iPhone Lawsuit Put On Hold For The Moment 72
SoulReaverDan writes "The recent lawsuit between Cisco and Apple on the iPhone trademark has taken an interesting turn. Cisco and Apple have agreed to a temporary truce, to allow Apple time to respond to the lawsuit (and, one assumes, avoid more legal fees). The article goes on to mention Apple's claim that several companies are using the iPhone name, which dovetails nicely with a great blog entry over on ZDNet. Alan Graham lays out a search of various websites, showing that not only is Cisco not the only one using the iPhone name, they're trying to use it just a little too hard. The image of the CIT300 (note this is NOT the CIT400 that Cisco is suing Apple for at all) on Amazon has the iPhone logo, but it lacks the logo on the Linksys website or on CDW's website."
iWankers (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh. My. God. (Score:5, Interesting)
Nobody cares. Let me know when there's something *meaningful* to report.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Are they going to pay for two years of service, too?
Re:Oh. My. God. (Score:4, Interesting)
This is extremely relevent to
I'm sure this is not the first case of this either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh. My. God. (Score:5, Insightful)
well, if you click on the second link provided, you'll see that it actually does matter if they use the trademark (within the 5 years of your own quote). they have to show continued use of said trademark during those 5 years. that's what the fuss is about photoshopping the logos in, trying to fake their use of it. if not, they have 6 months to file a type of ammendment stating they did use it (which Cisco has filed). funny thing about that filing, employees of Cisco signed under risk of perjury that the trademark was fully in use. if it is later found that it was not, then comes in the other part of your quote stating that it can "only be canceled on certain specified grounds".
the photoshop work is trying to rewrite history. they are essentially rebranding their products to support their current claims on the trademark.
so what? (Score:3, Insightful)
So, even if Cisco just starts using the trademark now, they are still months ahead of Apple.
Of course, Apple knew that the iPhone trademark was claimed by Cisco since they were negotiating with them long before they released their iPhone. Looks to me like Apple is just trying to strong-arm the trademark away from Cisco by whatever means they can.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is currently advertising the iPhone, so they are using the trademark. http://www.apple.com/iphone/ [apple.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So has Cisco, and apparently before the Apple announcement.
In any case, a trademark is "in use" only once a product has actually been sold under that name.
That is PRECISELY the point in question... (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't the point to the article is that Cisco was apparently not using the name before the Apple announcement.
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that even if that were true, it doesn't matter, since Apple still isn't using the trademark; all Apple has is an "announcement" and a non-existent product. Why should a company that is not shipping a product and that has never owned the trademark get priority over a company that is shipping a product and has, in fact, owned the trademark (even if they were to have lost it temporarily in
Re: (Score:2)
They are, in fact, using the trademark. Product announcements count, as do advertising materials on web pages. Backdated product announcements and photoshopped web pages only count from the date you post them, not the date insinuated into them by the chichanery in question.
You seem to assume that Apple owns this trademark by default
Not at all. I somply don't assume that Cisco owns the trademark by default
Re: (Score:2)
Well, let's assume for the sake of argument that that were true. What's the timeline then?
Apple starts negotiations with Cisco over the iPhone trademark long before Apple's product announcement. Cisco refrains from using the trademark f
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think this has anything to do with whether Apple or Cisco are "good guys" or "bad guys". They're corporations, they're pretty much mandated by SEC regulations to be chiselling conniving sons of bitched.
The point is that if this is Cisco's response it's really really stupid.
Apple's iPhone (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Cisco owned the trademark, they registered it, they have been using it in the past, and they are using it now. The only claim Apple has on the trademark is some similarity to other names they are using and a premature product announcement. Even if Cisco did in fact lose the tra
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
1) Don't waste your own time reading stories that you don't find interesting.
2) Don't waste your own time commenting on same.
Re:Oh. My. God. (Score:5, Funny)
Which one?
So if Apple wins the rights, then what (Score:2)
I am curious what goes down then.
It depends (Score:2)
"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"
This is from USPTO Trademark Registration [uspto.gov] #2293011
Browsing the TESS database there is always amusing. For e
Re: (Score:1)
...that sounded much funnier before I typed it. Must be HP fever induced by those promo pics from Equus [gryffindorgazette.com]. Shudder.
Enough Already (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Pretty amazing. When all is said and done, I will have changed my cell provider from AT&T Wireless to Cingular and back to AT&T Wireless without even trying. :-D
What I want to know is... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Apple is a bit of a no win situation with the (Score:2)
If they lose, then they need to rename the iPhone; with all the attendant costs.
