1. Meistro#IM's Avatar
    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 06:55 PM
  2. bclancy's Avatar
    I know, they can call it "iFud" !
    01-10-2007 07:28 PM
  3. Deltaflyer's Avatar
    Since the name is potentially very valuable, especially to Apple, Inc., Cisco could stand to make quite a bit of money by selling it.
    01-10-2007 07:40 PM
  4. samkim's Avatar
    This should be interesting. As I suggested in an earlier post, I think Cisco may have the legal advantage here, but they are going to lose the public PR war. I believe the digital public, if polled would think that the name iPhone is more "Apple" than "Cisco" and that Cisco should part with it.
    I think you nailed it.

    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 07:44 PM
  5. Pearl_Diva's Avatar
    Maybe they should just pay Cisco a portion of every iPhone sold or something?
    01-10-2007 07:55 PM
  6. scottymomo's Avatar
    Maybe they should call it iOcean
    01-10-2007 07:57 PM
  7. Meistro#IM's Avatar
    I kinda like "iPricey".
    01-10-2007 08:09 PM
  8. copernicus's Avatar
    01-10-2007 08:14 PM
  9. Tastypeppers's Avatar
    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 08:21 PM
  10. Chatter's Avatar
    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.

    Marc
    01-10-2007 08:33 PM
  11. mobileman's Avatar
    maybe apple can call it the iFone
    01-10-2007 08:34 PM
  12. samkim's Avatar
    The longer Apple uses the trademark the greater the infringement and the greater the damages payable.
    Funny thing is, Apple isn't selling any products under the iPhone name today.
    Um, er... Cisco losing the PR war? That's insane! Cisco owns the name, has owned it for years, and is using it.
    True. But how many people, outside the tech savvy, really understand that?

    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 09:45 PM
  13. DHAnderson's Avatar
    I am not a lawyer, but if you search the uspto.gov trademark site, you will find two trademarks that Apple may be infringing on.

    In any case, Apple will have to pay to use that name. Either lawyers or the trademark holders or both.
    01-10-2007 10:32 PM
  14. archie's Avatar
    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 08:34 PM
  15. mobileman's Avatar
    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.
    Oh really? Cisco has more than enough money to drag this out for years. Apple needs this settled by June, because no matter what, Cisco will get a restraining order against Apple releasing it with this name.
    01-11-2007 08:48 PM
  16. detective's Avatar
    I am not a lawyer, but if you search the uspto.gov trademark site, you will find two trademarks that Apple may be infringing on.

    In any case, Apple will have to pay to use that name. Either lawyers or the trademark holders or both.
    You might note that at least one, if not both of the companies with the iPhone registration are now owned by Cisco.
    01-11-2007 09:01 PM
  17. archie's Avatar
    Oh really? Cisco has more than enough money to drag this out for years. Apple needs this settled by June, because no matter what, Cisco will get a restraining order against Apple releasing it with this name.
    Maybe so but based on what I read today, in the end it will be Cisco's bucks that end up paying for the lawyers of both parties.
    01-11-2007 09:15 PM
  18. mikec#IM's Avatar
    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.
    You're right, you are not a lawyer. You have no clue what you are talking about.

    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 10:47 PM
  19. mikec#IM's Avatar
    I think you nailed it.

    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.
    Actually, Apple has a lot to lose; Cisco can issue an junction against selling the device, and possibly even any reference to the item publicly (on their web site, advertising , etc.)

    What the public calls it, and what stands up in court are two different things.
    01-11-2007 10:49 PM
  20. sschlesinger's Avatar
    Maybe so but based on what I read today, in the end it will be Cisco's bucks that end up paying for the lawyers of both parties.
    Cisco has got the upperhand on this one fellas as far as trademarks. Ultimately Cisco nor Apple will have to pay for any court battle and all legal fees will be passed to the consumer no matter how much the total legal bill is. I can see Cisco will become the winner no matter what happens in court. Cisco could be nice and sell the name for some ungodly amount or they could can just goto court and sue the pants off Apple but regardless Cisco and Apple can both be assured they have great lawyers. Two multi-billion dollar companies and having bad lawyers doesn't mix.
    01-12-2007 12:50 AM
  21. archie's Avatar
    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.
    You're right, you are not a lawyer. You have no clue what you are talking about.

    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.
    I still say this is not gonna happen mikec. Now; as if nothing could top the ridiculousness of that photo supposedly documenting an actual product with an iPhone sticker slapped over the product packaging (strategically placed over the actual name but not quite covering it all up and the sticker askew and coming off, along with no documented shipping info or skew #), we have open source groups wondering where the open source code is that was supposed to be turned over.

    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 01:53 AM
  22. archie's Avatar
    Here's an interesting development!

    http://www.ripcord.com/

    Plus, check out the board of directors.

    What do people think of this strategy?
    01-19-2007 01:59 AM
  23. Kupe#WP's Avatar
    Plus, check out the board of directors.
    Holy crap! It's the Woz!!
    01-19-2007 11:42 PM
  24. MacUser's Avatar
    Here's an interesting development!

    http://www.ripcord.com/

    Plus, check out the board of directors.

    What do people think of this strategy?
    Too little too late?
    01-20-2007 12:32 AM
  25. archie's Avatar
    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.



    You have no clue what you are talking about.

    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.
    And so it it written, mikec was once again wrong and had no idea what he was saying.
    02-22-2007 02:04 PM
27 12
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD