Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

556 comments

Trademark info (5, Informative)

traindirector (1001483) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549248)

The trademark information on the US Patent and Trademark Office's site [uspto.gov]

I've been curious about this one since yesterday. Apple doesn't seem to have any legal right to the name, but could they really call it anything else?

Re:Trademark info (5, Funny)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549276)

Appeal to the younger generation with the hip, new, stylin' "iFone"!

Don't think so (4, Funny)

benhocking (724439) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549384)

That one's already been spoken for [ifoneinc.com] , too.

Re:Trademark info (2, Funny)

shadow349 (1034412) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549778)

New name:

BHN

(N = Networking)

Based on the whole "Apple TV" thing... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17549282)

I don't know... maybe "Apple Phone."

Re:Based on the whole "Apple TV" thing... (2, Funny)

Headcase88 (828620) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549756)

... Well as long as it's not "Mac Phone" it's ok by me.

Re:Trademark info (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17549284)

iTalk

Re:Trademark info (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17549648)

No banana [uspto.gov] for you!

Re:Trademark info (5, Funny)

Kufat (563166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549286)

Perhaps they could call it iPodPhone without violating the trademark...the iPP could be the biggest thing since the Wii!

Good Idea. (5, Funny)

symbolset (646467) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549516)

I'm down with iPP. You're down with iPP. Yea, you know Wii. Get down with iPP.

Re:Trademark info (5, Funny)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549610)

Well, when my kid goes Wii, he says "iPP".

Re:Trademark info (1)

deopmix (965178) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549300)

I don't think that it would be as bad if a phone wasn't JUST released under the "iPhone" name.

Re:Trademark info (4, Funny)

sbrown123 (229895) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549308)

[i]but could they really call it anything else?[/i]

iPod Phone, Phone iPod, Apple Phone, Granny Smith, Red Delicious...

Re:Trademark info (0, Redundant)

no_pets (881013) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549586)

iFone

Re:Trademark info (2, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549628)

iPod Phone, Phone iPod, Apple Phone, Granny Smith, Red Delicious...

iNatterBox, iPhwn, iThingie, iTem, iTool, iMate, iDoodad...

I'm puzzeled, with 2.5 years lead-time, they didn't research this. Seems simply applying for a trademark would have revealed someone already had it.

Re:Trademark info (1)

iocat (572367) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549690)

Accroding to TFA (or some other FA I saw), Cisco says Apple has been begging it for weeks for the name.

Re:Trademark info (3, Informative)

Xero (19560) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549860)

According to TFA, Cisco says "it had been negotiating for several years with Apple over a licensing agreement, but that Apple lawyers had not signed and returned the final contract." I really wonder why this "final contract" was so unappealing to apple and they just decided to announce the phone anyways.

Re:Trademark info (2, Funny)

SomeoneGotMyNick (200685) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549742)

I'm puzzeled, with 2.5 years lead-time......

Don't you mean to say iPuzzled?

Re:Trademark info (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17549692)

The iBlower... I can see it now. Maybe you'll be able to connect it to your iHorn.
Or, er, maybe it'll just dry your hands.

Re:Trademark info (2, Funny)

webfiend (112579) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549316)

How about iPhoneTVMovieBrowserThing?

Re:Trademark info (5, Funny)

randomiam (514027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549640)

That one is owned by CompuGlobalHyperMegaNet.

Re:Trademark info (1)

Daneboy (315359) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549360)

Maybe iTalk or iTel? Or how about something straightforward like "iPod Phone" or "Phone iPod"? Or, similarly to their new streaming TV gadget, they could go with <applesymbol>phone. PhonePod?

Re:Trademark info (1)

Daneboy (315359) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549440)

D'oh! sbrown123 beat me to the punch with three of my four suggestions. In that case, I'm changing my vote to AppleTalk. Oh, wait...

Maybe they should name it after different kinds of apples. Then the Japanese market could see the FujiPhone, and the US retirement homes would be flooded with GrannySmithPhones...

