Cisco to sue Apple on iPhone name (BBC)

[eppur_se_muova]

Cisco is suing Apple Computer for trademark infringement in a federal court, for using the iPhone name.

Apple launched its new handheld device under the iPhone name on Tuesday, at the Macworld event in San Francisco.

Following the launch Cisco said it hoped to resolve the matter by Tuesday evening after negotiations.

Cisco, which has owned the trademark since 2000, said it thought Apple would agree to a final document and public statement regarding the trademark.

'Revolutionary'

"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.
***
more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6250511.stm

[and-justice-for-all]

1. So iBook, & iTunes isnt an issue for Cisco I take it??

Looks like someone is trying to make a quick buck and its not Apple Inc. Apple uses "i" everything and Cisco knows this, everyone knows this.

[frylock]

3. apple should copyright the letter 'i' then

[Poll_Blind]

6. I'm thinking the same thing as you were before you edited your post.

And I don't even know what you typed!

PB

[QC]

11. Apple invented the letter I. Didn't you know that?

And Steve Jobs personally invented agriculture, written language, and penicillin!

[Solo_in_MD]

5. Nonsense

iPhone tradmark belonged to a company Cisco bought and IIRC was registered in 1996, predating much if not all of the "i" stuff at Apple . There are also other items already out there called iPhone, from Cisco companies. (http://www.gadgetell.com/2006/12/iphone-launches-from-cisco-not-apple/)Apparently there were negoiations underway for some time but Apple did not finalize them prior to the announcement. Apple screwed up and is going to pay big. http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/10/D8MIN3LO0.html

[jeff30997]

2. Screw both of 'em

[Atman]

4. JFC, there is iEverything, thanks to Apple.

Every unimaginative marketing weenie has created an iSomething. iWas in Bed Bath & Beyond the other day, and iSwear they were selling iToiletseats and iBathmats.

Cisco's lawyer's saw what happened to Apple's stock yesterday and just jumped on the iGravytrain.

.

[NoQuarter]

7. iGravytrain!

:rofl:

[geomon666]

21. I'm going to copyright iCrap.

World's first motion sensing, touchscreen toilet. You can hook up your iPod to it and blast your favorite tunes while you blast. Personally, I'm going to have the Battle Hymn of the Republic play every time I flush.

[InkAddict]

8. Well, ByteMe(TM)? n/t

[billbuckhead]

10. Think of the publicity for Apple, the new phone, iPod, iTunes, iMac, even iWoz

:evilgrin:

[NYC Liberal]

9. Funny how Cisco acted like they were close to a deal only until they saw

the success of Apple's iPhone yesterday. Seems like they took the opportunity to say "Screw negotiations, we're suing" to keep their name in the news.

I could be wrong...but that's sure what it looks like.

[parasim]

12. Apparently...

Apple and Cisco failed to come to an agreement last night, because, you're right, yesterday they semed to be happy that they were close to a deal of some sort.

-snip

Cisco spokeswoman Penny Bruce said the two companies had been in discussions, and it believed that Apple intends to agree to a final document and public statement concerning the trademark.

"We expect to receive a signed agreement today," she said.

-snip

http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2007-01-09T190050Z_01_N09161330_RTRIDST_0_APPLE-IPHONE-CISCO-URGENT.XML&rpc=66&type=qcna

They didn't seem too worried about it... I mean, were they expecting Apple to give up on the iPhone name after they announced the damn thing to the entire world?

...but today, they're all "We're gonna sue!" about it. Now, they're all about saying how "they gotta protect their brand" blah blah blah...

These corporate people are funny... :silly:

[NYC Liberal]

13. Apple owns the trademark in the rest of the world.

They should file injunctions in other countries to stop Cisco from selling THEIR phone anywhere else in the world.. ;)

'Course they might wanna wait and see where this is going first.

[parasim]

14. You know what, they should!

I mean, come on, Apple is known worldwide as the iCompany. I mean, Jobs referred to himself as the "iCEO" when he first came back to Apple, forgodsakes... first, there was the iMac, then the iPod and that brand has become so successful that iAnything will be thought, worldwide, to be coming from Apple.

