Apple's argument that
Cisco's claim to the name iPhone is "silly" is about to get a whole lot more cogent. Although they hold the trademark, it's still seemingly debatable whether Cisco has rights to the name. Eagle-eyed reader mrsalty points out the fact that Cisco's patent filings for the "
Internet telephone" (and at least
two others) reference the iphone name and attribute it to the Cidco (a company now owned by Earthlink); the fact that the filing reads with the following language is even less encouraging. "Also known [to Cisco at the time of filing the patent] is a dedicated 'Web phone,' such as the iphone, manufactured by Cidco..." Yikes. It's difficult to tell whether this iphone predates Cisco's acquisition of the patent holdings originally filed by
Infogear in 1997, but prior art is prior art, and they admitted as much right in their own patent filing. What's more, the The Internet Phone Company has owned and operated iphone.com since 1995, and we don't see Cisco suing them, either. So basically we really hope this whole thing will be quick and painless since we don't think anyone really wants another
RIM vs NTP saga on their hands. Things will get very interesting, however, if it works out such that the iPhone name is released to the commons and everyone and their mother can make an iPhone. (Sony Ericsson
aiPhone or Motorola IFON, anyone?) Our advice to the people Behind the Human Network: focus on that human network of yours and let the iPhone go, kid.
Update: As some readers have pointed out, yes, a trademark is different from a patent. Our intention is to address Cisco's irregular legal activity that favors other companies using the name iphone, but not Apple. Does Cisco hold the trademark? Yes, it would appear that way. Will Cisco's lack of protection of this trademark hold up in court? We'll have to wait and see, but something tells us Stevie J. wouldn't have gotten up on stage with "iPhone" if he wasn't damned sure they'd be able to use and keep this name.
posted Jan 12th 2007 12:04PM
beginning to think their agreement was to argue about this until the iphone release.. keep it fresh in everyones mind and blogging about the event..and allowing cisco's iphone product to ride the wave of attention.. apple is the king of marketing.. don't forget
g@d almighty! just rename the thing to ApplePhone and be done with it already!!
It will never be the "applePhone". Never. Even if they brand it as the "applePhone", it will never be called that.
...kinda like here in DC, we have an airport called Reagan National Airport. It used to be called Washington National Airport, but they changed the name a few years back. It has never been called (by anyone locally) Reagan National...because it will alway be Washington National in our hearts.
Same with the iPhone.
I would vote for MacPhone
I don't think that if Apple were to just rename to Apple phone that this would solve the problem. Apple has been using the "i-line" for a long time.(They basically own the trademark:iMac,iPod,iTV,ect.,ect.)
I think that Cisco should back out and admit defeat.
yay for everyone! as im actually about to file a class action law suit against all three companies for infringing on my invention named the iPhone: its the first cell phone designed for spacewalks and it uses an eye scan device to decipher what the user is going to think and translates that input into spoken word. i originally was going to call it the eyePhone but alot of my friends thought it looked gay- so i shortened it to iPhone. now, thanks to steve jobs, an internet site and cisco- im screwed.
Lin is absolutely right.
Next thing you know, Steve Jobs will get into a car accident with a Cisco employee and people will argue Apple has the right to use the "iPhone" name because the Cisco dude negligently ran a red light!!!
;)
exactly! why be so wierd and cryptic by using the apple tv monniker and then go and use iPhone? if anything call it the applePhone and keep using the apple thing- steve went a long way to correct himself on calling it the iTV during his keynote that i thought he'd have a hernia- it seemed so akward of him to use that name but heck if youre going to use it why not use apple phone?
yeah just rename the stupid thing. ( stupid in reference to the situation)
macphone
iphod
appletalk
italk
god anything.....iphone isnt that great anyway. imac good name , ipod good name, ilife good name. iphone :/
AppleTalk has already been used. Maybe Apple can call their new phone AppleTalk since AppleTalk is a dead technology anyway.
i personally am so sick of all this stupid "i" stuff. i would rather the apple phone be called something not so contrived and monotonous. i hope apple loses the name...
anything but iphone please...i already call my "ipod" my "bitch" instead. "honey have you seen my bitch?"
besides i see myself saying "i cant wait to get an apple phone" not "i can't wait to get an iphone"
drop the "i" apple, it's getting old
2 points
1. Isn't it the name they are fighting about and NOT patents? And the name is trademarked.
2. You do not lose a trademark for prior art or for not 'defending' it. You only lose it if the name becomes common usage. Xerox being the most notable case. This is why Google is fight the usage of Google as a verb so that they don't lose their mark.