PodPhone! (2, Funny)

traindirector (1001483) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549650)

PhonePod is actually pretty good. Or even better, PodPhone. "Pod" is probably associated with Apple far more than the "i" is, and there are plenty of Apple products without an i in the name.

It's sort of late to change it now, but by no means too late... I can see Jobs selling the new name already: "And we here at Apple are thinking so far into the future, we've decided to drop the "i" that we innovated to the industry in 1998 since we're doing much more than "i" could possibly express. Boom, it's gone. Goodbye "i", welcome LifePod. Look, it's small and shiny!" *Audience hemorrhages from too much excitement*

Re:Trademark info (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17549896)


Watch them use one of the suggested names. Not even a concession prize for you.

Re:Trademark info (2, Insightful)

mgabrys_sf (951552) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549486)

Not sure. You don't have to have the same name to be slapped with Trade Dress issues regarding trademarks. The fact that iMac preceeded the Cisco art obtained in 2000 could have merit (note I said could). Another angle is the fact that it was over 6 years before Cisco used the name. Are there any non-usage restrictions in this area?

It's gonna be a fun show. Previous reports were that negotiations were going fine. A pissed Steve Jobs makes a wonderful fireworks display as public embarassment after a long project debut. Can't wait.

Re:Trademark info (5, Interesting)

L7_ (645377) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549744)

Also something to note is that the original iPhone for which the trademark was granted was for a POTS phone complete with 2 phone jacks (see cnn archive, but its sloooow: http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9906/10/iphone.i dg/index.html [cnn.com] ). The Infogear trademark was for a telephone that is also a modem. I wonder how the affect of Apple's iPhone being a Mobile phone with a wifi connection will matter.

Another question would be *when* apple entered into talks with cisco to use the name. was this before or after cisco had already released thier own mobile phone with the iPhone name? hrrm.

Re:Trademark info (1)

mgabrys_sf (951552) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549866)

Well, I'd seriously doubt Apple would have waited to enter into negotiations till after Cisco released their phone. On the other hand, they were so secretive on the whole product development side, they well could have waited to the last minute. Again - will be fun to find out. Dirty laundry here we come!

Re:Trademark info (1)

Master Of Ninja (521917) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549578)

Go here instead http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm [uspto.gov] . It doesn't make things clearer, but apparently apple has the trademark in other countries, and filing 77007808 is the one apparently under Apple. Is the description sufficiently different? Who knows IANAL. However there seem to be a lot of iphones around anyway, and maybe apple legal knows something we don't.

Re:Trademark info (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17549600)

iScream?

Re:Trademark info (2, Insightful)

armandojinx (1049566) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549618)

Holy Jesus. Of course it's a lawsuit. Nobody can just have a f==king meeting and work it out. Sometimes I hate our system.

Re:Trademark info (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549688)

Holy Jesus. Of course it's a lawsuit. Nobody can just have a f==king meeting and work it out. Sometimes I hate our system.

They will have the meeting and negotiate a settlement. Filing the suit was the first step; there's nothing to say it will actually go to court.

MacPhone maybe? (1)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549812)

I mean Apple using this i prefix crap is getting pretty old. What is it supposed to mean anyways? Information? Innovative? Incomplete? Infinitesimal?

Re:Trademark info (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17549834)

Frankly, I was surprised when there was news that they were trying to work out a deal. I speculated [michikono.com] this would happen...

My logic was that Apple was banking on the fact that Cisco didn't do ANYTHING when the entire world was clammoring over the Apple iPhone prior to it being released. You saw "iPhone" all over the media in reference to Apple, but where were the cease and desists? Isn't part of owning a trademark actively defending it?

And by "actively defend" I don't mean "fire lawsuits". I mean it as "protect your trademark all the time." Just look how Google was telling media outlets to use "Search on Google" instead of "Googling it".

