailyNews.
Cisco is right. Apple is wrong. And you guys are wrong. How old are you guys anyways? A bunch of 8-year-olds running this site?
They were surprised that Apple went ahead with the announcement? Are they retarded? What are they going to do, cancel MacWorld? hahahahhahahha
Give me a freaking break – they are just jealous because tech stocks used to be weighed on how well Cisco was doing, now it is based on how well AAPL is doing. Nobody cares Cisco – they also didn’t care when you released your iPhone (embarassing).
RC
Any relation to Ebenezer Scrooge? You must have missed out on the beginning of Apple history. Who’s your boss? We want to tell him you’re returning the bonus and will start working for free ’cause you’re glad to have a job. : )
I’ll jump on the bandwagon for Apple coming up with a different name for this device that is so more than a phone. iPhone undersells this magnificent piece of technology!
That said, we don’t know what Apple’s “big picture” goals are. Maybe there will be versions coming that are NOT “so much more than a phone” for example.
The most interesting thing about this is that ALL Cisco wanted was to be in on the ApplePhone product.
Just having association with Apple is a license to print…
Personally, I am a little disapointed in Apple.
Cisco has a solid point and reason to sue. I think Apple should just appologize (yeah right) and change the name of their product to iConnect or something. It’s so much more than a phone, anyway. iPhone doesn’t fit it.
And MacDailyNews, love you guys… but your take is absurd…
It is so much more than a phone, why not call it an icom which is what it really does more is exchange communications.
my two cents.
man I should have registered that before mentioning that.lol
It seems that Cisco wants to have their VoIP phones integrate with the Apple iPhone, so customers could buy both iPhones and, while not providing the same features on each phone, they could transfer calls and data. This seems too much of a drag on Apple and lift for Cisco just for a name.
Working the Apple iPhone so its WiFi works through Cisco routers and hubs would be reasonable and could begin a marketing brand that it ‘works with iPod Phone’.
I reckon the problem is that Apple ALSO wants to allow VoIP on their iPhone and it will NOT be compatible with the Cisco iPhone (Skype), but will be a competitor! Apple should drop the ‘iPhone’ and call it the iPod Phone.
Let’s remember that the Cisco lawyer is the one bringing up the issue of ethics.
Is it ethical for them to use the little “i” in front of a generic class of products, as the little “i” has been given value by Apple branding history? Don’t consumers immediately think Apple, when they hear the little “i”?
Also, I believe Apple and Cisco filed under different classifications. This is NOT so clearcut who will win a lawsuit.
I see where this is going. It will be either the Xphone or the fauXphone. By whatever name it will
kick ass. I prefer the ‘Asskicker’…or maybe, ‘Myphone’
So they’ll call it an ApplePhone or a MacPhone, they’ll still sell a bazillion of them and Cisco’s Linksys iPhone crap will still be collecting dust on shelves. Cisco needs to just settle this nonsense because they’ll make way more money from Apple than they will Linksys’ iPhones.
I love how this thread has drawn the pontificators out of the woodwork. Nothing’s 100% sure, including Cisco’s claim to the iPhone trademark. If things were really as simple as some of the dim bulbs on this site think, there would be no need for the courts, would there? Better, I think, to hold off pronouncing winners until we see how this thing plays out.
Morons.
“So, I was surprised and disappointed when Apple decided to go ahead and announce their new product with our trademarked name without reaching an agreement.”
Aaaahhhhh…. it al becomes clear to me now. Cisco knows how big the coming iPhone Ecosystem is going to be. and they wanted to get in on the ground floor with the first networking accessories for it. ALL of us knew how big this would be, ferchrissakes. And I think we don’t even realize it yet!
To say that you were surprised that Apple went ahead and launched their phone is laughably obtuse of you. You knew DAMN well they they would, but waiting it out got you a headline. WOOT!
Nothing will come of this. Apple doesn’t want your products messing up their user experience, so when the judge says “Cake or Death!”… o, when the judge say “Interoperability or Fee!!!” Apple will say “Er, fee, please.” and pay you the hundred-and-some-odd-million dollars it happens to have stuck in its ashtray, and if you see a little bit of a grin on Apple’s collective face at the time I hope you know why it’s there. =)
-c
MW: ‘town’ (city of gleaming spires)
It would appear that Cisco technically has the right to the name.
HOWEVER, they bought the name 6 years ago.
It takes Cisco 6 years to make an uninspiring cell phone?