Sorry the assumptions are good fanboyism but off the mark legally.
You *can* lose a trademark for not defending it, which appears to also be a problem for Cisco since others have been using the iPhone name without Cisco doing anything about it. (But you are right that all of this patent analysis is totally irrelevant.)
Frankly, I'm barfing tired of all the iProduct names. iHateIt.
I wouldn't call at least 5 other products using the same name or similar names de minimus use though... as it relates to defense of trademark.
So can Microsoft or Sony brand a phone as the iPhone as well? Trademarks either matter, or they don't. You can't just pick and choose enforcement of the trademarks that suit your favorite manufacturer.
glacia, now you are confusing trademark and patent. You do lose trademarks for not defending them, not patents.
"btw, like he said, you can have rights to a mark, but if someone was using it in a locality (even in the same line of business), then you keep the rights you have, but they get to keep the right to use that mark in that locality, even spread its use within some limits."
Not true. Trademarks are not 'natural ownership' items. You don't acquire a trademark just by having a distinct identity or logo - it has to be registered. It IS, however, possible to have trademark that's registered in a local domain. That happened up here in Canada because the name "Burger King" was a registered trademark in Alberta and when the US Burger King chain moved into Canada, they found that they could register trademarks everywhere BUT in Alberta.
That being said, there is no such a concept as 'prior art' for trademarks. Whomever registers first (and defends their trademark adequtely) wins. It's just that simple.
what "others" are using the iphone name? you mean the blogosphere? do you mean the companies that have developed a phone called iphone they never took to market? i don't think that counts. i can develop a product called an ipod, i just can't take it to market with that name.
and cisco is defending their trademark. they are suing apple.
The other firms are using the iPhone with Cisco's blessings. There are agreements in place. Apple chose to go on without an agreement. Apple will get sued and it will it settled since they have no leg to stand on in court.
RE: UPDATE
That's a joke right?
I posted the federal registration yesterday in the other article.
go to: www.uspto.gov
Link: trademarks
link: basic search
type in "iphone" and press enter
Word Mark 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
Give the engadget guys a break. Sure they messed up their terminology, but the "prior art" argument isn't a complete loser. A court could find that iPhone has been used so often to describe a multitude of internet telephony products that it has been the subject of "genericide" and become public domain - a la thermos, aspirin, murphy bed, shredded wheat etc. The usage probably hasn't been widespread enough, but it may be enough of an argument to get Apple past summary judgment - and that would proably mean a de facto win for Apple as settlement would likely follow.
"prior art"
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Prior art is a patent doctrine. Whereas the trademark issues and respective rights of the parties in this case will be a complicated matter, it only makes it worse to conflate patent and trademark doctrines.
A few things come to mind in light of this post.
--Trademarks, even unregistered common law trademarks, are freely transferrable if done correctly.
--Multiple companies can acquire limited rights in the same mark.
--Trademark rights are acquired by virtue of actual use in commerce. That some filing in the patent office might reference the term iPhone in itself would have no real bearing on the validity of the mark (i.e., there is no "prior art" issue in the same way you would think about for a patent). Of course a prior use by others might prevent registration or validity of the mark; but it is not so simple as to say, because another company used the mark, Apple is free to do so also.
I have no idea who will win this based upon what little we know now, but I doubt it will be a simple answer. Nothing yet makes me think that Cisco's trademark would not still cause Apple a lot of trouble.
Please read Matthew's post again. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Excellent post and points, Matthew. (And great movie, by the way).
As I've said before, patents, trademarks and copyrights are not the same thing. (http://slashstar.com/blogs/tim/archive/2006/01/02/2286.aspx).
