Uh-oh, CISCO Ain't Happy
From The Wall Street Journal...
Jan. 10, 2007
Cisco sued Apple for trademark infringement over the "iPhone" name Apple chose for its new cellphone, unveiled yesterday. Cisco obtained the iPhone trademark in 2000, and had been in talks with Apple over rights to the name.
"Cisco entered into negotiations with Apple in good faith after Apple repeatedly asked permission to use Cisco's iPhone name," said Mark Chandler, Cisco's general counsel. "There is no doubt that Apple's new phone is very exciting, but they should not be using our trademark without our permission."
- 01-10-2007, 06:28 PM #2
- 01-10-2007, 06:40 PM #3
- 01-10-2007, 06:44 PM #4
Cisco probably asked for some exorbitant sum. Apple has nothing to lose by dragging out negotiations. The longer it goes on, the more the public will associate the brand with Apple. Even if Apple changes the name when it officially launches in June, to say, Apple phone, everyone will continue calling it the iPhone.
- 01-10-2007, 06:55 PM #5
- 01-10-2007, 06:57 PM #6
- 01-10-2007, 07:14 PM #8
An Agreement Between Cisco and Apple
- 01-10-2007, 07:21 PM #9
Yeah well Cisco's customers aren't Apple's customers, are they.
The longer Apple uses the trademark the greater the infringement and the greater the damages payable. So the longer Apple holds out the more money a Federal judge will give them. And Federal judges don't care about Steve Jobs and how cool he is.
I'd say Apple is in the hard position. How hard? If Cisco wanted to play hardball they could force Apple to rename the iPhone. Whether they WILL or not is another matter. But there's a big sword hanging over your head, Steve "Damocles" Jobs.
However, here's what's really going to happen. The IP lawyers will push and shove. Then the pragmatists will cut a deal. It will cost a bit more than Apple wanted to pay. They'll move on.
Steve Jobs has a habit of running around with casual disregard for trademarks. Remember the record label of the same name that happened to be in existence when Apple Computer started its life?
- 01-10-2007, 07:33 PM #10
Um, er... Cisco losing the PR war? That's insane! Cisco owns the name, has owned it for years, and is using it. Apple has no right at all to have it, and I can't imagine much sympathy for Apple on this score; it just sounds like they screwed up.
- 01-10-2007, 07:34 PM #11
- 01-10-2007, 08:45 PM #12
And whether Cisco would win outright in court is not so clear, at least to me (not a lawyer). Many companies have lost their trademark rights by not properly defending them. Cisco rushed a product under the iPhone name to market just last month, but one could argue that they lost rights to the trademark after they ignored it for several years as it became commonly associated with other companies, including Apple.
- 01-10-2007, 09:32 PM #13
- 01-11-2007, 07:34 PM #14
I am not a lawyer either but from what I read today. Their last second effort to cover theri tracks is not going to cover it. They let the 3 years lapse and it seems clear that Apple has now set precedent. If you have been paying attention they have applied for the iPhone trademark names in varies coutries throughout the globe with an intent and description.
The contract and negoitiations leading up to Apple's actual announcement demanded so little. It was to entice Apple so that Cisco would have a connection to "cool".
But now Cisco is screwed.
- 01-11-2007, 07:48 PM #15
- 01-11-2007, 08:01 PM #16
- 01-11-2007, 08:15 PM #17
- 01-11-2007, 09:47 PM #18
Apple just decided to try to steal the name through sheer momemtum, and Cisco was trying to get them to open it up. Apple screwed up, not closing the deal before the announcement. Cisco owns the copyright, and used it. Tough titty for Apple. They figure they will sell a bajillion iPhones to cover the cost of the settlement from Cisco. (which may be an effective strategy.)
But if Cisco, get's an injunction against sale of the iPhone (they have 6 months), and delays it's release, that will hurt Apple.
- 01-11-2007, 09:49 PM #19
- 01-11-2007, 11:50 PM #20
- 01-19-2007, 12:53 AM #21
Hey guess what; they won't be getting it because a.) the code probably doesn't exist and b.) this iPhone was never released.
That's 3 strikes against Cisco.
It seems my knowledge proves that I would serve to make a far better lawyer than you mikec, who has EVERY idea what he is talking about.
- 01-19-2007, 12:59 AM #22
- 01-19-2007, 10:42 PM #23
- 01-19-2007, 11:32 PM #24
- 02-22-2007, 01:04 PM #25
I think he was doing Apple a little favor by helping to dilute the brand name on paper specifically to address the timely Cisco issue (in other words, Ripcord really has no intention on producing their iPhone).
In similar regards, one can turn to www.iphone.com to find that there is yet another company, named Nuvio, using the iPhone name. There are others. Why hasn't Cisco gone after these people? It makes Cisco's case all the more laughable.