Seems to me that an agreement is less risky than a lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
What Apple most likely will argue is that sharing the use of trademarks is allowable if the produ
Re: (Score:2)
they're already winning (Score:2)
Quite to the contrary. Apple knew that Cisco claimed the trademark, and they were in negotiations when they announced the iPhone. Not only is the lawsuit not a problem for them, it's giving them free publicity and they were counting on it.
If they win and the courts decide that placing an i in front of phone is not trademarkable, then they run the risk of losing the ability to protect their own iPhone mark and trying to control the use of i-word marks in the electronics industry
They don't h
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They're a corporation. Cynical, calculating, and arrogant is baked into their genes, lock, stock, and SEC regulations.
On the other hand, Cisco didn't even bother putting an iPhone label on their product WHILE they were in negotiations with Apple. What do you call that?
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so Apple doesn't "think different", they "think just like Microsoft" if not worse.
On the other hand, Cisco didn't even bother putting an iPhone label on their product WHILE they were in negotiations with Apple. What do you call that?
I'd call it reasonable and in good faith. After all, they had the trademark registered, they were talking about selling the trademark to Apple, why would th
Re: (Score:2)
<matrix>Welcome to the real world.</>
I'd call it reasonable and in good faith. After all, they had the trademark registered, they were talking about selling the trademark to Apple, why would they start shipping a product under that name?
And photoshopping their label on products they had previously been shipping without the label is "reasonable and in good faith"?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I live in the real world--I was making a point to the people who think Apple is the nice, touchy-feely, innovative runner up that's being crushed by evil Microsoft.
And photoshopping their label on products they had previously been shipping without the label is "reasonable and in good faith"?
Cisco was approached by Apple over the iPhone trademark long before Apple made their product announcement. If Cisco had wanted to strengthen their claims, they could simply have started s
Re: (Score:2)
Responding to bad faith with attempted fraud still doesn't seem "reasonable".
Actually, I think "stupid" is a better term. It won't strengthen their case, it will weaken it.
Marketing Strategy? (Score:2)
I never heard of the Cisco iphone until all of this started. I did hear of the Apple iPhone but wasn't aware of Cisco's iPhone.
Cisco was obviously not marketing their phone under the name iPhone so why is the name so important?
I can only guess its more cost effective for them to spend the money on a lawsuit as opposed to marketing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It was entirely Apple's choice to release their product under the name "iPhone", even though they knew that Cisco was claiming the trademark and had been in talks with Cisco about licensing. How can that be "a strategy to get the Cisco phones some press"?
iHave One (Score:4, Funny)
Says it right on the faceplate. Cisco IP Phone.
Whoops. Too many letters. Nevermind.
Have we collectively gotten to this point? (Score:2, Interesting)
Is this the corporate version of the minefield? As if to say, "Don't step on our toes, or we'll go off on you!" Is it necessary that the name of a product be sole ownershi
Re: (Score:1)
Apple is a now household name, everyone including your grandmother knows what an iPod is, at least what it looks like, even down to the crappy little white earbuds that everyone else copied. Capitalizing on that popularity, now we have the iPhone which has the whole world abuzz. Cisco, on the other hand, is a
Re: (Score:1)
Coca Cola isn't a product? What the hell have I been drinking?
Yes. (Score:2)
Yep.
How do we find ourselves in a society where product name is so important?
That's a real Mickey Mouse question.
Cisco already lost? (Score:2, Insightful)
*rimshot* (Score:1, Funny)
Cisco iPhone name (Score:5, Interesting)
So, Cisco is using iPhone because products starting with "i" are hot, because Apple is selling the iPod. But Cisco is suing Apple because Apple is selling an iPhone.
Apple lawyers immediately trademarked the name "iRony".
Re: (Score:1)
I take it they're Vanilla Ice fans?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
OTOH it is Apple...
Re: (Score:1)
So to sumarise (Score:2)
Cisco: Right. But we might lose too and then get no money out of you.
Okay, so if we pay you half the amount we would otherwise pay for our lawyers, then we both win.
Only half? We think you can do better.
Let's announce that the suit is on hold, and go negotiate.
Sounds good, let's set it up for wednesday
-GiH
Just a law student.
so, what product is Apple shipping? (Score:2)
What product exactly is Apple shipping under the iPhone name?
Re: (Score:1, Informative)