Some may be confused because it's the "US Patent and Trademark Office", but I assure you they are different things. The process for acquiring and protecting them are different, they operate differently, and the rights conferred are different. Other than that, they're the same :)
The important thing to remember is that patents give you the right to exclude absolutely, while trademarks may or may not give you the right to exclude. With trademarks, there is a concept of confusion - there are a number of factors used to determine whether a particular use is likely to confuse the consumer. Trademarks will die if they are no longer used in commerce, and can be limited by region, type of product (e.g., Apple Computer and Apple Windowwashers are ok, because no one would confuse the two).
By contrast, a valid patent can be used to prevent others from using the invention, even if you are not using it yourself.
And, most importantly, "prior art" has no relevance in a likelihood of confusion act (unless used in the genericide analysis as discussed above). Prior art is relevant in the patent world because it destroys the novelty and non-obviousness required to issue a patent in the first place.
On a related note, I also feel a bit uneasy about the idea of licensing trademarks and having multiple suppliers are using the same mark. To me, this flies in the face of the principle of trademark - the designation of source. That's the whole reason we have genericide - you can't exclude someone else from using aspirin because it has become descriptive and not an indication of who makes it. I'm squarely in the campe that believes that trademark doctrine should not create property rights. As you might imagine, I'm against dilution for the same reason.
Quite a number of products have been released already under the iPhone name. A simple search on Amazon brings up a few.
Ok, if Apple wins this one, i just hope all cellphone companies should just name all their phones iPhone so we can all live happily ever after. Let's see if Steve Jobs can live with that.
yeah, i kinda think iPhone isn't the "coolest" name they could've come up with. i mean ... how long was that meeting?
i think bbydon's onto something there though. "iTalk" ... not bad ... but they probably want something that says it does more than just allow users to "talk" (iPhone doesn't really say this either)
iCell? kinda goes with iPod nicely no?
OMG is it just me??? ..... itunes, imac, iphone! makes sence too me, Apples iphone.
bbydon, MacPhone sounds like a good idea, but Apple has more hit products when name starts with "i."
So, let's brainstorm more i-something.
Anyone else?
iTelly
Engadget: You really don't know the rules of IP law ... Even your update is wrong. In the US, you don't need to register a trademark with the PTO to have trademark rights in a mark. You can obtain "common law" rights in a trademark through use, and that's clearly why Cisco thinks it has prior trademark rights in the term "iPhone" for certain fields of use, and why it thinks it can enforce them against Apple. In short, the lack of a federal trademark registration or application doesn't matter. Please stop speculating about the legal rules - you're 0 for 2 now. The issues in this case (if it gets resolved on the merits on not resolved by settlement) are whethere there is a "likelihood of confusion" as to source arising from Apple's use, which will involve a multi-factored analysis including but not limited to the strength of the iPhone mark and its use by other players. Stop trying to find "smoking guns" in the PTO's online databases!!!!
Even your update needs updating. Cisco has the trademark. Maybe your searches are failing because it transfered to them via Linksys via Infogear.
Jason, are you kidding?
ComWave http://www.comwave.net/CDN/iPhone/index.htm
Nuvio https://iphone.nuvio.com/html/
Teledex http://www.teledex.com/index.cfm?page=LP_3&crid=13
Cidco http://www.iph.net.nz/
And check out Jeff Pulver's blog. He invented the term and thought it was generic... His company at the time VocalTec was using it and Intel used it for a while as well.
http://pulverblog.pulver.com/archives/006225.html
I bet there are several more examples. And I'm not even't citing the iFon and other combinations of similar marks.
Wow, I haven't seen Cisco get this much publicity since the "The Thong Song". Maybe that's it's plan--to bring exposure to it's brand.
Cisco acquired Infogear Technology which I am assuming means they also acquire all intellectual properties owned by IT. Wouldn't this mean they own Infogears filing for iPhone?
You keep talking about the 'prior art' (wrong term by the way) but I'm pretty sure that "Pod" was around before the iPod. And that did do much to stop Apple from suing anyone who had just pod in the name.
You're getting you intellectual property concepts mixed up. "Prior art" is a patent term, i.e., all the prior inventions that an inventor is building on top of. Trademark is about protecting one's marketing rights in a name, which is why I can't produce my own beer and call in Budweiser.
