Apple says Cisco lawsuit is "silly"

Oh no they didn't! By now you already know it's on, and the latest round in the iPhone v. iPhone dance-off comes from Apple spokesman Steve Dowling, who was quoted as saying the Cisco lawsuit is "silly" and that several companies are already using the term iPhone for VoIP products. He called Cisco's trademark "tenuous at best" and noted his company was the first to ever use the name for a cellphone. He goes on to boast that Cisco is gonna totally get served: "if Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we're very confident we'll prevail." Oh yeah -- Apple to Cisco: let's see you dance, sucka!

[Garry @ Jan 11th 2007 2:51PM]

Err...both of you.

[cburkard @ Jan 11th 2007 5:07PM]

"Take that Cisco fanboys"??? What would happen if Cisco released a handheld streaming media player called... iPod?

[tyler @ Jan 18th 2007 6:05PM]

are there cisco fanboys?

[TexRob @ Jan 11th 2007 1:05PM]

Awfully harsh attitude, but Apple rarely makes stupid comments (think Sony management), so I guess they must feel very safe legally.

[andy @ Jan 11th 2007 1:15PM]

It would seem that way, but after analyzing the registration application and prosecution, let me assure you that they have nothing to be cocky about.

They should have settled this thing before the announcement.


It's going to be pretty funny to see how cocky they are when the injunction issues preventing them from selling this in the US, which will be upheld during the entire legal process (i.e., at least a year).




With the glaring absences (ms office, 3G, inability to get songs wirelessly), and the legal troubles with iPhone and Unified Messaging (MS owns several patents on voicemail to text/email conversion); I'm thinking that this phone may be more trouble than boon for Apple.

I think they're pretty much ignoring their lawyers at this point.

[rems @ Jan 11th 2007 4:09PM]

The thing is that right now to my eyes Apple is really the SILLY one because about 5-6 monthes ago they were doing the exact same thing about product's names, isn't that funny to see how now they react to the attitude they have had in the past ? Why do they have to act that stupid ? Is it that behind the (nearly) Holy coolness, that Apple has managed to put inside people's brains, hides just a superbe stain of stupidity or do we not know enough to be judging on the situation ? For my part I don't know why Cisco said F-U and went to sue Apple, I don't know what were the exact words and the situation that brought this suit.
But damn it must feel good to see that not only one company can sue for BRAND NAMES MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Sure you may be cool, but you're in a chess game, coolness doesn't hit hard when the opponent's prepared !!!

[CharlieX @ Jan 11th 2007 1:05PM]

Rosie vs. Donald!

[Igor @ Jan 11th 2007 1:13PM]

Apple will lost this case´... for sure.

[Digitalsleep @ Jan 11th 2007 1:57PM]

I am not so sure apple will lose this law suit, Trademarks are more then just owning a name you have first use issues, and how Cisco has used the name in thier product. I am pretty sure this close but not a slam dunk for Cisco, and I agree with the Apple spokesman, this is pretty silly. Cisco should have taken this chance to make nice and get new friends, cuase no matter what we call it, it's the only iphone that matters,

[Clarissa @ Jan 11th 2007 3:12PM]

what a freakin douche bag loser. Your grammer is wrong. It's lose not lost.

[Greg @ Jan 11th 2007 1:14PM]

by far the funniest article ever on engadget Barb you should be awarded a medal or something !! haha so Funny !! haha the "you got served" comment the best ever!!

[andy @ Jan 11th 2007 1:21PM]

btw, here is the registration that appears to be at issue. I beleive that Cisco owns the companies that originally applied for a couple of similar marks, but this is the only one that has actually been put on the register:

IPHONE
Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: computer hardware and software for providing integrated telephone communication with computerized global information networks. FIRST USE: 19970606. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19970606
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Design Search Code
Serial Number 75076573
Filing Date March 20, 1996
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1B
Published for Opposition December 29, 1998
Registration Number 2293011
Registration Date November 16, 1999
Owner (REGISTRANT) INFOGEAR TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 1775 WOODSIDE ROAD REDWOOD CITY CALIFORNIA 94061
(LAST LISTED OWNER) CISCO TECNOLOGY, INC. CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 170 WEST TASMAN SAN JOSE CALIFORNIA 95134
Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Attorney of Record KAREN MARIE KITTERMAN
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Affidavit Text SECT 8 (6-YR).
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE









I'd say that the iPhone qualifies as "computer hardware and software for providing integrated telephone communication with computerized global information networks," wouldn't you?

