01-10-2007, 10:23 AM

Report from the San Jose Mercury News - Full story here: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...l/16425178.htm


IPhone has been the rumored name for Apple's cell phone effort for years. The company reportedly registered the iPhone.org domain name in 1999. But Cisco acquired a company that has owned the U.S. trademark since 1999.


THIS could be interesting, especially after Apple's tangle with Creative.

01-10-2007, 12:24 PM

Yeah I was wondering what was going to come from this.. I guess we'll see.

01-10-2007, 06:45 PM

Cisco is suing Apple Computer for trademark infringement in a federal court, for using the iPhone name.

More to come....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6250511.stm


Thanks
Alex

01-10-2007, 06:56 PM

intersting read... they will settle but I think apples stock will take a hit of a few dollars tomorrow when the investors hear about it, I think the stock will rebound though by the next day.

01-10-2007, 11:08 PM

I see 2 options here...

- Apple buys/gets permission from Cisco to use the name.
- On the they of the iPhone's release it will recieve a new name, probably Apple Phone, just like the iTV, i mean Apple TV.

01-11-2007, 09:31 AM

To be honest I feel that this is very pathetic on Cisco's part. They say that they are wanting to protect their own trademark when the name is an obvious copy of apple's main franchises.

It's like the people who buy domains like www.ps3.org and things as soon as the ps3 is announced simply so they can sell them on to people who actually want to make sites.

Although they do have a product it's a pretty crap one which doesn't really deserve the name.

01-11-2007, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by Starky

To be honest I feel that this is very pathetic on Cisco's part. They say that they are wanting to protect their own trademark when the name is an obvious copy of apple's main franchises.

It's like the people who buy domains like www.ps3.org and things as soon as the ps3 is announced simply so they can sell them on to people who actually want to make sites.

Although they do have a product it's a pretty crap one which doesn't really deserve the name.

The trademark dates back to before Apple began using the iName branding, and that practice, puting a lower case i or e befor a product name is hardly an Apple invention. It seems that Apple users can be somewhat insular in this reguard, not knowing much about the industry as a whole, and then end up thinking Apple is being copied by companies that had products and names out prior to Apple making use of something similar. Just because Apple has two succesful products using a certain naming scheme that they didn't originate doesn't mean that they are entitled to any other similar name now.

Cisco is a large, well established company that is worth many times over what Apple is, so they hardly need to resort to any backhanded tacticts to earn a little extra cash. The truth is Apple had asked for the trademark and was in talks with Cisco for a license when they just decided they'd use it anyway, claiming that they were different products and wouldn't compete directly. Now Apple has had good luck bullying companies in this fashion before, but I seriously doubt that Cisco will roll over and take it. First of all, Apple has much more to lose here than Cisco, and already Cisco can claim damages for dilution of trademark due to Apple's actions-- first negotiating in bad faith and then making a major announcment when they had obviously agreed that Cisco owned the trademark (implicitly, you wouldn't be in talks to buy the rights if you didn't think that they owned the trademark, would you?) And since Cisco (Linksys branded), already has an iPhone product on the market, they are obviously using the trademark, aren't they?

In partiular, I see a real problem due to one simple fact. The iPhone (Apple) can run dashboard widgets, and there is a Skype widget available. Couple that with the built in 802.11x and you've got Skype phone functionality, which is what the iPhone (Cisco) is-- a Skype phone. Apple is competing directly with Cisco, using a trademark that they don't have rights to, but Cisco does, and has had rights to since before the iPod was ever invented. Do you think that's going to fly in court?

01-11-2007, 08:28 PM

I did a bit of research into the iPhone. it was origonally released in 1997 and was never a popular product.

The trademark was never used again until 2006

How popular were iPods in 2006? Very. It's quite obvious that this is the only reason they resurrected the trademark.

01-11-2007, 11:24 PM

here is my own bit of research:

The USPTO record shows that Infogear Technology Corporation originally applied for the trademark on March 20, 1996. The mark was "published for opposition" on December 29, 1998 and officially recorded (registered) as a trademark on November 16, 1999. The "last listed owner" of the mark is listed as "Cisco Technology, Inc."

for those of the i-whatever persuasion:

Ipod-- Introduced in 2001.
Imac-- Introduced in 1998

Iphone trademark-- 1996

now i get lost when trying to understand the actual law of trademark names, and i just get confused and have to lie down for a while. i will leave it to the trade lawyers and courts to figure out who is right.
for now, my money is not on apple..............

01-12-2007, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by Starky

I did a bit of research into the iPhone. it was origonally released in 1997 and was never a popular product.

The trademark was never used again until 2006

How popular were iPods in 2006? Very. It's quite obvious that this is the only reason they resurrected the trademark.

So it's obvious, so what? That doesn't entitle Apple to every name that starts with a lowercase i.

01-12-2007, 10:54 PM

Read THIS.

Little is ever as it seems. Now we know why Steve went ahead.

01-13-2007, 12:04 AM

Interesting read.

01-16-2007, 12:13 AM

Yeah, would't worry about Apple, I'm sure they have every loop hole clearly thought out. Also, to whomever said this "Cisco is a large, well established company that is worth many times over what Apple is" quite a bold statement to make considering the market share these days eh?

01-16-2007, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by SpindleX

Also, to whomever said this "Cisco is a large, well established company that is worth many times over what Apple is" quite a bold statement to make considering the market share these days eh?

Not really. Cisco is the richest company in Silcon Valley. They sell vastly different products then Apple, obviously. Cisco's market cap is ~ $175 billion, while Apple's is ~ $81 billion, market cap being defined as what a company is worth. So Cisco is worth more than double of what Apple is. Maybe not quite "many times over," but Cisco is a bigger company than Apple. I was just pointing that out because of the people suggesting that Cisco was just some little company trying to grab a little money in the sue fest that is the American corporate business scene these days. And frankly, since Apple is one of the most sue happy big corporations around, I don't see how people have room to complain.