Ask any non-techie what was the first company to recently release an iPhone. Do you honestly believe anybody would answer Cisco? Cisco didn't even TRY to educate people. They should have been screaming loudly at every blogger and news outlet that used iPhone in the context of being an Apple product.

Of course I know nothing about law. Maybe I'm wrong.

iFirst (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17549250)

iFirst Post

Re:iFirst (5, Funny)

Jello B. (950817) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549306)

This "iFirst Post" is first in the same sense that Apple was first to the name "iPhone."

Re:iFirst (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17549738)

I figured there'd be tons of iFirst Posts put up. I was surprised I was the first. Not surprised that it was modded to oblivion instead of funny.

Don't Worry, It's OK (5, Funny)

abscissa (136568) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549294)

Better to call it "iPhone" and get your ass sued than call it "Zune" and paint it brown and squirt it everywhere.

obligatory (5, Funny)

User 956 (568564) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549302)

Cisco is suing Apple over trademark infringement.

iPhowned!

Re:obligatory (0, Redundant)

Laxitive (10360) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549762)


How about:

iPwnd!

Backup name (1, Redundant)

shirizaki (994008) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549318)

iPwned.

what about these guys? (2, Interesting)

grapeape (137008) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549328)

http://www.comwave.net/CDN/iPhone/index.htm [comwave.net]

The sad thing is that Apple was the reason why everyone started adding i to everything...if I was Jobs I'd just call it the Ipod Phone Edition and tell Cisco to bite it.

Re:what about these guys? (2, Informative)

winkydink (650484) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549368)

Actually, there was a whole dot-com phenomena of putting "i" in front of things too. iDefense Labs is the one that springs immediately to mind as a survivor from that era.

Re:what about these guys? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17549512)

Furthermore, since the "i" refers to "Internet" couldn't Al Gore succesfully sue both companies?

Re:what about these guys? (3, Informative)

Brandee07 (964634) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549772)

Why would he sue Apple? He sits on the board.

Re:what about these guys? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17549536)

iDefense and the iMac were announced in the same month. iDefense doesn't list a date, but the iMac was the 7th, so odds are it beat iDefense to the punch.

Re:what about these guys? (5, Insightful)

powerlord (28156) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549564)

Actually, there was a whole dot-com phenomena of putting "i" in front of things too.


Yes ... which is where we got the iMac, iPod and iTunes. I wonder if Apple can make the case that people already associate the "i*" with THEM, either the 'iPhones' TradeMark should be considered diluted, or it should be assigned to them.

Re:what about these guys? (4, Informative)

Dynedain (141758) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549550)

The sad thing is that Apple was the reason why everyone started adding i to everything...


So a trademark aquired in 1996 is because Apple decided to trademark the iMac in 1998? That's some interesting time traveling device that Jobs & Co. has. Where can I get an iTimeMachine?

But seriously, the dot com boom and rise of general internet awareness sparked a lot of i-names. e-names were more popular initially, but when people couldn't register e-device, the next thing they'd try was i-device. While Apple's uses may be the most memorable (because of success and their incredible ability to get free marketing from every news source on the planet), it wasn't the first and wasn't the trend setter either.

*** File this myth along side of Apple being the first to have USB or 64bit desktop machines.

Re:what about these guys? (5, Interesting)

puto (533470) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549588)

Actually no,

I worked for a Chatroom software company that owned a product called ichat. Apple bought the trademark and the name, so they did not come up with it.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/archive/index.php/t -8722.html

Even discussed on appleforums.

The company changed its name to globalchat. Which was then bought by digi-net.com who owns digichat. Ichat was sold as rooms.

Ichat was WAAAAAAAAAAAAY before apple I'ed anything. 1996

http://web.archive.org/web/19961106085604/http://w ww.ichat.com/

The ichat site at apple used to explain this with a link, but have since used the distortion field to take it down.

If I were jobs, I would come up with a different name.