Does it not strike anyone as curious that 2 weeks before Apple releases their iPhone, Cisco announces their iPhone, all the while knowing Apple is about to do the same thing. Cisco buys a name, sits on it for 6 years then poops out a product right before Apple. If it is so hell fire important for Cisco to use that name, why now?
It appears Cisco is only looking for a way to make a buck off of Apple’s success.
PATHETIC
MDN Magic word “Curiouser” as in Curiouser and Curiouser
Apple: We want to buy the iPhone trademark, here’s a bunch of cash.
Cisco: Wow, that’s a lot, thanks, but we want more, we want in on the iPhone.
Apple: No, we just want the trademark, here’s some more cash.
Cisco: That’s really generous, but we want your iPhone to use our network.
Apple: No, we just want the freaking iPhone trademark, so here’s some more cash.
Cisco: Look we have no real use for the iPhone trademark, and the money is great, but we do want to profit off your product.
Apple: No, we’re already under contract with Cingular. Here’s some more cash.
Cisco: That’s a really generous offer, but…
Apple: Oh shut up!
“It appears as though the trademark has indeed been granted to Apple in the UK, Singapore, and Australia. Meanwhile, the applications are still outstanding in Canada, the European Union, and New Zealand.”
See David Berlin’s research bqck in December –
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Berlind/?p=233
Cisco has every legal & moral right in the world to protect their trademarked name. I can’t believe MacDailyNews’ ridiculous uneducated take on this story. MacDailyNews is run by a bunch of babies who don’t know the first thing about the real world. If Cisco were to release a product called the iPod, would MacDailyNews say that “Apple is having a hissy fit” when they sued Cisco? MacDailyNews, you guys are absolutely absurd & need to shut your mouths when you don’t know what the hell you’re tlaking about.
Though I love Apple and all the great products they churn out year after year, I have to side with Cisco on this one. I hope it gets cleared up and both companies come out smelling like a rose.
“So Cisco tried to leverage their way into a Very Good Thing™ and got spurned. So, Cisco is having a silly hissy fit in public. Whatever.”
You MDN people are ridiculous sometimes. Apple would have been all over Cisco legally had the situation been reversed so to boo hoo Cisco in such a childish manner only highlights your own incredibly myopic habits.
the whole “i” everything is getting a little old anyway…and it IS way more than just a phone…so I vote for MacPhone.
why don’t they just work together… . My dayjob is the CallManager and everything around it. If the iPhone could transparantly switch between IP Phone and GSM, it would be the first descent one of its kind!
Did you see Jason D. O’Grady’s Apple Blog article from December 2005?
He called such a device the “iPod Communicator” –
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=62
“Cisco has every legal & moral right in the world to protect their trademarked name.”
Then why didn’t they do it against these guys (links courtesy of TTzz)? You have a defend a trademark to keep it.
http://www.comwave.net/CDN/iPhone/index.htm
http://linkstochina.com/RingChina/iPhone.html
https://iphone.nuvio.com/html/
http://founderna.com/iphone/
http://www.teledex.com/index.cfm?page=LP_3&crid=13
Before their press release last month, I had never seen or heard of any phone produced by anyone named “iPhone”. It’s clear that any licensing or other value Cisco can pry from Apple for the trademark is worth far more than this obscure product they have.
This isn’t cut and dried because this isn’t just about Apple. There are other companies using the name iPhone, other than Linksys, the Cisco subsidiary.
Cisco has a right to defend its trademarks, but it can’t pick and choose, it needs to go after all the companies that are infringing and their infringements all pre-date Apple’s announcement this week.
I’m not in a position to say whether Apple is right or wrong, so I’ll resist the urge to make a judgement, but Apple must have believed they would win any legal battle before making the announcement,
Okay, since Apple already owns both the trademarks for iChat and Mac Pro, ergo, “iChat Mac Pro”?
I actually like “MacPhone Pro” myself…
What is it with people who think that they can own a word? How about a name? I agree that maybe Apple should by the rights to The Cisco Kid and claim infringement on the name Cisco. What a bunch of tards! Maybe we should grab the word Milk and charge the dairy industry or the relatives of Alexander Bell should charge money for the use of phone to everyone who owns one.
Gandalf seems to be an intelligent and informed individual. the rest of you, an emotional bunch, but not level-headed. you HAVE to defend trademark infringements, otherwise the courts will deem you a ‘squatter’ which is usually the case, plus, name recognition by the public also factors into it. this is the basic logic behind the reason that even if my name was legally Todd Microsoft, i couldn’t own http://www.microsoft.com. do some research b4 u reply.
of course, i could just be some crackhead who sounds smart ; *
Apple: Just call it ÜberPhone!
