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
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!