Puto

Duh (0)

metlin (258108) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549338)


Of course this was going to happen -- I was surprised when I read that Apple was having discussions with Cisco on the name. Trusting Cisco over something like this and they screw Apple over? Gee, color me surprised.

And Apple was obviously stupid to use the name before the final documents were signed, and Cisco would probably agree to settle for a really large sum of money (or alternatively, would probably take a really large sum of money from certain other companies to *not* give the rights).

Re:Duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17549402)

What a bummer.

If they had a conversation in good faith, and to have a lawsuit filed, well, that's low. But it is "legal".

Cisco, you just lost a lot of respect. :(

Why is it that Cisco lost respect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17549544)

They've been having negotiations in good faith with Apple, and before a deal is reached, Apple announces the thing and infringes on the Trademark. If Cisco DOESN'T immediately file a lawsuit to defend their trademark, they could lose is due to the ammount of press coverage Apple's new product is generating.

Re:Why is it that Cisco lost respect? (1)

kcornia (152859) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549770)

I agree. It is overwhelmingly likely that negotiations continue and are close to being final. That said, Cisco is still legally obligated to protect their trademark, otherwise Apple could bait them along until they feel sufficient dilution has occurred, then back out and seek their own suit alleging dilution.

This is just CYA while negotiations finish up.

Nothing to see here...

Re:Duh (4, Interesting)

nels_tomlinson (106413) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549530)

I was surprised when I read that Apple was having discussions with Cisco on the name.

Why would that surprise you? However silly we might think trademark law, Cisco owns that trademark under the current law. If Apple wants to use it, they'll have to make a deal with Cisco. Or did you mean that you were surprised that they were still talking so late in the game?

Trusting Cisco over something like this and they screw Apple over?

I don't see that they trusted Cisco. It looks to me as if Apple very cynically decided that rather than come to an agreement, they'd try to screw Cisco in court. Apple has been nasty before, but this is worse behavior than I expected.

It's not like they had no other choices for the name. Trademark law still allows companies to name products without affixing an ``i'', though few companies are taking advantage of that legal lattitude. Even really stupid names like `Zune'' and ``Wee-wee'' don't seem to hinder sales, so I really don't see any reason for Apple to try to cheat Cisco on this silly name.

Re:Duh (2, Interesting)

metlin (258108) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549706)

Why would that surprise you? However silly we might think trademark law, Cisco owns that trademark under the current law. If Apple wants to use it, they'll have to make a deal with Cisco. Or did you mean that you were surprised that they were still talking so late in the game?

It surprised me because it would be easier for Cisco to sue and make more money out of a settlement than to just give in. If they do this while iPhone is still on people's minds, Apple would offer a bigger settlement.

Hence my surprise.

I don't see that they trusted Cisco. It looks to me as if Apple very cynically decided that rather than come to an agreement, they'd try to screw Cisco in court. Apple has been nasty before, but this is worse behavior than I expected.

Mind you -- Apple was conducting negotiations when this was happening. If Apple did not trust Cisco, they would have signed the agreement before the final announcement. Obviously, Apple announcing this before the agreement signifies one of two things:

Apple trying to be nasty (like you said).

Or Apple believing in Cisco's good faith.

Since Apple was indeed having negotiations, and given Cisco's legal history before, I am inclined to go with the latter.

It's not like they had no other choices for the name. Trademark law still allows companies to name products without affixing an ``i'', though few companies are taking advantage of that legal lattitude. Even really stupid names like `Zune'' and ``Wee-wee'' don't seem to hinder sales, so I really don't see any reason for Apple to try to cheat Cisco on this silly name.

As the folks who made the i prefix popular (iMac, iPod, iTunes etc.), it would be logical for Apple to use iPhone for their phone. Brand names create an impression of the company in the minds of people and hence they are valuable.

My two cents.

