# Cisco to sue Apple over "iPhone" trademark!



## iMan (Feb 22, 2005)

Press Release Here http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20070110006120&newsLang=en


> Cisco Sues Apple for Trademark Infringement
> 
> Suit Filed to Protect Cisco’s iPhone® Trademark
> 
> ...


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Bizarre. So much for the reports of a last-minute deal. 

Anyone think Cisco maybe, just maybe, planned it this way to get themselves a little bit of extra attention? Nah, couldn't be.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Actually, what's Cisco's problem?? They'll probably gain greater sales on THEIR iPhone due to buyer confusion alone!


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Gee... I'm stumped, here. There's NO WAY Jobs & crew couldn't see this coming. No way! What are they thinking? What have they got up their sleeve?


----------



## Apple101 (Jan 22, 2006)

Cisco can go to hell.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Cisco would never have come up with the term "iPhone" if Apple hadn't started the whole "i" thing with the original iMac several years ago. I hope they lose.


----------



## Atroz (Aug 7, 2005)

Apple101 said:


> Cisco can go to hell.



Why? They are the rightful owners of the trademark. Apple screwed up. It has been a trademark for over 10 years. 

I like Apple products. However, as a company Apple Inc. are just a little too arrogant. They likely thought they could somehow just swoop in and buy it up or otherwise take legal control. 

Apple: Show your creativity and come up with a new name.


----------



## Atroz (Aug 7, 2005)

The Doug said:


> Cisco would never have come up with the term "iPhone" if Apple hadn't started the whole "i" thing with the original iMac several years ago. I hope they lose.


Infogear had a desktop phone with this name trademarked 10 years ago. Cisco bought them >6 years ago. 

Have a look at the original iPhone and see the similarities. 

The original was a desktop phone, but it also did Web, Email, phone calls, contact info, had a small screen, difficult to use keyboard, easily dial phone numbers that appear on web pages, etc. 

Who's copying who now? 

http://www.streettech.com/archives_gadget/iPhone.html

Maybe someday we'll see an Phone that we can buy.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

The Doug said:


> Cisco would never have come up with the term "iPhone" if Apple hadn't started the whole "i" thing with the original iMac several years ago. I hope they lose.


Apple popularized the "i" thing, but didn't invent it and doesn't have a monopoly on it.

http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2007/corp_011007.html?CMP=ILC-001



> Cisco obtained the iPhone trademark in 2000 after completing the acquisition of Infogear, which previously owned the mark and sold iPhone products for several years. Infogear's original filing for the trademark dates to March 20, 1996. Linksys, a division of Cisco, has been shipping a new family of iPhone products since early last year. On Dec. 18, Linksys expanded the iPhone® family with additional products.


I think Cisco has probably "played" Apple here by dangling a deal and deliberately not getting it done on time for yesterday's announcement, but were I a betting man I'd say Cisco is going to wind up the winner in this in one way or another.


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

It's not atypical for a company to go ahead and use a name or copyrighted material and accept the ensuing lawsuit rather than endlessly negotiate a deal. MacDonald's, for example, could not make headway with Kurt Weil's estate reps so just went ahead and used Mack the Knife ("It's Mac Tonight") for a TV campaign and then settled out of court when they sued. Maybe Apple just couldn't strike a deal with Cisco within the given timeframe and decided to just use the name they wanted for the product and then work it out in (or out of) the courts with Cisco later. It is a sort of a "F**k You" attitude - but typical for corporations with money and influence.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Gotcha


----------



## Demosthenes X (Sep 23, 2004)

That original iPhone actually sounds kind of neat... I wouldn't mind an updated version at home. Alarm clock/phone/mini-laptop/stero, Apple? Please?


----------



## CamCanola (Jan 26, 2004)

vacuvox said:


> It is a sort of a "F**k You" attitude - but typical for corporations with money and influence.


...and lawyers, 
god forbid you forget your lawyers.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

CamCanola said:


> ...and lawyers,
> god forbid you forget your lawyers.


There wouldn't be lawyers if people didn't pay for them. Apple's going to have to cough up for their behaviour.


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

Apple Phone is a better name anyway


----------



## Garry (Jan 27, 2002)

Apple has 6 months to change the name to Apple Phone.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

There's a ton of things they could call it. They just called it the iPhone for lust factor I think. There's plenty of good names that will be just as good. Honestly.. I'm not a fan of iPhone anyway.

Hell, they could call it George.. and I'd buy it.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

Cisco may have no choice but to sue. If they do not, they could be accused by shareholders of poor corporate governance eek: ). So they file the papers anyway, in case the Apple deal falls through.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> It is a sort of a "F**k You" attitude - but typical for corporations with money and influence.


so if cisco is granted an injunction, would it be fair to say that Apple f***ked themselves?


----------



## 8127972 (Sep 8, 2005)

I'm not sure Cisco has a leg to stand on. For example there's a company in here in Canada called Comwave (www.comwave.ca) who has a VoIP product called (wait for it) iPhone. I can't find any evidence that Cisco has tried to defend the iPhone trademark by suing this company. I smell a cash grab. 

Also, you might want to take a look at Apple's response to this (via iLounge):
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/news/comments/cisco-sues-apple-over-iphone-name/9315


----------



## 8127972 (Sep 8, 2005)

Garry said:


> Apple has 6 months to change the name to Apple Phone.



Maybe that was the plan all along:

1 - Everyone's been expecting an iPhone from apple for years.
2 - Cisco has owned the iPhone trademark for years.
3 - Most people obviously didn't know this; Apple probably did.
4 - Apple ANNOUNCE iPhone as expected. Fanboys faint.
5 - Apple announce AppleTV and rebrand corporation
6 - Cisco Sue. Become 'Bad guys'
7 - Apple RELEASE device as ApplePhone, strengthen branding, please everyone. Except Cisco...
8 - Profit!