The Cisco trademark specifically applies to VOIP. Apple, obviously, is marketing a cell phone, so there is no direct overlap. Even if not directly infringing, a trademark for an unrelated product cannot be "confusingly similar" to an existing mark (i.e., I would probably not be allowed to market a brand of herb tea called Budweiser- consumers would likely conclude that Anheuser is expanding into that field, and I would be trading on their name and goodwill).
Here's where it gets real innarestin'.... The use of "iAnything" has become deeply associated with Apple. The Cisco trademark has no consumer associations whatsoever- hell, nobody heard of Cisco's iPhone before last December. This is why Apple feels emboldened enough to tell Cisco to kiss its ass.
These aren't real products?
Teledex http://www.teledex.com/index.cfm?page=LP_3&crid=13
Nuvio http://iphone.com/
Comwave http://www.comwave.net/CDN/iPhone/index.htm
Check out Jeff Pulver's blog. He coined the term and his company at the time (VocalTec) had a product. Intel had a product. He thinks its a generic term.
(I can only enter 3 urls? I'll post Jeff's blog link in a second.)
"Our advice to the people Behind the Human Network: focus on that human network of yours and let the iPhone go, kid."
kid?? lol. I think someone is confused who's the kid here. Spare us the childish behavior please.
MacPhone FTW!!
... actually, "mac phone" ... hmm, maybe this does enter into the higher end products ... $600 a pop for a phone is comparable to $2500 for a laptop. maybe mac [something] is a way to go. mac cell? ... mac mobile? iMobile? mac pod? it is kinda a 'hi-end' iPod to some degree ... mmm ... okay .. i stopped caring
Well arguments regarding the propriety of calling it 'prior art' aside, what really cooks my noodle is how ANY company ANYWHERE in ANY STRETCH of hemisphere has the balls to sue Apple over infringing the trademark they own, when said trademark is the slapping of a lowercase 'i' onto a relatively benign noun.
This is Apple's 'thing.' Now, granted, the way trademark laws work, it gets a bit sticky regarding enforcement and legitimacy, but in a normative (how they should be, not how they are) mechanism, trademark laws are designed to prevent any company from piggybacking the market dollars and ideas from another companys promotions. Isn't ANY company that slaps an 'i' and a colorful candy shell on product X attempt to violate the intentions of trademark law (if not the actual letter of the law itself)?
How Cisco has the BALLS to sue Apple over a trademark issue that Apple was in talks with them to acquire, when in fact, the 'iPhone' name is in DIRECT relationship to the same 'i' moniker that Apple has spent billions popularizing. Ooooh, don't forget my favorite part, the Cisco people are *ahem* 'surprised' that Apple released it for public viewing before the talks were concluded... Seriously. Macworld. It happens every year. Steve keynotes it every year. He's expected to turn water into wine EVERY YEAR. I'd be seriously concerned if I were a Cisco investor if the managment at Cisco was 'shocked' that Jobs demoed the iPhone at the ONE MAJOR TRADESHOW THEY HOST AND ATTEND EVERY YEAR. Of course, if that's the case, then Cisco is a bunch of liars. They are just completely lying at this point. And that's sad.
As to the comment that Cisco worked out deals with the others, this isn't proven and seems a little absurd. Many of these products existed before Cisco owned the trademark. Did Linksys enforce it you mean? Or Infogear before that?
But let's assume that Cisco did do a deal to allow more than 4 companies to use the name... That doesn't seem like defense of trademark to me? That seems like dilution of trademark.
"But let's assume that Cisco did do a deal to allow more than 4 companies to use the name... That doesn't seem like defense of trademark to me? That seems like dilution of trademark."
Why? As an example, TI lets several companies use the mark DLP.
"As to the comment that Cisco worked out deals with the others, this isn't proven"
What "proof" do you require? Teledex is a Cisco AVVID partner. Partnerships are cool. Look up the Cisco relationships with the other firms yourself.
"That doesn't seem like defense of trademark to me"
Well, what can I say? What "seems like" to you doesn't necessarily map with current U.S. Trademark Law.