Re:Duh (4, Insightful)

localman (111171) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549844)

However silly we might think trademark law

I think current patent and copyright law is silly, but trademarks are a bit different, IMO. I believe it is really is important for consumers to be able to tell that they're buying from one company as opposed to another. Quality control and service are meaningless if others can easily impersonate or cause confusion as to who you're really dealing with. Trademarks do a good job at handling this.

It may be that things have gotten out of hand with the interpretation, that is, courts being too sensitive to what creates "customer confusion". Also it was easier when trademarks were more local in scope, but the internet has kind of blown that. Still, I think trademark law is a greater good than evil even today.

(and this coming from someone who was cease-and-desisted by Mattel a few years back)

Cheers.

It's hard to tell who screwed who... (1)

itamblyn (867415) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549798)

Cisco, for leading them on, only to demand something crazy at the last minute: http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2007/corp_010907b.h tml [cisco.com] Or Apple, for going ahead with the name anyway, hoping to win it in court: http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2007/corp_011007.ht ml?sid=BAC-RelatedNews [cisco.com]

Re:Duh (3, Interesting)

DittoBox (978894) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549804)

Of course this was going to happen -- I was surprised when I read that Apple was having discussions with Cisco on the name. Trusting Cisco over something like this and they screw Apple over? Gee, color me surprised.

Got it wrong there bud.

Apple was in talks to acquire rights to use the name, but they did not sign any contracts before they publicly released information and began using the iPhone trademark. The fault is squarely in Apple's court. Apple screwed up on this one, not Cisco.

Cisco was willing to negotiate (5, Interesting)

alain94040 (785132) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549342)

From Cisco's web site yesterday: "SAN JOSE Calif., January 9, 2007 - Given Apple's numerous requests for permission to use Cisco's iPhone trademark over the past several years and our extensive discussions with them recently, it is our belief that with their announcement today, Apple intends to agree to the final document and public statement that were distributed to them last night and that addressed a few remaining items. We expect to receive a signed agreement today."

I guess someone at Apple didn't sign on the dotted line last night. What could Cisco possibly be asking for that Apple would refuse?

Alain.

Re:Cisco was willing to negotiate (3, Insightful)

metlin (258108) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549372)

The key phrase being, "willing to negotiate" -- for what? Large sums of money would be my guess.

Don't for a moment believe that a company like Cisco would give in without enormous sums of money changing hands.

Or maybe they want a percentage of profits? Apple stock? Who knows.

Re:Cisco was willing to negotiate (1)

winkydink (650484) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549410)

Well duh! What did you think they were negotiating for? Brand names are worth millions of dollars.

Re:Cisco was willing to negotiate (1)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549700)

Obviously the substance of the negotiations are not public, but if Apple tried to close the deal and Cisco sued them anyways, wouldn't that mean that Cisco was not negotiating in good faith, as they have claimed?

Did Apple Expect this? (1)

drewzhrodague (606182) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549354)

Did Apple expect this? Are they already planning on cutting Cisco a check (after signifigant sales)? Otherwise, the iPwn3d looks more like a phone I'd rather have in 2007, than the hopped-up StarTacs that are out today.

I hope everyone uses a bluetooth headset, or the thing will get really nasty.

Re:Did Apple Expect this? (2, Insightful)

mgabrys_sf (951552) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549570)

Perhaps they figured it'd be cheaper to invalidate the trademark in court than fork over a ton of money forever like they did with the Beatles. It's worked once, and if it bleeds Cisco a few million for fun before they end up changing it to "Apple Phone" - all the better.

A better name (0, Troll)

supersonicjim (1043458) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549362)

I am pretty sure PretentiousPhone would be a better name.

Fire the lawyers (1)

NorbrookC (674063) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549366)

FTA:

Cisco said Tuesday it had been negotiating for several years with Apple over a licensing agreement, but that Apple lawyers had not signed and returned the final contract.

I'd be willing to bet that the product and marketing people thought all was well with rolling it out, and it turns out that "Umm...err...Uh, we didn't sign the contract! Didn't you get the memo?" I think there's going to be some openings in the Apple legal department soon.