Either Apple’s lawyers have found a previous trademark infringement case that supports their position, or they are just going to use “iphone” until June. Everyone is going to call it that anyway. No biggy if they change it to “Apple Phone” at the last minute.
But, it doesn’t paint a good light on Apple’s image. This is something I’d expect out of Ballmer’s office.
I hope Apple changes the name of their phone to “iCisco”.
“MDN is one-sided” – OF COURSE IT IS!!! It’s called MACDailyNews for cryin’ out loud!! Go to another site if you don’t want to be bothered by bias. We love our Apple products here. You want fair and balanced, go watch Fox News, erm, wait, bad example…
I posted it at Business Week, so I’ll post it here too ..
My suspicion is that the whole thing is a ruse. Apple will lose the lawsuit (intentionally) and accept a mandated compatibility with Netgear’s Skype phone as the penalty. This is how the iPhone will acquire Skype compatibility without chasing off Cingular.
* or Linksys or who-ever-the-heck it is that has that Cisco Skype phone.
It’s an intuitive phone…call it “eyePhone”.
No, wait…the “SysGo”!
Think you’re smart? <karate chopping at the screen> What’cha you gonna do now Cisco?!
@ gwm
I think you nailed it.
I love the suggestion that the phone go retro and be called ‘AppleTalk’, just like when the Apple II program name ‘AppleWorks’ was resurrected to replace ClarisWorks.
No MDN, it was pretty arrogant of Apple (Steve Jobs) to use the iPhone name without permission when someone else owned that trademark and had for quite some time.
At the very least, they could have said that iPhone is currently a code name and the actual name will be confirmed at launch, when this naming dispute would have been settled one way or the other.
Didn’t Apple hire the chief counsel from IBM a few monthh’s ago? I believe they were positioning themselves for addressing legal issues such as this one as well as options backdating and other pending patent litigations.
“MyPhone” would do the trick on several levels….
>Or, they should call it what it really is, badassPhone.
…OK how ’bout BlingRing?
This seemed to me to be a rather straight-foward matter of Cisco being in the right. But then I read the link in an earlier post regarding the technical aspects of trademark law and am now thinking that Apple may win this battle. The fact that Cisco failed to enforce trademark priveleges against other iPhones would seem to suggest that they have allowed the word to fall into generic usage. More importantly, however, is the question of whether or not simply adding the letter “i” to the generic descriptive “phone” consitues a trademark in the light of the fact that the device actually is a phone. I’m no lawyer, but it seems to me that this is substantially different than, say, “iPod” of ‘iMac”. The term “Pod” in no way describes the function of an MP3 player while the word “Mac” is itself a trademarked moniker. On the other hand, the case of the iTV name change was necessitated because Apple’s product is not actually a TV.
Aside from this, I think in court Apple could haul out a ton of pre-announcement articles and web pages in which the term “iPhone” was used in specific reference to an Apple product. It could be very farily argued that public usage had already caused the term to fail to live up to the function of a trademark, namely “a word, symbol, or phrase, used to identify a particular manufacturer or seller’s products and distinguish them from the products of another.”
As others have noted, I’m sure that Apple’s legions of lawyers have already covered this ground thoroughly and are confident of their position.
<still karate chopping>
Cisco only holds the iPhone trademark in the US. Apple actually holds several iPhone trademarks internationally. Cisco has not enforced their trademark in the US until now, and then only against Apple, who has yet to use it on a shipping product.
Apple is correct: Cisco’s trademark is tenuous at best.
It’s a brilliantly written press release by Cisco. But, here’s the thing . . . .
It is extraordinarily unlikely that Cisco was willing to see Apple use the name iPhone, with no form of compensation, if only Apple had just been willing to return their calls and otherwise build up Cisco’s self-esteem.
It is far more likely that Cisco was willing to see Apple use the name iPhone, with no form of compensation, because Cisco was and is profoundly uncertain about whether or not its trademark claim will hold up under litigation. Which makes it likely that at the end of all this Apple will have prevailed.
As Apple said on the eve of the (unsuccessful) suit against it by Apple Corps (paraphrasing): the two parties disagree, and now they’re going to have to ask a court to resolve their differences. And the very tentative nature of the claims that Cisco seems to have been making makes me doubt they’re going to end up with the exclusive rights to this name.