backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 42 comment(s) - last by masher2.. on Feb 3 at 10:34 AM
Apple given more time to respond to iPhone trademark infringement suit

The battle commanders over the iPhone trademark on Thursday agreed to a temporary truce in hopes of reaching an agreement before taking things to the courts.

In a joint statement from Apple and Cisco regarding iPhone trademark, the companies have announced that they “have agreed to extend the time for Apple to respond to the lawsuit to allow for discussions with the aim of reaching agreement on trademark rights and interoperability.”

While the iPhone name may already be associated with Apple and the rest of its iLife products, Cisco has owned the iPhone trademark since 2000. In fact, Cisco in December 2006 launched its own line of telephony devices carrying the iPhone brand. Apple then bravely announced its wireless product carrying the same name in January.

Cisco took immediate exception to Apple’s use of its trademark and sued for infringement. “Cisco entered into negotiations with Apple in good faith after Apple repeatedly asked permission to use Cisco's iPhone name,” said Mark Chandler, senior vice president and general counsel for Cisco. “There is no doubt that Apple's new phone is very exciting, but they should not be using our trademark without our permission.”

“Today's iPhone is not tomorrow's iPhone. The potential for convergence of the home phone, cell phone, work phone and PC is limitless, which is why it is so important for us to protect our brand,” said Chandler.

Oddly enough, Apple responded to Cisco’s lawsuit by calling it silly. “We think Cisco's trademark lawsuit is silly. There are already several companies using the name iPhone for VOIP products, and we believe that Cisco's US trademark registration is tenuous at best,” said Apple spokesperson Alan Hely.

“We are the first company ever to use the iPhone name for a cell phone, and if Cisco wants to challenge us on it we are very confident we will prevail.”

With the entertaining sound bites out of the way, the two companies will now have another two weeks to sort things out. If the decision ends up in the hands of the court, some believe that Apple and Cisco could both end up using the iPhone name on the basis of its increasing iGeneric nature.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Apple's mistake
By lazyinjin on 2/2/2007 10:35:10 AM , Rating: 2
As anti-Apple as I am, this is a really sick-nasty phone with just about everything cool wrapped into one, which will sell in rediculous volumes(relative to its steep price). But apple made a really dumb mistake launching it right after Cisco did. Now its gonna have to save face and shell out some serious dough I believe. I just wish I had trademarked the name myself!




RE: Apple's mistake
By masher2 (blog) on 2/2/07, Rating: -1
RE: Apple's mistake
By feelingshorter on 2/2/2007 12:39:39 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
This is one of the reasons Apple's position is fairly strong...and likely, the rationale behind Cisco returning to the bargaining table.


Cisco is using the trademark! Its called the VOIP iPhone. AAPL are punks, they've been known to sue people left and right. They sued people a while back (and the news was posted here) for anything that had the word pod in it. Now, they are the ones infringing on someone else's copy right bluntly. Hope AAPL goes down in flames.


RE: Apple's mistake
By masher2 (blog) on 2/2/2007 12:47:29 PM , Rating: 1
> "Cisco is using the trademark! "

The trademarked was first registered in 1996 by Infogear. Cisco bought the mark when they purchased Infogear. It's now 2007...and under trademark law, nonusage for three consecutive years is prima facie proof of abandonment.

And let's not forget the generality problem. You can't trademark the word "phone" to sells phones. Does a single lowercase "i" distinguish the word sufficiently enough to be valid for trademarking phones? Given past legal precedent, Cisco could well lose on just this objection alone.





RE: Apple's mistake
By TomZ on 2/2/2007 1:34:07 PM , Rating: 2
Apple must believe Cisco's trademark claim has merit, since they are actively negiotiating with Cisco, rather than just letting the courts sort it out.

If anything, it is a significant PR blunder on the part of Apple to not have ownership or license to the product name arranged before they announce the product using that name. I can't imagine that Apple arrived at the current situation through an active decision; someone at Apple must have dropped the ball.

Just my personal opinion: I believe that iPhone should be a valid trademark because it is a made-up word and is easily distinguished from the common word "phone." Furthermore, allowing two different phone-related products called "iPhone" from different companies would lead to brand confusion. The legal precedent may or may not be otherwise, but that is what seems reasonable to me.


RE: Apple's mistake
By masher2 (blog) on 2/2/2007 2:46:14 PM , Rating: 1
> "I believe that iPhone should be a valid trademark because it is a made-up word and is easily distinguished from the common word "phone"

The same could be said of the invented word "eMail", easily distinguished from the common word mail. Yet no one can trademark email to sell electronic mail programs, even before email entered the lexicon in its own right. And also why you'll never see the trademark "MyApple" used to sell apples...even though its a perfectly valid mark to sell electronic equipment.

