or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Cisco sues Apple over iPhone trademark
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cisco sues Apple over iPhone trademark

post #1 of 93
Thread Starter 
Cisco on Wednesday evening said it is suing Apple for trademark infringement in federal court, claiming that negotiations had broken down between the two companies over use of the iPhone name.

While the networking firm had said only yesterday that it expected an agreement that would allow both firms use the iPhone name for their respective handheld communicators, the company filed a lawsuit after the newly rechristened Apple, Inc. apparently failed to sign the plan before an imposed Tuesday night deadline.

"Cisco entered into negotiations with Apple in good faith after Apple repeatedly asked permission to use Cisco's iPhone name," claimed Cisco senior VP and general counsel Mark Chandler in a statement accompanying the suit.

The networking giant, which released its Linksys iPhone scarcely three weeks before the Macworld San Francisco keynote on January 9th, had obtained the trademark in 2000 but did not believe it had a reason to use the iPhone title until it was ready to ship a VoIP handset that it thought merited the name.

During his keynote presentation at Macworld San Francisco, Apple CEO Steve Jobs said that his company's cellular network-based iPhone had been in development for roughly two and a half years, placing its inception approximately four years after Cisco originally registered the trademark.

Apple has so far remained silent regarding the progress of negotiations and the resulting lawsuit.
post #2 of 93
Ouch.

- Xidius
post #3 of 93
Teh big suck.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #4 of 93
why not do that @phone too? this was waiting to happen. I can't believe Apple was naive to think that Cisco was just gonna let them use "iphone" knowing the tremendous impact Apple's new product has placed in the phone market in just one day.
post #5 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Teh big suck.

Why dont apple research trade marked name before naming their products, sometimes steve and his band can be so stupid!
Switched permenantly! 12/08/2006
Unibody MacBook Pro ▪ 2.66Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo ▪ 4Gb Ram ▪ 500Gb 7200rpm HD ▪ Geforce 9600M GT ▪ Wireless Mighty Mouse ▪ Silver iPod Classic 160GB ▪ Black iPhone 3GS...
Reply
Switched permenantly! 12/08/2006
Unibody MacBook Pro ▪ 2.66Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo ▪ 4Gb Ram ▪ 500Gb 7200rpm HD ▪ Geforce 9600M GT ▪ Wireless Mighty Mouse ▪ Silver iPod Classic 160GB ▪ Black iPhone 3GS...
Reply
post #6 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisDaMacMan View Post

Why dont apple research trade marked name before naming their products, sometimes steve and his band can be so stupid!

Apple was aware of the previous trademark, CDMM. I think they insisted on using it because everyone referred to the mystery phone as "iPhone" and Steve probably thought we should go ahead anyway, and let the chips fall where they may. It's far more valuable to Apple as a brand... but damn. Oh, well. It's still not too late to call it MoPho™.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #7 of 93
Sounds like someone trying to piggy back on someones coattails
Powerbook G4 17" 1.0 GHz, 60 GB HD, 1GB RAM
Macbook Pro 17" 2.16 GHz, 100 GB 7200 RPM, 2 GB RAM
Soon: 30" Apple Cinema Display
Soon: Macbook Pro 17" Merom Full Specs.
Reply
Powerbook G4 17" 1.0 GHz, 60 GB HD, 1GB RAM
Macbook Pro 17" 2.16 GHz, 100 GB 7200 RPM, 2 GB RAM
Soon: 30" Apple Cinema Display
Soon: Macbook Pro 17" Merom Full Specs.
Reply
post #8 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Apple was aware of the previous trademark, CDMM. I think they insisted on using it because everyone referred to the mystery phone as "iPhone" and Steve probably thought we should go ahead anyway, and let the chips fall where they may. It's far more valuable to Apple as a brand... but damn. Oh, well. It's still not too late to call it MoPho.

I think this will be sorted out..... some extra $$$$ will have to change hands.

Tuesday night? Jobs was probably getting some (well-deserved) sleep, so CHILL OUT, CISCO!!!!!!!

(Could impact the stock price tomorrow, tho).
post #9 of 93
Yeah Cisco will probably give up the name. Now that Cisco has seen their iPhone has no chance in hell against Apple's iPhone. Apple's going to have to pay big for it,
post #10 of 93
Only if Steve has a good relationship with the CEO of Cisco will Apple get off easy (they'll still have to pay big time, mind you).

