Apple jumped gun on iPhone?
Category: Apple/Mac OS...
Posted Wednesday, January 10, 2007 at 05:49 PM [GMT-6]

Despite reports to the contrary, it seems that Apple and Cisco Systems did not reach final agreement over the name "iPhone," for which Cisco holds the trademark. Cisco says that it has filed a lawsuit against Apple for trademark infringement.

Linksys, a division of Cisco, has an elaborate website dedicated to its version of iPhone, which is actually a suite of internet telephony-based products (think Skype and VoIP), some of which are also offered with landline capabilities. I didn't see anything that looks like a cell phone capability, not that that has anything to do with the issue at hand.

The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog received some elaboration from a Cisco spokesman:

Cisco spokesman John Earnhardt sent along this comment to the Law Blog: “Intellectual property is the lifeblood of Silicon Valley and we all have to protect our property. The iPhone trademark is owned by Cisco, as noted in your story. We (Cisco) had hoped to reach an agreement to share our trademark with Apple, yet they decided to use the name without our agreement, so we, unfortunately, are having to go to court to stop them from using the name. We still hope we can reach an agreement, but when your neighbor steals your property, you have no recourse other than to call the cops and file a complaint.”

Apple is savvy enough that it must have had some reason to assume Cisco's cooperation before yesterday's announcement, so it will be interesting -- in a "he said, she said" kind of way -- to see its rebuttal to Cisco's claim.

Technorati tags: | |

Permalink
Comments

This ought to be interesting!!

Posted by: Janie at January 10, 2007 05:58 PM

Yeah, it actually has a good chance of getting CISCO'S registration revoked. Since Apple has such a long line of i* products (iPod, iTunes, iTMS, iPhoto, iMovie, iCan'tBelieveItsNotButter...) they have a VERY good chance of succeeding in the argument that Cisco's mark creates market confusion by insinuating that Apple is involved in the development on the Cisco product, especially when Apple IS entering that market at the same time.

I think Steve Jobs is pulling a Serbian Jew Double Bluff, and he will probably succeed.

Posted by: Phelps at January 10, 2007 06:02 PM

You forgot iDVD, iMac, iBook, iSight, iChat, iTV... oh, wait -- they did chunk that one.

Still, I'm amazed that such a product line gives Apple the possibility of wrapping up every noun that can be preceded with a little i.

Posted by: Eric at January 10, 2007 06:28 PM

So, I think I will keep on considering the Blackberry for my next phone upgrade...

Posted by: Patti at January 10, 2007 07:09 PM

...gives Apple the possibility of wrapping up every noun that can be preceded with a little i

What was Cisco doing with a small i anyway? I agree with Phelps. iApple do sue thee, Cisco, for use of our alphabet. Sure Cisco can keep everything beginning with a big I, like Iceland, Illinois, Idaho, Indiana, and Iowa. Big sellers, those.

Posted by: Gwynne at January 10, 2007 07:53 PM

Patti, I see no way this development delays Apple's roll out of whats-its-name, much less derails it. In the unlikely event the two companies don't reach agreement, Apple will just rename the phone. Surely there's another letter of the alphabet it can appropriate.

Posted by: Eric at January 10, 2007 07:56 PM

Well, keep in mind that Cisco's trademark dates back to the early Oughts, and the i of Apple wasn't yet a juggernaut.

Posted by: Eric at January 10, 2007 07:58 PM

True, but the overarching purpose of trademarking (even codified by the legislature) is to prevent market confusion. Apple doesn't own anything with an i. But if you can reasonably say that frat boys are going to walk into an electronics store, ask for an "iPhone" and not get what they were looking for, then Cisco is in trouble. Apple has a good argument that Cisco is a trademark squatter, especially since they simply rebranded another product with the name a week before Apple released its product. That smacks of actions in anticipation of litigation (a no-no.)

Posted by: Phelps at January 11, 2007 09:10 AM

Ah...I see your point; thanks for the education. I also didn't realize that the Linksys branding of its product was so, um, coincidentally timely.

I'll bet they settle all of this before it gets to court, but it would be fascinating to see how it play out through the litigation process.

Posted by: Eric at January 11, 2007 09:22 AM
Post a comment [Take your time...we're in no hurry.]
Note: You must provide either a website URL or an email address...but there's no rule that says you have to tell the truth. If you don't want your email address published on this site, just input a website URL, or make up an email address.









Remember personal info?