[Christopher @ Jan 11th 2007 1:42PM]

if you understood the importance of the relationship between "integrated telephone communication" WITH "computerized global information networks", you would realize that the nature of the product is in using the internet as a means of telephone communication. For a good case, those two functions probably have to be used together ie. voip. The apple iphone is not a voip device. That is how apple will probably escape trouble. The apple iphone is a cellular device, with the capability to use the internet for various applications, none of which include telephone communications over the internet. oh yeah, and nothing about the iphone includes voicemail to text technology.

[System @ Jan 11th 2007 6:40PM]

They won't be prevented from selling it Mr. IP Attorney. Just selling it with that name. They can sell it with another name. Oh and check out the Teledex iPhone while you are at it.

[010111 @ Jan 11th 2007 4:37PM]

"Unified Messaging (MS owns several patents on voicemail to text/email conversion)"

the iPhone does voicemail to text/email conversion? i'm surprised they didn't mention that in the keynote... maybe i fell asleep during that part. and also have a weird blindness where i can't see those particular words when reading a spec sheet.

[Alex Newman @ Jan 11th 2007 1:17PM]

Of course the only winners in this whole kerfuffle will be the lawyers themselves!

[potato @ Jan 11th 2007 1:17PM]

Actually, I think Apple may just prevail here. If it's true that VOIP software is already using 'iPhone' without getting sued by Cisco, then the trademark can very well be invalidated. If Cisco failed to prosecute users of the name in unrelated sectors, then Apple using iPhone in the mobile sector should be fairly safe.

[Sam @ Jan 17th 2007 11:08AM]

This is incorrect. We used the International Olympic Committee as a case study in class. They sued over the use of "Gay Olympics," forcing organizers to change their name to the "Gay Games." It was irrelevant that the IOC never sued "The Special Olympics," "The Police Olympics," etc. None of those organizations asked for permission either. The fact that Cisco did not sue others for using "iPhone" is irrelevant. The bottom line is that failure to enforce a trademark in the past does not in any way lessen one's rights to do so in the future. It is up to the trademark holder to determine when s/he wants to sue. And in this case, there is no dispute that Cisco owned the name. The fact that Apple was in talks with them proves their acknowledgement of Cisco's ownership. And the fact that Apple used the name in a very public way despite the unresolved negotations proves that they negotiated in bad faith.

I am shocked that Apple would display such arrogance and poor legal judgement.

[steve @ Jan 11th 2007 1:18PM]

ya know, i think they're right. For one, there is a difference in that the cisco version is an VOIP phone. So instead of the 'i' meaning, well, whatever it means for apple, it means "internet". Apple isn't selling an "internet" phone, they're celling a "cell" phone branded with they're household letter 'i'.

[Wonderboy @ Jan 11th 2007 1:59PM]

Actually the original Apple usage of "i" was in the iMac, which coincidentally stood for "internet" Mac. Not that what the letter stands for makes any difference, but just thought I'd point that out.

[Sam @ Jan 17th 2007 11:33AM]

The differing meanings of "i" in "iPhone" is irrelevant because trademarks are not about meaning. It's more about appearance and recognition. And the fact that Apple was negotiating with Cisco means that they've admitted that Cisco owned the trademark.

[Carl @ Jan 11th 2007 3:08PM]

Exactly, andy. That is why Cisco can get a preliminary injunction. Then the parties will either sign a deal, or Apple will change the offical name.

[Memo @ Jan 11th 2007 5:40PM]

ahh.. no.

[Technophile @ Jan 13th 2007 1:36PM]

Hmmm...If this is Cisco's case, then I think Apple has a good chance of getting through this. When did the iMac come out? The "i"-whatever nomenclature has been synonomous with Apple products ever since. Would be funny if Cisco had to change, or pony-up!

[Matt B @ Jan 11th 2007 1:22PM]

What is more embarrassing for Apple:
Changing the name?
A judge saying to change the name?

Apple will have to bend to Cisco somehow monetarily or whatever. I think the more they say things to show Apple bravado, the more Cisco will be adding zeros to the bottom line.

[pirco @ Jan 11th 2007 1:23PM]

i have a feeling that they will take it to court and then settle. apparently, they have tried to negotiate and apparently the price wasn't right. and apparently apple thinks that the public just needs to associate the iPhone with apple's phone (which they mostly do already anyway) and then it'll be cheaper for them to settle.
i wonder why they don't start a new campaign the iWhatever scheme is so last century... they should go for the aPhone. aEverything (as in apple).

