Search
Apple iPhone, Cisco iPhone? |
Within 24 hours of the release of the Apple iPhone announcement by Steve Jobs at Macworld earlier this week, Cisco filed a law suit against Apple for the use of the iPhone name, despite talks between the two companies that had apparently fell through. Cisco had owned the iPhone trademark for a number of years, and Jobs’ announcement with the name was what many are calling a bold move.
Many speculations have been floating around about what the result of the lawsuit will be, one of which is that both companies will be able to use the somewhat generic term “iPhone” in conjunction with their respective products, branding one the “Apple iPhone”, and the other the “Cisco iPhone” or “Linksys iPhone”.
A dual ownership would be a good potential outcome for Apple according to Bruce Sunstein, co-founder of the Boston law firm Bromberg & Sunstein via News.com. “Cisco holds a clear advantage in the legal dispute as the trademark holder of record and having already released products using the iPhone name” said Sunstein. “The one who has a registration is in a better position than the one who does not. Apple’s only choice is to argue that its ‘iFamily’ of trademarks such as iPod, iTunes and iMac create confusion in a customer’s mind as to who makes the iPhone”.
In addition, according to Sustein the ownership of the iPhone trademark in other countries has no bearing on Apple’s grip on it in the US. “The fact that Apple may have superior rights in Australia doesn’t (give) them any rights in the U.S.,” he said.
Katie Cotton, a spokeswoman for Apple had a little different take on the situation in an article with the New York times, saying that Apple was confident it had the strongest claim to the name. “We believe that Cisco’s U.S. trademark is tenuous at best,” Cotton told The New York Times. “We are the first company to use the iPhone name for a cell phone and we’re confident we will prevail.” Another Apple spokeswoman named Natalie Kerris called the lawsuit “silly” earlier this week.
Well, it appears that Cisco doesn’t think it’s silly, and a company the size of Cisco is not to be taken lightly, even by the likes of Apple. According to the lawsuit, Cisco described the Apple iPhone to be “deceptively and confusingly similar” to that of Cisco’s iPhone. Now, Cisco is a very prominent and popular company, especially in the tech industry, but it seems odd to hear Cisco referring to Apple’s iPhone as if it is potentially a knock-off of the iPhone offered by Linksys, since Apple’s version seems to have had a lot more anticipation and hype. Clearly Cisco couldn’t be implying that Apple is trying to take advantage of the popularity surrounding the Linksys VoIP handset? Of course, Cisco did have their version of the iPhone out first and they did have the trademark registered.
Both companies have pretty deep pockets and are perfectly capable of battling out a large drawn out case, but to what end? Losing the iPhone name would certainly be a chink in Apple’s armor of product lines, but maybe it would have been anyway? At least through this process they made a strong public effort to brand their product the iPhone, and it’s very possible that despite losing a lawsuit it would continue to be dubbed ‘iPhone’ by consumers just as it had before its launch.
  |
RELATED ARTICLES:
Cisco Gives Apple MORE Time on iPhone Dispute
Apple, Cisco Agree to Disagree on iPhone a Little Longer
Apple and Cisco settle on lawsuit - Apple iPhone, Cisco iPhone
Cisco Sues Apple for Infringement on iPhone Trademark
I’ve read recently that Cisco may in fact not even own the trademark for the iPhone, but this may not make a difference either way.
The purpose of a trademark is to protect the consumer, not the retailer. A judgement may go with Apple due to brand association regardless of who has a trademark.
Cisco, like Microsoft, are marketing hacks who can’t let their products stand on merit. iAnything is Apple. Only an idiot would assume different. If anything Cisco was banking on consumer confusion. Poor form Cisco - resorting to tactics one might expect from a Chinese knock off manufacturer.