Re:Fire the lawyers (4, Interesting)

acm (107375) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549614)

I think there's going to be some openings in the Apple legal department soon.


there already is. [law.com]

But C|Net Said... (2, Interesting)

mr_zorg (259994) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549376)

...but C|Net said this yesterday:
He surprised many by continuing to refer to the new mobile device as the iPhone, a trademark that is owned by Cisco Systems. Apple has apparently been in discussions with Cisco over use of the iPhone trademark for some time, but it is unclear what Apple's use of the name will mean for either company. In a written response to an inquiry from CNET News.com made while Jobs' speech was still going on, a Cisco representative said, "It is our belief that with their announcement today, Apple intends to agree to the final document and public statements that were distributed to them last night." Cisco expects to receive a signed agreement Tuesday, according to the statement.
So did Apple NOT accept the terms, thinking they can beat this rap, or does the right hand not know what the left hand is doing?

They need a new name (1)

Megane (129182) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549388)

Well, it looks like Apple didn't turn in the contract after all.

So now they have to come up with a new name. I suggest that they keep in line with their new Intel naming and call it the "PhoneBook". They can even make a version with an aluminum case and a built-in keyboard and call it the "PhoneBook Pro".

Or they could call it the NewtonPhone, but I don't think that's going to happen as long as Steve's body temperature is above 35 degrees C.

Re:They need a new name (1)

Yoje (140707) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549840)

iNewton

Sounds like a winner to me. It's more a Newton than a phone anyway from the looks of it.

Seriously, anything but iPhone, "i___" is overused anyway, and no sense in Apple throwing money to Cisco just for a name.

Just rename it "iPon" and be done with it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17549408)

That's pronounced "eye phone", of course.

Trademark abandonment (4, Insightful)

Maniakes (216039) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549422)

You can lose a trademark through dilution if you let it become generic, but what about if you don't use the trademark at all? Even before Apple's announcement, I expect almost anyone hearing the word "iPhone" would associate it much more strongly with Apple than with Cisco.

Re:Trademark abandonment (1)

Fearan (600696) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549668)

The problem here is that Cisco DID use the Trademark, albeit it was a very short while ago. Pre-emptive trademark use?

Re:Trademark abandonment (1)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549768)

Actually, they used it in 1996 according to the "First Use In Commerce" in the USPTO entry. The product may even still be on the market (somewhere?)

Re:Trademark abandonment (0, Troll)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549876)

Ultimately it's legal extortion. Cisco obviously released a product with that name to give them grounds for a lawsuit. There has to be an intent claus added to the law. Cisco owned the tradmark by way of acquiring a company and sat on it five years while Apple spent hundreds of millions developing an "i" trademark. Apple has used the trademark extensively and until Apple proposed a phone Cisco did not persue the secondhand trademark. This is extortion and corporate greed. It's Cisco with their hand in Apple's pocket. I used to respect Cisco but this is really sleazy.

iFone is available (1)

PatPending (953482) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549448)

iFone is available according to the U.S. Trademark office; the previous owner ABANDONED it.

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=9 h1ak1.2.1 [uspto.gov]

BTW, why didn't the OP use the printer friendly link instead?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070110/ap_on_hi_te/ci sco_apple_8&printer=1 [yahoo.com]

Re:iFone is available (1)

posterlogo (943853) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549638)

I'm not sure this would be an acceptable alternative -- it may be deemed too similar to iPhone. A recent example I saw was Icky Mouse, or Ronald Duck. I doubt that would fly by Disney's trademark police.

Doesn't matter (1)

SinGunner (911891) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549456)

Whatever Apple calls it, we'll just call it the iPhone anyways. Let them call it the ip078xcd so we can all just say "fuck it, it's the iPhone".

So awesome (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17549460)

Hahahahahahaha

Gooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooo

Ciscoooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Re:So awesome (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17549566)

Yeah, whatever dipshit.