You can bet that Cisco was just waiting for Apple to want to the use that moniker so they could make some bucks off it. I mean, they even introduced their own "iPhone" a few weeks ago, knowing full well that the geek community was referring to Apple's up coming mobile product as the "iPhone" for years now...

[Ms. Toad]

17. Been waiting a long time....

Cisco filed the application for the trademark in 1996 (http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=qg1rn5.5.6- ), and used it in connection with a product no later than 1997.

Apple's first iPOD mark application was around 2000 - and some of their applications weren't until 2005/2006.

Reminds me of the big NBC announcement of their new logo in 1976 70s - Nebraska Public Television spend a few hundred dollars designing their logo; it was virtually identical to the one NBC paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to have designed somewhat later in time. NBC had to buy the logo from Nebraska Public Television, since Nebraska Public Television registered it first. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Educational_Telecommunications (halfway down on the right)

[parasim]

20. yeah, well...

Since Cisco didn't gain ownership of the name until 2000, when they acquired InfoGear, the firm who actually owned the trademark in 1996.
( http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/146/pressroom/2000/mar00/corp_031600b.htm?acquired ), and Apple released the iMac in 1998, and certainly became a hit and started to establish the iMoniker as an Apple mark within the year... I mean, who ever heard of InfoGear in '98?

Nah, it's pretty clear that Apple became to be known as the iCompany before anybody else... Cisco's looking to pocket some serious change simply because they can due to the fact that they lucked out by acquiring the trademark before Apple snagged it.

I mean, geez, Apple has owned the domain, iphone.org, since 1999... although, that does beg the question, why the heck didn't Apple secure the iPhone product name years ago??

[Ms. Toad]

18. Sorry - Dupe..

Cisco filed the application for the trademark in 1996 (http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=qg1rn5.5.6- ), and used it in connection with a product no later than 1997.

Apple's first iPOD mark application was around 2000 - and some of their applications weren't until 2005/2006.

Reminds me of the big NBC announcement of their new logo in 1976 70s - Nebraska Public Television spend a few hundred dollars designing their logo; it was virtually identical to the one NBC paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to have designed somewhat later in time. NBC had to buy the logo from Nebraska Public Television, since Nebraska Public Television registered it first. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Educational_Telecommunications (halfway down on the right)

(my original attempt to post indicated that it had failed - so I posted again without verifying the error message :blush: )

[Tesha]

23. Actually, that's probably *PRECISELY* the sort of thing being negotiated.

> Apple owns the trademark in the rest of the world.
>
> They should file injunctions in other countries to stop
> Cisco from selling THEIR phone anywhere else in the world.. ;)

Actually, that's probably *PRECISELY* the sort of thing
being negotiated. Cisco is just making the noises you'd
expect them to make in the interest of getting the best
price out of Apple.

Tesha

[jb1977]

22. looks like Cisco wasn't trying to get money during negotiations

they just wanted collabortion

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-cisco11jan11,1,6632837.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

SAN FRANCISCO — Cisco to Apple: We need to talk.

A day after Apple Inc. baptized its eagerly anticipated super-cellphone with the marketing slogan "We need to talk," Cisco Systems Inc. filed a trademark lawsuit Wednesday pointing out that it has owned the iPhone name since 2000.

Until Monday night, the two companies were negotiating over the name. Cisco, which acquired the name when it bought another company, was willing to "share," Cisco spokeswoman Terry Anderson said.

Apple, apparently, was not.

The Cupertino, Calif., company built a consumer electronics empire on the lowercase "i" — iMac, iPod, iTunes — and has long coveted San Jose-based Cisco's iPhone. Nevertheless, Apple spokeswoman Natalie Kerris called Cisco's suit "silly."

Cisco came to own the name iPhone when it bought InfoGear Technology Corp., which had owned the trademark since 1996. Linksys, a Cisco unit, began shipping iPhone products a year ago. It recently launched a phone that uses voice-over-Internet technology.