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #11 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by AjayBot View Post

Sounds like someone trying to piggy back on someones coattails

Are you high?
post #12 of 93
I don't think Apple should give Cisco a dime for the iPhone name. I think (Apple logo)Phone should be used instead.
post #13 of 93
Either Apple is sure they can this suit or they are totally crazy. Cisco won't lay down and die but they might not be playing fair either. They say they were willing to share the name with Apple but something clearly went wrong. Hopefully this won't de-rail Apple. They don't need more legal trouble.
post #14 of 93
Think how much money Apple will make from this phone. They can afford any price Cisco demands.
post #15 of 93
They should just forget Cisco and call it the Macberry...that won't piss any one off
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #16 of 93
Cisco has to know EVERYONE is going to call the Apple phone the iPhone - no matter what. Doesn't matter what Apple calls it. It is the iPhone, people will go to look at a Cisco iPhone and say "That's not an iPhone, it's iPhony!".

Cisco needs to face the fact that they got "Kleenexed" by the press and stock analysts before they ever shipped. They need to get a fair amount from Apple for the actual trademark, but if they don't sell it, they are going to fail with their own phone because everyone is going to look for the Apple phone even though it has a different name. Apple can still call the new phone whatever they want and not loose a single sale, but the iPhone trademark is worthless to Cisco as a long term brand - it is irrevocably tied to Apple by the media attention before it was even announced officially.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #17 of 93
AP just posted a story, and here is an excerpt -- my reaction to Apple's lame response is, "uh-oh" \

-----
Apple spokeswoman Natalie Kerris called Cisco's lawsuit ''silly'' and said there are already several other companies using the name iPhone for VoIP products.

''We believe that Cisco's U.S. trademark registration is tenuous at best,'' she said. ''Apple's the first company to use the iPhone name for a cell phone. And if Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we're very confident we will prevail.''

Cisco executives argue that, despite the current dissimilarities between the Cisco and Apple iPhone, both phones could take on new features or work on different networks than they do today.

Erik Suppiger, networking specialist at Pacific Growth Equities, said that argument is sound in an era of ''convergence,'' when the Internet is increasingly used as a telephone network.

''I'd envision that Cisco would be inclined to add cellular functionality to its iPhone. I would not be surprised to see them add additional memory for supporting whatever media functions you might want, either -- they'd be logical extensions,'' Suppiger said. ''The phones may not overlap right now, but they would over the foreseeable future.''

------
post #18 of 93
over 200 patents and a phone thats not even passed by who, the FCC, and they're already being sued over it. oh boy. seems like no one wants apple to have any fun \
post #19 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer View Post

They should just forget Cisco and call it the Macberry...that won't piss any one off



I like it.
post #20 of 93
Hey lawyers... Is it possible to win a trademark infringement suit against a company who doesn't sell anything that uses your trademark?

I could see grounds, in my lack of knowledge, for dismissing the suit outright, since Apple does not sell an iPhone. Yet. Seems that a suit would be totally baseless untill Apple ACTUALLY violates the trademark. Six months is a long way off, and it seems to me to be unreasonable to sue someone for something they MIGHT do in the future.



I suspect this is all politicing. Same with the intel chip thing. Apple makes an announcement in order to pressure the other party into accepting Apple's offer (remember the airline thing?), or risk public embarassment when they deny it. As to the iPhone intel chip, I suspect that Apple made a low offer, which intel said, "Let me get back to you on that", and Apple attempted to use the public announcement to pressure intel into accepting the offer.

500lb gorilla tactics (they aint 1000 lb yet!)

:-D
A Conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking. - Lesicus Stupidicus
Reply
A Conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking. - Lesicus Stupidicus
Reply
post #21 of 93
There are 4 "live" iPhone trademarks still in use. Apple may have a good chance at winning if they go to court on this. Cisco should have been pursuing these other companies using a similar name. Silly rabbit, Cisco is for kids!

Quote:
Serial Number\tReg. Number\tWord Mark\tCheck Status\tLive/Dead
78581563\t\tIPHONE\tTARR\tLIVE
78590673\t\tXTREME IPHONE\tTARR\tLIVE
78318603\t\tIPHONES.WS, IPHONES, IPHONESPCS.COM, IPHONESPCS,TARR DEAD
77007808\t\tIPHONE\tTARR\tLIVE
75920329\t\tIPHONES\tTARR\tDEAD
75076573\t2293011\tIPHONE\tTARR\tLIVE
75292849\t\tCIDCO IPHONE\tTARR\tDEAD
75292483\t\tCIDCO IPHONE & DESIGN\tTARR\tDEAD
74517081\t\tIPHONE\tTARR\tDEAD

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #22 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by imacFP View Post

Either Apple is sure they can this suit or they are totally crazy. Cisco won't lay down and die but they might not be playing fair either. They say they were willing to share the name with Apple but something clearly went wrong. Hopefully this won't de-rail Apple. They don't need more legal trouble.