Here's "The Simpsons" commentary on Cisco...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV9NxtRJKkY
http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/01/update_on_ciscos_iphone_tradem.html
Sheds some light on Cisco's side of things. Cisco tried to get Apple to collaborate on development in a broad sense, Apple refused, Cisco sued. High five to Cisco, Apple is going to get tooled.
cringely speaks
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070111_001476.html
If lots of people using a name takes away the trademark - like hoover, etc - then do the millions of people on the blogosphere using the moniker 'iPhone' to describe a mobile phone/ipod/whatever for the past goodness knows how long not count as lots of people using the name? Just because Apple hasn't used it doesn't stop people associating it with an actual product.
'Tank' was a codename for the fighting vehicle (to confuse the Germans who would have thought the Brits were producing water/oil/whatver tanks, not armoured vehicles), but has stuck as its real name.
Josh,
Yes, even use by the general public can cause a problem with the term becoming generic. It creates a fine line for a company who wants its name to become as well known as possible while avoiding the mark becoming a generic term. Which is why companies are sometimes careful in their marketing, (e.g., "Kleenex brand tissues" vs. "Kleenex"). A recent example is TiVo sending a letter to various news and media companies requesting they not use the expression "to TiVo something" as opposed to "record something" out of fear for TiVo becoming a generic term for DVR.
The name isn't important to me...the device is. Call it yankee-doodle-dandy-phone, I don't care, I just want one!
Chadd Nelson -- why do you want one? Have you seen one? Touched one? Held one? Made a phone call on one? Reviewed the specs? Confirmed that it works with your service? Confirmed that it works where you'll use it most?
Have you done ANYTHING that remotely resembles critical thinking and sound decision-making, or are you like the average iPod buyer?
"Why? As an example, TI lets several companies use the mark DLP."
And? When approved, they are supposed to use the registered mark, and there will be some footnote or fine print saying it belongs to TI.
You will not find the same at any of the sites I've mentioned.
Also, it's unclear that TI could claim they've properly maintained their mark or that they ever wanted to. DLP is almost as generic as LCD. So... unless you know of a case where TI prosecuted for infringing the mark and one, I don't see how your example sheds any light on the matter.
Well, my earlier post isn't going to come through the email verification, but in short, the specimens cited by Cisco's publicly available trademark filing include those by Cidco and even Linksys. So clearly there is some relationship or agreement among the parties. The filing was even included in Ryan's original Link (and text posted by andy).
Matthew, Infogear's is Cisco's. It came to them through acquisitions. Infogear had it, got bought by Linksys, Linksys got bought by Cisco. So you're only referencing two trademarks.
Cidco's is for Cidco iPhone. That doesn't imply any relationship or agreement.
It only shows that the USPTO is willing to give trademarks to very similar names to products with very similar usages.
tf -- If you dig a little deeper into the actual Infogear/Cisco trademark (Serial No. 75076573 Reg. No. 2293011) docs at the USPTO, you can find the file wrapper and "specimens." This is where the company files examples of how it has used the mark in commerce. These include pictures of a "Cidco" phone and a Linksys device as examples of products using Cisco's iPhone mark. There may be others there or not cited. Regardless, Cisco would not cite other unrelated entities use of the mark as evidence of Cisco's use in commerce.
I am aware that Cisco acquired the Infogear mark from the text of the mark itself, and from the original post, although Ryan appears to have forgotten between the OP and the Update.
"Cidco's is for Cidco iPhone. That doesn't imply any relationship or agreement."
so they change it to "Apple iPhone" and problem's solved?
That's a nice find only problem is. Cidco and Infogear worked on this iphone together(actually, with the help of Apple since it was driven by HyperCard in the first version) Actually, half of the team that came up with the iphone where from Apple, they got booted about 3 years earlier when they were working on a TRUE internet iphone called W.A.L.T and then they came up with another all in one design almost identical to this(Cidco's iPhone) called PALLADIN. Anyhow. While this iphone was being designed in 1996 InfoGear filed for the TradeMark. Yes, there were other portable Iphones but they made a point to say this was an internet phone that would stay on the desk. It was just a phone and fax machine a computer screen with a regular old POTS line, nothing fancy. Ok, after the phone was released under both InfoGear and CIDCO's name Cidco bot bought out by Lynksys and InfoGear got bought out by Cisco. I have no clue how Earthlink ended up with the CIDCO website though, that is a bit ODD. But, the point that Cisco has been giving everyone use of the term iPhone is really, really gonna mess things up for them. Hear in Europe we are only allowed to hold a name for 5 years before someone can take it from us if we do nothing.