Fuuuuuuuuuccccccccccccckkkkkkkkkkk

Ooooooooooffffffffffffffffffffff

Re:So awesome (-1, Offtopic)

mgabrys_sf (951552) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549634)

Poor guy - his headstick got stick between the keys. Cripples are so darn funny ya know? Ooo, look at the drool! It's like a rainbow!

Re:So awesome (-1, Offtopic)

mgabrys_sf (951552) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549730)

Would it fucking kill anyone to check the parent before modding. Fucking geniuses coming here from Digg I tells ya.

All I have to say is (0, Redundant)

TrashGUY (966340) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549514)

LOL

Apple Secrecy (1)

L7_ (645377) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549520)

It seems that the Cisco people working with Apple on the trademark resolution upheld thier secret pact of the deal whence other Cisco employees and trademark librarians didn't even know that they were in talks with apple when filing the lawsuit!

What happened to ... (1)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549592)

this? [com.com]
10:32--Cisco calls CNET News.com reporter with a statement about Apple's use of the term "iPhone" for its new product. "Given Apple's numerous requests for permission to use Cisco's iPhone trademark over the past several years and our extensive discussions with them recently, it is our belief that with their announcement today, Apple intends to agree to the final document and public statements that were distributed to them last night and that address a few remaining items we expect to receive a signed agreement today."

Is this suit just a reflexive response from Cisco's legal team, or did Apple break off negotiations? Cisco might even get in trouble for negotiating with Apple in bad faith. The lawsuit definitely seems to say Apple is willfully infringing. I find it interesting that nowhere in the suit does it say that Cisco ever told Apple anything other than "no." If Apple and Cisco were indeed in negotiations, Cisco should have disclosed that by now.

Re:What happened to ... (1)

mgabrys_sf (951552) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549696)

Oh yes - great point (among many, and I worked in advertising and marketing and though I'd heard all options from the various legal groups we worked with on this tack). This has got to be a business lawyer's wet dream. Rossie O Donnel and Trump are nothing to the corporate pron that's about to ensue.

Look at it this way - it gives us something to watch for 6 months.

It's OK (4, Insightful)

treeves (963993) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549604)

They'll change the name, and everybody will still call it the iPhone and know it refers to Apple's phone whenever you hear iPhone, not Cisco. Mission accomplished.

Re:It's OK (1)

ben_white (639603) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549874)

They'll change the name, and everybody will still call it the iPhone and know it refers to Apple's phone whenever you hear iPhone, not Cisco. Mission accomplished.
I'd mod you up if I had points! I would dub it the "apple"-phone (as in the new "apple"-tv). Everyone and their dog calls it iPhone, Cisco can't sue, and can't really use the trademark as iPhone would have already entered the lexicon as referring to the Apple phone/music player/internet device/kitchen sink device! It's a home run for Apple!

Suggested name change (3, Funny)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549608)

Call it iCisco. Turnabout is fair play and I doubt they trademarked that specific name.

In other news the Cisco Kid wants his name back. His legal firm Pancho, Pancho and Pancho are filing papers Monday to block Cisco from using his trademarked name.

apple tv? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17549612)

and apple phone instead of iphone...

Negociations up until yesterday. (1)

Angelwrath (125723) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549674)

There was a report that Apple and Cisco were in negotiations over the use of the name until yesterday, so chances are, this is Cisco going "OMG... cash cow ahead, release the legal hounds!". They held out on agreeing to license the name to Apple because they know that they can now sue for millions.

Anyone know what the Cisco iPhone is? It's a Skype phone. That's it.

I found this on Cisco's site after searching for "iPhone" on their search engine:

http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2007/corp_010907b.h tml [cisco.com]

"News Release
Cisco's Official Comments on the Apple iPhone Announcement

SAN JOSE Calif., January 9, 2007 - Given Apple's numerous requests for permission to use Cisco's iPhone trademark over the past several years and our extensive discussions with them recently, it is our belief that with their announcement today, Apple intends to agree to the final document and public statement that were distributed to them last night and that addressed a few remaining items. We expect to receive a signed agreement today."