Companies are always facing lawsuits. Not many of them can threaten the well-being and survivability of the company... unless you're RIM...those guys are toast.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #23 of 93
Apple just screwed up. They must have known exactly what was going to happen, maybe they prefer to try and fight in court. Brand awareness counts enormously and that will be in apple's favour, but they dont have much else going for them
post #24 of 93
You probably couldn't get to Apple.com if i wasn't for Cisco.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

There are 4 "live" iPhone trademarks still in use. Apple may have a good chance at winning if they go to court on this. Cisco should have been pursuing these other companies using a similar name. Silly rabbit, Cisco is for kids!
post #25 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jules View Post

Apple just screwed up. They must have known exactly what was going to happen, maybe they prefer to try and fight in court. Brand awareness counts enormously and that will be in apple's favour, but they dont have much else going for them

They didn't necessarily screw up... Jobs is a master negotiator. Give it some time.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #26 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

They didn't necessarily screw up... Jobs is a master negotiator. Give it some time.

exactly.
A Conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking. - Lesicus Stupidicus
Reply
A Conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking. - Lesicus Stupidicus
Reply
post #27 of 93
Maybe another company could release a product called iPod. What good for the goose...
post #28 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

There are 4 "live" iPhone trademarks still in use. Apple may have a good chance at winning if they go to court on this. Cisco should have been pursuing these other companies using a similar name. Silly rabbit, Cisco is for kids!

You're absolutely correct. Cisco has not shown a history of defending their trademark and that will bite them in the ass. Then there is the issue in what Cisco filed as the intended market(s) in which this product name would be used.
post #29 of 93
I'm thinking that they are pissed at Apple for not sealing the deal before their deadline. Seeing that a deal was already being worked on, I thinkin this all will be worked out waaaayyy before June.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

You're absolutely correct. Cisco has not shown a history of defending their trademark and that will bite them in the ass. Then there is the issue in what Cisco filed as the intended market(s) in which this product name would be used.
post #30 of 93
lol..I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pt123 View Post

Maybe another company could release a product called iPod. What good for the goose...
post #31 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rolo View Post

I think (Apple logo)Phone should be used instead.

I recon this is a good backup. SJ used the iPhone name for the announcement because that is what the press and the public wanted to hear. He got the big splash--even my Mom knows that iPhone is coming and that it is made by Apple (she called tonight to find out if I had heard! )
If, after hearing about Apple's iPhone for a few months, Apple can't secure the rights cheeply and changes the name to the (Apple)Phone even technophobes like my mom will know what it is.

What can Cisco do? Get an injunction to keep Apple from selling the phone they don't plan to start selling yet? Even that would be publicity for the (Apple)Phone!
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
post #32 of 93
Quote:
"Cisco entered into negotiations with Apple in good faith after Apple repeatedly asked permission to use Cisco's iPhone name," said Mark Chandler, Cisco senior vice president and general counsel, in a statement. "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 added.

Cisco knows that phones and computers are merging into a future universal convergence device.
They want to be the one who owns the trademark for this device.

Unfortunately, I have bad news for Cisco.
The best name for the convergence device is "iPod" not "iPhone".
"iPhone" emphasizes the devices roots to the phone.
"iPod" is a generic term more appropriate to a device that combines many functions.

I think the best naming scheme would be
iPod phone
iPod video
iPod nano
iPod shuffle
post #33 of 93
Well, IMHO if they don't sell it (iPhone) to Apple then it is utterly useless. Like Hiro said - sorta - anything called iPhone will assumed to be an Apple product.

Let's get basic here, same thing as McFish, McRib, McNuggets, McChicken, McMuffin and a McMeal. Nobody on the friggin planet thinks Burger King makes those.
OMG here we go again...
Reply
OMG here we go again...
Reply
post #34 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by pt123 View Post

Maybe another company could release a product called iPod. What good for the goose...