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Or maybe:

1) Apple went to Cisco. Wants to buy the iPhone trademark.
2) Cisco says sure, it'll cost a lot of money. But we want some of the fallout from the product launch.
3) Apple says sure. We'll launch with iPhone. You sue us, we'll argue back and forth in the headlines, giving both our companies more media exposure.
4) Cisco agrees to the "battle of trasemarks".
5) Six months from now, Cisco "concedes", sells Apple the trademark, and reaps the benefits of six months of headlines.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

lawyers send big invoice to both companies


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Moscool said:


> Apple Phone is a better name anyway


Sure but "(Apple logo)Phone" comes out as ?Phone in online forum responses. At least we can type and display "iPhone."


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

TroutMaskReplica said:


> so if cisco is granted an injunction, would it be fair to say that Apple f***ked themselves?


... or would that be iF***ked?



guytoronto said:


> Or maybe:
> 
> 1) Apple went to Cisco. Wants to buy the iPhone trademark.
> 2) Cisco says sure, it'll cost a lot of money. But we want some of the fallout from the product launch.
> ...


I like the way you think, GT. Do you play golf?


----------



## zarquon (May 24, 2005)

8127972 said:


> Maybe that was the plan all along:
> 
> 1 - Everyone's been expecting an iPhone from apple for years.
> 2 - Cisco has owned the iPhone trademark for years.
> ...


This was a direct quote from a post on iLounge.
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/news/comments/cisco-sues-apple-over-iphone-name/9315
(comment 8)

Unless 8127972 = Phil B

Z.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

FWIW, Apple isn't the first to use iPhone as a product name. Just the first to use it as a cellphone.

Eg. Teledex iPhone (System for Hotel Phones), Comwave iPhone (VOIP System), iPhone for Skype (not made by Cisco)
Source: daringfireball.net's linked list.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Not to say it's comprehensive; its still speculation after all, but this CNet Article explains most of the legal issues regarding trademark in a more-or-less reasonable way. Apply the basic principles outlined to every trademark lawsuit you read about from now on.

What they don't mention is that Apple has the trademark for iPhone in a number of countries outside the US, and started aquiring them in 1999. These things do affect the validity of the US trademark; and are an additional arguement that must be considered by the US court and strengthens Apple's position before the courts.

In the end, the lawyers will do their lawyerin' and half the people watching the case will be angry/dumbfounded/surprised/in disbelief/call for a lynchng. Same as every other lawsuit or out-of-court settlement.

I do have to say, though, that Cisco's made-for-media answer to why there was no settlement is full of it, and rehashes what is essentially the line of a number of Apple enemies in what used to be the mp3 player market (and is now, in practical terms, the iPod market instead). They wanted an "open solution" ? Isn't WiFi and 802.11a/b/g/n open enough for a router company? It's not like they're speaking different languages, you know.

What Cisco wanted was not an "open solution". They have it, and so does every other router company. What Cisco wanted was a back door, a closed, two way highway between Cisco/Linksys and Apple that shut out other competitors of Cisco's. Read the whole statement, and read between the lines:

"...
Fundamentally we wanted an open approach,' Chandler wrote. '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.'

But, it's good lawyering and good FUD. That Apple is "closed" is a common theme in the war against the iTunes Music Store, and there is no compunction amongst those who fight the war to stretch it a bit. One article I read said it was "common knowledge" that "iTunes only works with iPods". Well, iTunes is not the iTMS, but it's necessary to confuse the two to make the fable extend to the iPhone as well.

I routinely use iTunes with mp3 players from a number of vendors; in fact with generic ones from nameless Korean and Chinese manufacturers along with the more famous ones. At work (where we all are stuck for months far from civilisation), people bring me their mp3 CD-Rs and I pop their music on their mp3 players. (Then I delete it. I hate mp3s and don't have any in my iTunes library).

Seems like no-one with a PC can get it to work around there, without the installer disk and software that comes with the player, which everyone forgets to pack. So, I suppose "closed" can also mean "the only program and computer and OS that can get it to work unaided". Or something.

Nah, Cisco is just looking out for all of us, by taking one for the team, trying to force Apple to be more "open". That's why the suit merely asks for much the same in damages. Check it out:
" ... Cisco also demands Apple destroy all labels, signs, packaging and other promotional material that includes the word "iPhone," a product it cost Apple millions to develop. ..."
Probably normal in a trademark dispute. OK, so the lawyers made them write that.
" ... Cisco is asking Apple to pay Cisco’s legal fees ... "
Probably normal in a lawsuit of any kind. OK, so the lawyers made them write that into the suit too.
" ... [Cisco demanding that Apple] ... relinquish all profits eventually made on the iPhone. ..."
Okay, and then they will donate them to Open Source technology groups. Riiiiight.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=236

interesting stuff...


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

imactheknife said:


> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=236
> 
> interesting stuff...


Now, THAT's a plot thickener!


----------



## Brian Scully (Jan 23, 2001)

*Trade Names*

I know that when I was in Marketing with Walker Exhausts Canada Ltd that we have to provide proof of shipments on a regular basis on other lables that we produced such a SoundMaster and CarLine which were actually the same product under a different brand name . Failure to do so would result the the loss of ownership of that brand. Head office in Racine was very very sticky about this matter.

Sticking a iPhone sticker out side the shrink wrap looks bad for Cisco IMHO but then again dating options to a board meeting that never took place ????


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

There are television commercials for a product called "iPhone" all the time, have been for a few years. I've managed to avoid remembering what the product does, though.


----------