The Linksys iPhone is also a "featured product" on Cisco's site right now, which seems like a desperate attempt to get any attention amongst the public over its own iPhone. Apple, in one day, gained more public awareness of its iPhone than Cisco or LinkSys ever did. :)

Re:Negociations up until yesterday. (1)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549802)

If Cisco decided, at the last minute, to break off negotiations and just sue Apple, they (Cisco) are in trouble. Cisco may have breached an interim agreement with Apple, and the negotiations definitely would not qualify as having been in "good faith." Even if Apple loses/doesn't get the right to the name iPhone, Cisco stands to lose big.

Re:Negociations up until yesterday. (1)

that this is not und (1026860) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549850)

Anyone know what the Cisco iPhone is? It's a Skype phone. That's it.

Rumor has it that's what Apples phone will be too, for people with a strong dislike for certain cellular carriers but a powerful urge to purchase one of the Apple units.

Re:Negociations up until yesterday. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17549870)

As an obvious Apple fanboy, what is your opinion on the fact that Apple sues pretty much anyone with a product with "pod" in the name?

Cisco has had this trademark since 2000. The 'i' obviously stands for internet, just like the 'i' in iMac. Sounds perfectly logical to me. IMO Apple definitely deserves some this.

Good. (0, Troll)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549680)

I swear, if Apple introduces another iSomething product line, I'm gonna fucking kill them!R#@(%
As someone already mentioned,$#%S they weren't even the first/only ones to start using iSomething, thankfully almost everybody else who tried it were smart enough to drop it after a few product releases.
$#^)&@#$&(^#4BBBZZZZZZZ
OH! Looks like the RDF was malfunctioning! You suck Cisco! If Apple wants to name their phone iPhone, you should bend over and let them! If the Cisco people only understood the hidden genius of this naming scheme, they'd hand over the rights voluntarily.

iWhat? Check out this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17549780)

Sweet Motorola Ming [youtube.com] .

It Can do a lot of what the iPhone can do, comes with a cooler translucent clamshell case, 2MP camera, FM radio, Music, and more...

And Yes - It Runs Linux [engadgetmobile.com] .

why you don't publicly name your product... (4, Interesting)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549810)

...until AFTER you sign the deal taking the name, not BEFORE.

When Apple announced it as the "iPhone", their bargaining position weakened considerably; they haven't quite committed to the name (Apple COULD use a different name), but doing so put Cisco in a stronger position. Which, of course, Cisco realized- you'll note the day of the conference, Cisco was saying that they had faxed over stuff and were waiting for Apple to return the docs. I bet- the agreement probably said "all your cash are belong to us."

Even if Apple calls it the QRTB-3000, everyone ELSE will continue to refer to it as the iPhone. Apple may be hoping legions of rabid fans will side with them and Cisco will back down from a PR standpoint. Which I hope to hell never happens, because Apple fucked up on this big time. Apple may try to argue that despite Cisco having the trademark, they haven't used it in the ten years they've had it- and Cisco hasn't quashed everyone running around for the last year talking about how Apple would come out with an "iPhone."

Cisco can hardly argue damages; they have no "iPhone" product from which Apple is causing confusion.

One thing is for sure- this is going to keep Groklaw busy for the next few months.

Just call it the PhoneI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17549814)

With the last "I" pronounced as a long E.

Money (1)

Tom (822) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549818)

My guess: Someone at Cisco is certain that after Steve announced it as the iPhone, he's in a corner and will pay more than they had initially agreed upon.

A kind of extortion, really. I wouldn't be surprised.

I could have been a lot worse! (1)

Lethyos (408045) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549838)

I mean hey, it is a good thing Apple cancelled the announcement of their unreleased “iCisco” router just minutes before the keynote! Then things would have gotten really ugly.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...