http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/12/iphone-does-cisco-miss-out-due-to-prior-art/ Engadget Comments for iPhone: does Cisco miss out due to prior art? http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/12/iphone-does-cisco-miss-out-due-to-prior-art/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/12/iphone-does-cisco-miss-out-due-to-prior-art/Jan 12th 2007 2:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/12/iphone-does-cisco-miss-out-due-to-prior-art/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/12/iphone-does-cisco-miss-out-due-to-prior-art/
That being said...a trademark can be invalidated due to common useage.]]>Jan 12th 2007 3:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/12/iphone-does-cisco-miss-out-due-to-prior-art/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/12/iphone-does-cisco-miss-out-due-to-prior-art/
Further, since trademarks are specific as to a single source of goods or services, it isn't dispositive of the issue to say that "iphone" is generic or merely descriptive of some goods and services. It would have to be generic or merely descriptive of CISCO'S goods and services for it to be invalid.]]>Jan 12th 2007 5:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/01/12/iphone-does-cisco-miss-out-due-to-prior-art/http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/12/iphone-does-cisco-miss-out-due-to-prior-art/Jan 13th 2007 3:03AM