iPhone to iOWNED

[Cobster]

http://today.reuters.com/news/artic...110_RTRIDST_0_BUSINESSPRO-CISCO-IPHONE-DC.XML
Looks like Jobs might have to rename his phone.
Cisco trademarked the name back in 1990.
Their lawyers have been in talks, but Jobs' lawyers haven't signed off on an agreement.
Jobs still went ahead with his keynote iPhone presentation, arrogant or stupid?
If you got stocks, might want to sell now, in case people panick and do so before you do.

 

[kooley]

kind of old news, they threatened this a few months ago. One thing is forsure, this will be a good one to watch and will make a few lucky lawyers rich.

 

[Cobster]

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/12/18/linksys_launches_iphone/

 

[xarir]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6250511.stm

Cisco to sue Apple on iPhone name

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

Apple launched its new handheld device under the iPhone name on Tuesday, at the Macworld event in San Francisco.

Following the launch Cisco said it hoped to resolve the matter by Tuesday evening after negotiations.

Cisco, which has owned the trademark since 2000, said it thought Apple would agree to a final document and public statement regarding the trademark.

"Cisco entered into negotiations with Apple in good faith after Apple repeatedly asked permission to use Cisco's iPhone name," said Mark Chandler, Cisco senior vice-president and general counsel, in a statement.

The firm has owned the name since it bought Infogear Technology in 2000, which registered the name.

This issue is not about money, and it's not about the phone itself; it is about Cisco's obligation to protect its trademark in the face of Apple using it without our permission.

Infogear had previously used the name for several years said Cisco.

Cisco, which supplies networks, said it would seek to stop Apple from "infringing upon and deliberately copying and using" the trademark.

Jon Noh, a spokesperson for Cisco told the BBC: "This issue is not about money, and it's not about the phone itself; it is about Cisco's obligation to protect its trademark in the face of Apple using it without our permission."

Apple was not immediately available for comment.

Cisco's Linksys arm has employed the trademark since early 2006, and in December it launched its own phone, capable of connecting to the internet, called the iPhone.

News of Apple's launch of its touch screen has been long awaited and Steve Jobs, the firm's head, said the phone would revolutionise the market.

Shares in Apple were 1.3% lower in after-hours trade, having risen 8% after the phone was launched a day earlier.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/6250511.stm

Published: 2007/01/11 00:46:34 GMT

© BBC MMVII

 

[canucklehead]

iYawn...... Apple sued ...... unheard of.......... hmmmmmmm changed the name to Apple Inc is another one to get sued over....... but not the first and not the last.

 

[anon1]

Any good patent lawyer can kill this suit.
Apple has used the "I" prefix since the Imac. That predates Infogear.
That prefix has become a generic tech term in general usage.
Cisco may have bought Infogear and but has let the copyrights fall into disuse by not marketing the product.
Worse case scenerio is that Apple cannot market the IPhone title, but it can use it as subtext and therefore claim public domain.

 

[Cobster]

They may not have used it, but their arguement will be, the name is still legally ours. We do have a product with the name branded on it (above image). It'll be interesting now for sure.

 

[basketcase]

Cisco should just market ther own product as iphone and see what apple does.

 

[anon1]

iOwned
iSue
iYawned

just in this thread, we've proven Apple's case.

 

[Meister]

I think Jobs did this on purpose for 2 reasons:

- to generate more publicity
- to show people how inferior the cisco version is (although it does different things) and that the public will therefore love the apple product even more

Personally, I prefer the Linksys VOIP, Skype phone because it gets around the Rogers ass raping.

 

[canucklehead]

iPhone would have been a non issue with out ical imovie imac ibook itunes iphoto etc etc etc....... The Phone product was trademarked by a company in 91 that Cisco purchased....... product is released two weeks before the Apple cell iPhone....... cash grab.

 

[Never Compromised]

An investigation into the ongoing trademark dispute between Cisco and Apple over the name "iPhone" appears to show that Cisco does not own the mark as claimed in their recent lawsuit. This is based on publicly available information from the US Patent and Trademark office, as well as public reviews of Cisco products over the past year. The trademark was apparently abandoned in late 2005/early 2006 because Cisco was not using it.