That can't happen. Anyone using "pod" in their company/product/website name has received/is receiving warning letters. This will continue. Apple has learned (unfortunately, due to the weakness of their legal counsel) some bitter legal lessons. They will stay on top of trademark and patent issues going forward... it's far too expensive for them to ignore.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #35 of 93
The winner of a lottery to buy the first iphone stands nervously on stage. He applauds as Steve comes out to sell the first iphone. Steve Jobs comes out, shakes the lottery winner's hand and walks to a podium. He says, "Well, six months ago we thought that we had a deal with Cisco to license the name 'iphone', but things didn't work out."

"So today we have decided to rename the device that we had previously announced as 'iphone'. Today we launch the same revolutionary, paradigm shattering product with a new name. The new name is 'Apple iPhone'". He looks at the first Apple iPhone customer. "Do you want to buy an Apple iPhone?"

"Oh, yeah!", says the lottery winner, reaching for his credit card. Steve holds up his hand, stopping the lottery winner's motion.

"The first one is on me."

V/R,

Aries 1B
"I pictured myself sitting in the shade of a leafy tree in a public park, a stylus in hand, a shiny Apple Tablet computer in my lap, and a pouty Jennifer Connelly stirring a pitcher of gimlets a...
Reply
"I pictured myself sitting in the shade of a leafy tree in a public park, a stylus in hand, a shiny Apple Tablet computer in my lap, and a pouty Jennifer Connelly stirring a pitcher of gimlets a...
Reply
post #36 of 93
I seem to remember that years ago Bayer had the TM for "Aspirin". Unfortunately the public considered all aspirins produced by various companies to be aspirins and Bayer lost the TM. The public was the deciding factor.

With the new (Apple) iPhone the public and the media have been calling the device an iPhone for a few years. There would be a mountain of media releases calling it an iPhone and millions of posts on boards like this calling it the iPhone. That may bode well for Apple, but Cisco would have a hard time convincing a judge that it was just a coincidence that they released their iPhone a month before Apple did. A blind man running for the bus can see that Cisco is riding on Apple's coattails, just as he would be able to see that the public has perceived the iPhone as the device that Apple, not Cisco, has released.
Ken
Reply
Ken
Reply
post #37 of 93
Here's my theory as to why negotiations broke down:

Obviously, the iPhone is the basis for the next iPod; however, we're all thinking that Apple is just going to strip out the phone functionality and add a hard drive (and perhaps add Apple TV integration).

What if Apple left the phone functionality in for the next iPod? What if that phone functionality was for Skype, Yahoo or whatever other internet phone?

Perhaps Cisco said to Apple, "we're cool with you making a cell phone, but you can't make an internet phone?" At that point, Apple says, "no way" and negotiations stop at that point.

Well...that's my theory. Any better ones out there?

--DotComCTO
post #38 of 93
I think Apple should rename the iPhone the (apple sign)Phone, but have a piece of paper in the packaging saying, "Though it is named the (apple)Phone, feel free to call it the iPhone. It will sound better, trust us..."

post #39 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacHope theWorld View Post

I think Apple should rename the iPhone the (apple sign)Phone, but have a piece of paper in the packaging saying, "Though it is named the (apple)Phone, feel free to call it the iPhone. It will sound better, trust us..."


competition for a name is good. in all fairness, the rightful owner of a product name should be compensated. so if cisco doesn't wish to share the iPhone product name it's their right. it's the same right that apple exercises against a business using "pod" in their product names.

which ever way this turns, i think there's already too many "i" this and "i"that product names on the market. it's overused and watered-down. it's loosing its "i" charm. i think the apple logo and "phone" is the appropriate product name for this phone. i find the apple logo and "phone" like the apple logo and "TV" quite appealing. it's cooler 8)

i say give up the "i" and use the apple logo instead.
post #40 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacHope theWorld View Post

I think Apple should rename the iPhone the (apple sign)Phone, but have a piece of paper in the packaging saying, "Though it is named the (apple)Phone, feel free to call it the iPhone. It will sound better, trust us..."


We may all be getting worked up over nothing - have you noticed the branding?

http://www.apple.com/iphone/

It already does have the Apple logo in front of the name. As far as I can remember, no other Apple product has ever had the logo associated with the name in such a (trademark type) fashion. Well...except the new Apple TV. Maybe Steve is rethinking it all.
OMG here we go again...
Reply
OMG here we go again...
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Cisco sues Apple over iPhone trademark