In my mind, "iPhone" means internet phone. Apparently it does to a lot of other people as well. Several other companies have been selling VOiP phones under the iPhone name...some of them for two or three years.

Obviously there's a degree of judgement involved in determining how far a mark diverges from the product it describes. Several trademark attorneys have weighed in on the side of Apple. Until a judge rules, the legality is still open to debate...which is why both companies are still willing to negotiate. Still, if I was a betting man, I'd put my money on Apple winning the suit, if it ever came to trial.


RE: Apple's mistake
By TomZ on 2/2/2007 3:07:33 PM , Rating: 2
Don't mean to beat a dead horse, but I don't understand why "eMail" or "e-mail" couldn't have been trademarked by the person who first coined the phrase.

Here is what I am reading in Wikipedia, which I admit is not authoritative, although it is usually correct:

A fanciful / inherently distinctive trademark is prima facie registrable, and comprises an entirely invented or "fanciful" sign. For example, "Kodak" had no meaning before it was adopted and used as a trademark in relation to goods, whether photographic goods or otherwise. Invented marks are neologisms which will not previously have been found in any dictionary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark

and

The term e-mail, as used today, would be an example of a neologism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism

If I string these two together, I would have to conclude that e-mail could have been a valid trademark. What went wrong with this/my logic?


RE: Apple's mistake
By masher2 (blog) on 2/2/07, Rating: 0
RE: Apple's mistake
By crystal clear on 2/3/2007 4:26:19 AM , Rating: 2
"the person who first coined the phrase. (E-mail.)"

Unfortunately it should been coined "i-mail"-in short for
"internet mail."

Because this type of mail is transmitted via the "internet".
Without the internet you can SEND/RECIEVE this mail.
There is nothing electronic about this mail.

Quote-

email, e-mail Show phonetics
noun
1 [U] the system for using computers to send messages over the Internet:
You can contact us by email or fax.
What's your email address?

Also-

fax Show phonetics
noun
1 [C] (a copy of) a document that travels in electronic form along a telephone line and is then printed on paper:
I'll send you a fax with the details of the proposal.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=252...







RE: Apple's mistake
By masher2 (blog) on 2/3/2007 10:30:34 AM , Rating: 2
> "There is nothing electronic about this mail..."

You mean, except for the fact that it exists in electronic form, and is composed, transmitted, stored, and read upon electronic devices? :p

> "Unfortunately it should been coined "i-mail"-in short for "internet mail."

Oops...people were sending and receiving email long before the Internet existed. Even today, a substantial percentage of emails never see the Internet at all...they travel entirely over local corporate or university networks only.


RE: Apple's mistake
By MustaineC on 2/2/2007 2:26:46 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder what Apple would do if another company released an iBook.


RE: Apple's mistake
By INeedCache on 2/2/2007 4:52:39 PM , Rating: 4
They would scream and gather up their cadre of lawyers and sue, sue, sue! There seems to be a double standard amongst many folks regarding Apple. It seems they should be allowed to do whatever they want, while others cannot come anywhere close to anything Apple. I can't help thinking if this were Microsoft in place of Apple, the hordes would be calling for Cisco to sue them to into oblivion. I'm not sure where this comes from, but it seems many people seem to think Apple is some kind company looking out for you, while barely squeaking by with minimal profits. Meanwhile, Microsoft so some evil company only trying to rip you off. You folks need to wake up and smell the coffee, and come to grips with corporate America. I have nothing against Apple, per se, but I also have nothing against Microsoft, either. I don't think many can say that from what I've been reading around here.


RE: Apple's mistake
By masher2 (blog) on 2/2/2007 5:31:09 PM , Rating: 2
> "There seems to be a double standard amongst many folks regarding Apple. It seems they should be allowed to do whatever they want..."

Personally, I really don't like Apple the company, any of their products, or even Jobs himself. I try not to let it cloud my judgement though. In this particular case, its my opinion that Apple is in the right.


RE: Apple's mistake
By TomZ on 2/2/2007 5:53:57 PM , Rating: 2
Besides, we can always count on you for a contrarian viewpoint. :o)


RE: Apple's mistake
By masher2 (blog) on 2/3/2007 1:26:51 AM , Rating: 2
On those subjects where my view agrees with the majority, I'm rarely motivated enough to post. :)


RE: Apple's mistake
By crimson40 on 2/3/2007 9:48:42 AM , Rating: 2
It is used by an active Cisco product: http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satellite?c=L_Promo...

(Cisco is Linksys's parent company).


RE: Apple's mistake
By fic2 on 2/2/2007 12:44:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is one of the reasons Apple's position is fairly strong


Since Cisco (through Linksys) has a product named iPhone:
http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satellite?c=L_Promo...
I conclude that you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Since Cisco has an iPhone product then I would guess that Cisco's position is fairly strong.


RE: Apple's mistake