According to Jay Behmke, a partner at CMPR who specializes in trademark law,

The Cisco iPhone trademark was registered 11/16/1999 (Reg. No. 2293011). In order to keep a trademark registration active, you have to file a Declaration of Use on or before the sixth anniversary of the registration date, in which you state, under penalty of perjury, that you have been using the trademark continuously during that period. The sixth anniversary would have been 11/16/2005.

Cisco did not file the Declaration of Use by 11/16/2005, which if they had been using the trademark would seemingly have been easy to do. However, the USPTO gives you an extra six months grace period, if you pay an extra fee. This grace period would have expired 5/16/2006. Cisco filed a Declaration of Use on 5/4/2006 which kept their registration active. Had they not filed, their registration would have been canceled.

With the Declaration, you are required to file a copy of a label or other packaging showing the trademark in use. Cisco filed a picture of the box for the Linksys iPhone.

CIT200 - iPhone or not?

A cropped version of the picture filed by Cisco is shown above. You can find the full image on the USPTO web site. The picture shows a box for the Linksys CIT200 Cordless Internet Telephony Kit, with a sticker showing the word "iPhone™" affixed to the back, outside the shrink wrap. The front of the box is not shown, but it doesn't appear that the word iPhone appears anywhere else on the box.

A search of product reviews of the CIT200 shows no mention of the word iPhone [1]. The first mention appeared in December 2006 when Cisco unveiled a series of new products bearing the iPhone name. It was not until then that the CIT200 was rebranded under the iPhone moniker [2].

Tom Keeting, CTO of TMC Labs writes:

In fact, this seems to be true since the Linksys CIT200 and the Linksys CIT310, (both of which I reviewed) are now called the iPhone and were only recently renamed on December 18th. Specifically, each Linksys/Cisco product is called the Cordless Internet Telephony Kit or iPhone for short. The PDF manuals still reference the old name, such as this manual for the CIT200 and I couldn't find a single reference to the word "iPhone" in the manual even though I see "iPhone®" with the registered trademark throughout their website. I guess they missed that. Time to re-print/convert those PDFs!

This information indicates that Cisco did not actively offer a product named "iPhone" between 1999 and December 2006. But they knew Apple was interested in the name because Apple had approached them and negotiations were ongoing. Jay Behmke writes:

If Cisco didn't launch a product using the iPhone name, their trademark registration would be canceled and they would have no bargaining chips with Apple. So in order to keep the trademark active, they had to file the Declaration of Use, and start selling a product under that trademark.

It is possible that the Declaration of Use is defective, as there was no continuous use, and the sample that Cisco submitted was for a product not released until 7 months later. The fact that the Declaration of Use was submitted only days before the deadline expires gives me the impression that they were scrambling to get a product to market, and had to file the Declaration before the product was ready.

If Apple can prove in federal court that the Declaration of Use contained misstatements of fact, i.e. that there was no continuous use, then Cisco's registration can be canceled. This could clear the way for the next company in line for the iPhone trademark, Ocean Telecom Services LLC (widely regarded as a front company for Apple). It could also explain why Apple decided not to sign the agreement Cisco proposed. Behmke:

Without the registration, Cisco and Apple would still have a trademark dispute to resolve, but Cisco will have a harder time proving that it has valid trademark rights.

Cisco acquired the trademark when it purchased Infogear in 2000. Ironically, Infogear was granted the trademark after it was abandoned by its previous owner, a company called "Cidco".

 

[canucklehead]

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=236

Original Blog posting

 

[Svend]

Didn't Apple settled with the Beatles with the promise they wouldn't get into music?

 

[Cobster]

Ya, they won over a technicality.
http://news.com.com/Beatles+judge+finds+iTunes+nothing+to+get+hung+about/2100-1027_3-6069490.html

The judge disagreed, upholding Apple Computer's argument that it wasn't violating the 1991 agreement because it was not the original source of the content available on iTunes. "For Computer to cross into Corps' territory with its mark it would have to have indicated, by its use of the mark, that Computer was the source or origin of the music," the judge wrote. "It did not do so and has never done so...The ownership of the rights is always attributed to the correct person within (iTunes) and in the track information on any downloaded track."

 

[canucklehead]

Funny thing is Beattes music is available on the iTunes tore now....... i believe Sgt Pepper was the background music for the iPhone release.

 

[anon1]

http://www.iphoneforum.info/