[Targ8ter @ Jan 11th 2007 1:24PM]

Yeah... that wasn't their attitude when they went to Cisco, hat in hand, to ask for permission. And actually, the fact they had previously negotiated with Cisco, proving that they had originally respected Cisco's ownership of the trademark, will be very detrimental to them if they go to trial.

[Mile @ Jan 11th 2007 1:26PM]

Apple just wants an excuse not to make their release date and an injunction will give it to them.

[azesino @ Jan 11th 2007 1:30PM]

Cisco own all the Voip companies that use the term iPhone, Apple is now on a different ballpark, Cisco is even more resoursfull than Apple unlike all the little Companies they tend to sue in China, They should settle this one before it gets ugly and their Cristal Clean Name brand gets tornished like Microsoft.

[Callum Alden @ Jan 11th 2007 1:32PM]

imagine being an in-touch IT company these days, calling your product iAnything and then trying to to sue the guys who started iT all.

you can spin that round and bring up the old "oh, how dare Steve & Steve call their company Apple when the Beatles were doing their thing...". so... hmm.

[Chazzzer @ Jan 11th 2007 4:13PM]

Infogear Technology, the company that Cisco purchased in 2000, filed the iPhone trademark in 1996. That was two years before there was an iAnything from Apple. It sounds like you're trying to imply that Cisco trademarked iPhone AFTER Apple started the iNaming convention, and that's just not true.

[Harry @ Jan 22nd 2007 5:33PM]

Dear Callum,
Cisco did not register the trademark "IPhone", InfoGear did. And InfoGear did that in 1996, well before the launch of Apple's gigantic "i" production line. The ownership of the trademark then got transferred to Cisco when the industry giant acquired InfoGear in 2000.
As a matter of fact InfoGear's IPhone has been in the market since 1997. So this is absolutely not a hostile trademark registration snapping at Apple's next I-Thing.

[codywatson @ Jan 11th 2007 1:33PM]

Oh ya, and Apple's trademark on "ipod" isn't silly. Ha. Hypocrisy.

[glacia @ Jan 11th 2007 1:33PM]

"Take that Cisco Fanboys!!"

Are there Cisco fanboys? Of course not. All of this is silly but it's a direct result of how Apple introduces products. If it were any other company it would have been over long ago with barely a word in the press. But Apple loves to play games with their introductions. Yes sometimes it works for them but sometimes like this, it works against them. They only look heroic to the most biased. To the greater industry they are simply cementing what is known by most companies. When you do business with Apple be extraordinarily cautious because they have a long history of turning on you after agreements are made.

[Nic @ Jan 11th 2007 4:32PM]

I think the "Cisco Fanboys" was supposed to be a joke, and in my opinion a clever, chuckle to myself type of joke. I mean, seriously, are there really fanboys of Cisco?

[The Downer @ Jan 11th 2007 1:33PM]

It's always refreshing to see evil mega corporations bully each other instead of bullying consumers. Thank you for the play-by-play, Engadget.

[glacia @ Jan 11th 2007 1:38PM]

"oh, how dare Steve & Steve call their company Apple when the Beatles were doing their thing...".

Actually Callum this is one of many agreements I was referring to. Don't forget that to make the original suit go away Apple Computer signed an agreement to never enter into the music distribution business. They may have won in the recent suit but does that really sound like they lived up to their agreement?

[Technophile @ Jan 13th 2007 1:36PM]

They never said that they wouldn't distribute music. The original agreement was that they would never PUBLISH/PRODUCE any music. Apple doesn't make the music they just help sell it for the music companies. So Apple did follow the agreement.

[Andres @ Jan 11th 2007 1:41PM]

how entertaining... maybe instead of going to court they should have a ppv Cage Match

[M @ Jan 12th 2007 1:49PM]

This is not a patent case, where the device would need to be more directly covered by the text of the description in the patent/trademark. Here the test is "likelihood of confusion." Similarity of goods/services is one factor to look at. But is similarity, not that the two must be identical. There are also even broader protections for things like "trademark dilution" in certain situations without confusion even being necessary.

[Robert Wicks @ Jan 11th 2007 2:27PM]

I wonder if the decision to not include 3G and lots of Internet connectivity was influenced by their desire to avoid comparison with Cisco's product. Certainly, one would think that a device running some embedded Unix variant would be capable of doing VOIP . . .

[chaosrain @ Jan 11th 2007 1:43PM]

It'll probably just become the ApplePhone just like they had to bag iTV and called it AppleTV. With their change from Apple Computer, Inc. to Apple, Inc. I suspect they are just about to start a massive product switchover from iThis and iThat to AppleThis and AppleThat. Of course, the iPod is the new buzz name for all MP3 players kind of like everyone says Kleenex for any sort of tissue (even Puffs).