In other news, Steve Jobs announced that the Apple legal team and half of the advertising team have been sacked. This is apparently due to the "amazingly insightful" legal and advertising advice provided for free by the general public in the Engadget comment section.
...
We apologize, those who lied about the Apple sacking have been sacked.
...
We again apologize, those in charge of sacking those who lied about the Apple sacking have been sacked... by llamas.
"On a related note, I also feel a bit uneasy about the idea of licensing trademarks and having multiple suppliers are using the same mark. To me, this flies in the face of the principle of trademark - the designation of source."
It's a valid point. I would like to know more about how the mark is being used by licensees before becoming overly concerned, though. I mentioned the DLP example earlier, and there are others. For example a Humax TiVo box or a Motorolaw or Direct TV Tivo box. All of which might be of different manufacture. If Cisco was just licensing the iPhone mark along with some particular piece of "iPhone" tech as opposed to for any old VOIP phone, I think they would be OK as it would still indicate the source of that tech. (More examples "Blu-ray" players made by different companies, but licensing the Blu-ray name and technology/patents)
"But a cursory search of the USPTO reveals Cisco has never even filed for an iPhone trademark with relation to their product. Cidco, Teledex, SFMobile, Inc., Ocean Telecom Services, and, of course, Infogear all have filings, however. So again, why aren't or haven't they being sued?"
Just to clarify from my lost post, the cursory search shows the Infogear filing which lists Cisco as the current owner (which is consistent with the original post that notes "Cisco's acquisition of the patent holdings originally filed by Infogear in 1997 . . . .") That explains why they haven't sued Infogear. They took the place of infogear.
Regarding the Cidco issues, I explained briefly in a previous post that CiSco is using the CiDco phone as an example of CiSco's use of the iPhone mark in commerce. So clearly CiSco has some relationship or agreement with CiDco. That explains why CiSco hasn't sued CiDco and why this whole post was a red herring.
Haven't looked at the others, but I imagine it is a similar matter.
Remind me: how many times have Apple threatened to sue other companies, including much smaller ones, who dare use the three letters "pod" in their product names - even when they are nothing to do with portable music? And, indeed, even though products existed with the name "pod" long before the iPod was even thought up!
Hypocrisy from Jobs....AGAIN.
And to address the update: "As some readers have pointed out, yes, a trademark is different from a patent. But a cursory search of the USPTO reveals Cisco has never even filed for an iPhone trademark with relation to their product. Cidco, Teledex, SFMobile, Inc., Ocean Telecom Services, and, of course, Infogear all have filings, however. So again, why aren't or haven't they being sued?"
1) Patents are the only IP pillar that "require" registration. There are definite advantages to registering a copyright and/or a trademark, but the creation gives you a copyright and use in commerce gives you a trademark. Unlike a patent, trademark requires ACTUAL use in commerce. In other words, you can get a patent and never exploit it and still have the ability to sue others. You can't just "register" a trademark and sue people for it.
2) CIDCO's registrations are dead (i.e., they have been abandoned and are no longer used in commerce). Teledex's registration is for use with a "telephone that integrates a display and interactive abilities with an IP-based network to deliver both voice communication and graphic-based content and services to hotel guestrooms". The others may be more inline, but there are still several other factors that must be considered under a likelihood of confusion analysis.
3) There are plenty of reasons (both practical and legal) on why Teledex, Ocean, and CIDCO may not have sued Cisco.
I'm wondering if the "talks" that Apple was having with Cisco about working out a deal was that Apple was going to include VOIP with the iPhone (maybe even a conjunction with Google on that) and knowing that (possibly) the Cisco patent was only covering a VOIP "iPhone" (again, purely conjecture) they were trying to buy the name or work a deal. Cisco said "fine" but only if you use our VOIP tech in the "iPhone" and give credit, etc, etc.