Actually trademark law is to protect the owner of the trademark, not the consumer. Although a measure of confusion in consumer’s minds as to who the true owner of a mark is a factor. The fact that Cisco have an existing registered trademark is HUGELY in their favor as the burden shifts to Apple to prove either that Cisco should not have it (the fact Apple have not petitioned in the past 2 years to cancel Cisco’s trademark goes strongly against them on this point) or that Apple’s products are SO different that a consumer could not possibly confuse the true source of a product. The trouble for Apple is that their iPhone is not that different from the Linksys phones TO THE AVERAGE PERSON - note, it is not relevant what a “savvy” person might think, but what the regular joe or jane might think. So unless Apple knows something I dont, they are almost certain to lose this case big time. As other’s have commented elsewhere, it would have been SO much wiser for Apple to have done a deal with Cisco pre-launch or to have not use the iPhone mark (iFone? iFon? some original name more like iPod? Use some creativity Apple, its what you’re meant to be good at!).
Ray,
Its amazing how Apple fan boys will line up to lick the sweat off of Steve Job’s jock strap.
Can Apple do no wrong in your eyes?
“Actually trademark law is to protect the owner of the trademark, not the consumer.”
Link please. It’s going to be pretty hard to find because you’re wrong.
Trademark law is primarily concerned with consumer confusion. (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm; see 7. Trademark Infringement, where oddly there is no disclosure of an absolute “owners protection” that you describe above). Even a trademark dilution action to prevent dilution of famous marks (and does not require a likelihood of confusion analysis) is still rooted in protecting consumers. The rationale is that if a mark has risen to the level of being famous it is implied that a consmuer would be confused as to the source of goods or services sold by another under the same or similar name no matter how unrelated they were to the described class of goods or services in the trademark.
Well if a trademark law can strip a man of his legal name because it is a trademark, then Apple has no chance. FAMOUS AMOS!
lol, cisco had it first. this whole apple i-whatev is f*king gay. how creative, who’s the f**k-tard who thought of this i-sh*t anyway? i cant believe anyone could believe apple deserves the rights to ‘iphone’ when cisco has already trademarked it.
also, iget ia if**king ilife iapple!
That is is they most ignorant comment I have heard all day and I am a highschool student. I am guessing you are either really uneducated or just a straight dimwit.
I agree with the comment made by Kames (or is it James)but I am not at Uni. yet, and even I can see that you are an outright idiot
apple………Cisco had it first, and they have the trademark, and NO apple doesn’t deserve it. Cisco had it, they keep it, apple looses they horrible marketing slogan. AWWWW poor apple, they’re going to kill themselves over the fact that they can’t continue their ish*t slogan. maybe if your products don’t suck, your products are reasonably priced, and dont have gay shit like i-pod, then you would have had a chance, but too late. i have waited to see apple get f****d in the a**, because i knew it was coming. i knew Cisco had an i-phone. and i knew those pricks at apple were going to make a phone and call it i-phone. i hope you loose badly you f***s
definitely correct. trademarks protect the companies to protect their brand and marker dominance or give them an IP edge, period. It’s irrelevant who wants it and doesn’t have it, or how much money they have. Apple lost this battle and frankly a company who hinges on marketing to make one hit wonders should fall hard, esp for a company with proprietary closed minded mentalities that tries to be unique. As for the interface, it may be a nice gimmick but the featureset is inferior to other smart phones and will be emulated as soon as this consumer trial period passes.
why dont apple just get a ilife and just call it iCell or iCom or something
The deal here is not that apple = iAnything, its that Cisco has been releasing the “iPhone” in various forms since I think 1996, before apple concieved of iAnything. Apple knew about this before they even started the i-product crap, and this battle started back in 2001 behind closed doors. Cisco has much deeper pockets than apple, and already owns the rights. Thankfully, cisco is smart, and chose to partner with apple rather than make an enemy.
Plus cisco basically owning 80% of the internet…you know, AT&T, and therefor apple, shouldn’t be pushing too hard.
I think this is hilarious. Like Ray said - iAnything is automatically an Apple trademark. I love how everyone banks of the marketing of Apple… Originality at it’s finest!
APPLE rocks it is like the best thing that ever happened to this world and if you dont like it thats your problem but dont bo being rude to everyone esle!!!!!!!!
if someone had something first and legally declared this, then by law nobody can copy it. its common sense, but i guess common sense is not common after all.
ALL PRAISE APLLE!!!
Geez. Don’t be jealous apple haters.
the apple iphone could of come up with a better name?
i mean just for a name so much trouble
@apple - just replace P to F.. iPhone to iFhone case closed!