[Mixmaster @ Jan 11th 2007 1:44PM]

Good thing they don't convert your voicemails to email/text then. What it actually does is downlaod in the background the audio from your voicemail as soon as it is left and stores the files in a playlist that you can access in any order. What you do not understand is that the iPhone is a software platform much like a laptop or desktop PC. All you have to worry about is upgrading hardware now like it's a laptop. All the other features you mentioned (Wireless Sync with iTunes, MS Office support) are now a simple software update away, and could easily be ready to go six months from now. So what if 3G isn't in this version? It wouldn't have made any sense. The reality is that Cingular's 3G coverage is far far worse and not even available in most areas. Their EDGE coverage is everywhere though. And personally, I could care less if when I am not near a Wi-Fi (hardly ever these days), I have to wait a teensy bit longer than I would if it had 3G (which I would prollay never be getting a signal for anyway). I'm gonna get one the day the come out cause it's more brilliantly thought out and like jobs said, a 5 year leap from today's phones. Eventually it will have 3G and Wi-Max, he already said it. It'll have 64 gig flash drives/better camera/battery life within two years I'm sure. But I bet my original 8g will still be able to run every single software piece that the 64g can in two years cause they made it soooo easy to add new features to since they are not locked down to an interface and it runs OS X. Next please....

[Jonathan Sundy @ Jan 11th 2007 2:05PM]

Except you ignore the fact that it's not an open platform and the 8gigs aren't for software, it's just for music. It's been stated you can't add your own software, only apple can.

[Ellianth @ Jan 11th 2007 2:08PM]

How exactly is it a 5 year leap from todays phones? It doesn't do anything that my phone can't do. In fact, as far as I know it does NOT do anything at all! Well, it knows how to play videos inside a glass case. I wouldn't call a device that doesn't have a removable battery, "easy to upgrade." Unless what you you mean by upgrade is go out and and pay $600 more in a couple months for a model that's slightly better than the one you currently have.

[Jarrett Kaufman @ Jan 11th 2007 1:48PM]

What goes around comes around, Apple. That logic is actually relatively sound, and might hold up if Apple didn't have a track record of suing virtually anybody who used the word "Pod" in the name of their product, and suing a few companies for using the lower-case letter "i" to start the names of their products. They've made it clear that either of those tarnishes their trademarks. They can't turn around and suddenly say "iPhone," on the other hand, is generic enough that it doesn't count, or simply because it's a different TYPE of phone it doesn't count. They've sued for Pods that had nothing remotely in common with media playing devices.

[Fly on the Wall @ Jan 14th 2007 1:23PM]

>They've sued for Pods that had nothing
>remotely in common with media playing devices.


Please give some examples.

I've only seen reports of "pod" names that directly or indirectly referred to the iPod, by companies that either sold iPod accessories, or were iPod centric in their commentary. In either case, there was some form of commercial gain or enterprise related to the iPod.

They didn't go after the Jolly Green Giant or *most* people who use "Podcast" in their name, for instance.

And they did all of this for the lawful *requirement* to do so, to *maintain* the right to their own trade mark. Had they not done so, Apple could face the same problem as Cisco.

IF Cisco did in fact own *all* of the companies using "iPhone" *before* they started using the name, or IF Cisco made some kind of deal with them showing due diligence, then Apple may be in trouble.

IF Cisco failed to properly protect their trademark even once, they could have to share. IF it's more than once, then they may be in real trouble. At least as far as the brand implies.

This is going to take more then knee-jerk forum lawyers to figure out.

Beating Apple in court may not be the slam-dunk many want it to be:

http://legalpad.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/01/handicapping_th.html

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

[DM @ Jan 11th 2007 1:52PM]

lol @ cisco fanboys. Is there such a thing?? Anyways, I think Apple's gonna lose this one , unless they change their product name to iphoney.

[Brandon Shin @ Jan 11th 2007 1:52PM]

So... Sony can make MD Player and name it iPod? Because it's not a mp3 player, and Sony will be the first company to name it's MD Player as iPod. That should be totally legal.

[Fly on the Wall @ Jan 14th 2007 11:44PM]

>So... Sony can make MD Player and name it iPod?

No. Apparently you don't understand the arguments at hand.

If Sony *could* have done as you suggest, they would have a LONG time ago, given the fall of the Walkman to the iPod.