Obviously Apple (Steve) would say a big fat NO, and procede to remove the VOIP widgets and any pertaining items from the phone and release the "cellphone only" version that he previewed (giving a little merit to the empty widget spaces that "could be or could have been")
... now entering back to reality
(but that was fun wasn't it"
"I'm wondering if the "talks" that Apple was having with Cisco about working out a deal was that Apple was going to include VOIP with the iPhone . . . they were trying to buy the name or work a deal. Cisco said "fine" but only if you use our VOIP tech in the "iPhone" and give credit, etc, etc." --Ryan
Actually, that sounds pretty close to what Cisco said in its recent statement posted above by Tim.
http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/01/update_on_ciscos_iphone_tradem.html
I think this is a conspiracy among the lawyers at all companies for billable hours. Darn those shisty shisters.
As the apple phone project is functionally at the intersection of two product lines, though belongs to neither, i'd like to nominate this name:
"MacPod"
since it does the iPod thing, but beefed up with more computer-like functionality. What think ye? Stupid?
Isn't Ocean Telecom the fake shell company Apple used to petition Cisco for trademark usage and/or submit their own trademark claim?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070112/ap_on_hi_te/cisco_apple
"something tells us Stevie J. wouldn't have gotten up on stage with "iPhone" if he wasn't damned sure they'd be able to use and keep this name."
-- you'd be surprised...
Has anyone else noticed how much this post, and especially the Update, has changed without any notice? If you are wondering why some earlier comments no longer make sense, that's why. The update is now less bad.
"Our intention is to address Cisco's irregular legal activity that favors other companies using the name iphone, but not Apple." --from most recent version of Update
There would be nothing irregular about refraining from suing licensees and subsidiaries (as it appears Cidco, Linksys, and others are) while prosecuting willful infringers. In fact, anything different would be irregular. For instance, if Apple had come to an agreement over use of the mark and THEN Cisco sued it, THAT would be irregular. I don't think we yet know enough regarding the status of other companies using the mark. But again, the holder of a valid mark can use and protect the mark even though there exists a prior good faith user with now limited rights.
The plot thickens... Cisco's Declaration of Use could be deemed defective because there was no continuous use and the sample Cisco submitted was for a product that was only released 7 months AFTER the deadline. Not to mention that the sample was merely a photo of box for a product named CIT200. The only mention of iPhone is on a sticker pasted on the OUTSIDE of the shrinkwrap.
http://digg.com/apple/Cisco_lost_rights_to_iPhone_trademark_last_year_experts_say
According to this news artcile... Engadget, CNet, Znet are trying to protect Apple with their posts, Apple is doing the WRONG thing and everybody knows it
"Cisco Sues Apple Over Use of iPhone Name" at:
http://blog.americasnewstoday.com/2007/01/12/cisco-sues-apple-over-use-of-iphone-name-two.aspx
The fact that Engadget is a lap dog for Apple shouldn't surprise anyone.
Other possible names for the iphone if Apple loses the lawsuit...
eyephone
e-phone
ipod-talky
icommunicator
apple-phone
a-phone
ihole
a-hole
i f own u
Uhm cisco bought infogear 4 years ago.
Billy
I'm not suer Cisco has a case until the iPhone is actually released. Apple has only made an announcement.
If Apple gets the rights to iPhone they will use it (thankful of all the user created buzz around this name), if not ApplePhone (or iCom or some other name) will also work.
Apple has to go through the legal process or all the fanboys woul be really disappointed!
-R.
IANAL but from all I know it's very, very simple, and always has been: If you file a Trademark on something, you have to defend it. If you don't defend it, your trademark is void.
I have seen many companies suing others not because it made good sense, but because they knew if they would _not_ sue their trademark would be a goner. So keeping it up requires some active defending. Active, vicious defending.
And proof that Cisco, in a legal document of their own, no less, was aware of other people using the mark in the same category of trade sounds extremely significant to me. Explains Apple's brash behavior of just using the name regardless.
It's a bit suspicious that Cisco would want to use the name for some bland product that might as well be called saturday in any case. Ok I give them the benefit of doubt: Lack of better ideas made them do it. But still.
Apple can also go the legally completely safe way and trademark the phrase "Apple iPhone". Sorta like "Microsoft Word(tm)".
Cisco owns the mark but looks like a classic failure to defend it, perhaps going back to before Cisco even acquired the company that owned the mark before.
Why do people who know nothing about trademark law feel compelled to opine on the likely outcome of this issue? That includes Engadget writers.