For the last several years, Apple has been asking Cisco about the iPhone name, Cisco said.

Anderson said the networking company was not looking for money and recognized the hard work of the Apple team. But Cisco is looking for a "collaboration and joint development with Apple" to ensure that Apple's phone works with Cisco's networking gear.

The talks stalled and Cisco executives were surprised when Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs christened the phone in a presentation Tuesday.

"Several other companies are using the name iPhone for voice-over-the-Internet products," Kerris said. "We're the first to use iPhone for a cellphone. If Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we're confident we'll prevail."

Silicon Valley typically is not a hotbed of trademark violation suits, mostly because the products aren't around long enough to build up brand recognition, said Thomas Schneck, a San Jose-based intellectual property lawyer.

Apple might assert that the iPhone is part of its family of marks, such as iPod, Schneck said. Cisco may worry that with Apple's entry, the name iPhone will become more generic.

Said Schneck: "I think it's a shot across the bow."

[pinniped]

15. F Cisco. Name it the iiPhone.

On second thought, Nintendo might think they own the "ii" (Wii) thing.

Maybe it should be iiiPhone, but MMM (3M) and AAA might think they own three of the same letter combos.

[parasim]

16. the iiiPhone...

now, that's funny...

[Cronus Protagonist]

19. ..pronounced the ee-fone, of course

...no wait... that's also a trademark....

:evilgrin:

[melm00se]

24. really want to know what the prblem was?

you might want to review the complaint, which was done here:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=234

it looks like Apple is accused of trying to, via some real underhandedness, steal the iPhone trademark in the USA.

Now, if you couple that with the backdating of options and forged signatures on option grants you have some really questionable activities going on over at Apple....

Plus, iPhone was a viable product line for Infogear back in the mid to late 90s, just because it wasn't a consumer oriented (read: pop) brand makes the trademark filing no less valid. In addition, Cisco, via their Linksys subsidiary has an iPhone product out and being sold: http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satellite?c=L_Promotion_C2&childpagename=US%2FLayout&cid=1165633316758&pagename=Linksys%2FCommon%2FVisitorWrapper

I think Cisco has a really strong case and point to be made here and, IIRC, this is only the 2nd time that Cisco has filed an agressive suit against another company for intellectual property rights violation (Huawei was, i believe the 1st) so it's not like Cisco sues at the drop of a hat.

[PeaceProgProsp]

25. In the US, you can't "warehouse" trademarks and TMs don't

prevent people from using the same name for products that would never be confused for the trademarked product. Ie, IBM computer company couldn't win a suit against IBM diapers.

If Cisco wasn't selling cell phone called the "iPhone", then they won't win this case.

It looks like they used it for a voice-over-internet product that is not a cell phone. I suspect they wouldn't win a suit.

[jb1977]

26. you kinda contradict yourself

you are correct that nobody would confuse IBM diapers with IBM computers, however iPhone "cell phone" versus iPhone "VoIP phone". I think a conclusion could be made that because both are phones by function one could easily confuse the two because most people aren't in tune to the technology of a phone anyway.

[PeaceProgProsp]

28. It all depends on what a VoIP looks like and does.

If it's a phone that you plug in to your computer, then it's no more a cell phone than the phone on your kitchen wall is a cell phone.

I don't have the time, but if anyone wants to post pictures of this VoIP phone, we can take a look at it and decide whether anyone would confuse a cell phone with it.

[melm00se]

29. phone

http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satellite?c=L_Promotion_C2&childpagename=US%2FLayout&cid=1165633316758&pagename=Linksys%2FCommon%2FVisitorWrapper

[Seldona]

27. This is pretty simple really.

If Apple wanted to use the name for the product they launched this week, they should have made a deal for that name LONG before they even started producing them. Cisco has an open and shut case, considering they are actually USING the name for a phone already.

If I were a stockholder I would be PISSED. They are going to get taken to the cleaners over a VERY poor business decision by Jobs. Almost a rookie mistake there. What is he going to do next, start calling his computers Dell simply because he feels entitled to the name?

Sheesh!