Cisco Vs. Apple Your everyday trademark infringement claim

[nightfox1405241487 0]

I'm sure by now everyone has heard of the Cisco Systems, Inc. vs. Apple Computer, Inc. for trademark infringement of "iPhone". This is a really childish case & waste of money, IMO. I believe it was said on the news that Cisco would have probably let Apple use the trademark had they asked. You'd think a company as old as Apple would have a legal department with some competence in it. It was Apple's responsibility to check trademarks before naming the product.

 

I explained this case to someone like in a way like this: If I go and create a coffee brand called Starbucks, but sold different coffee flavours, either way, I'm still going to get my butt dragged to court for copyright/trademark infringement. Can I say that I didn't know "Starbucks" was already a registered trademark? NO! I should have checked beforehand but didn't.

 

I have to side with Cisco on this one. Apple clearly broke the law. They never asked for permission to do it and Cisco deserves to sue Apple for whatever amount they please. If Apple would have asked, they probably would have gotten the thumbs up from Cisco to use it (of course, it would probably come with a royalty fee), but they chose to "steal" it. All Cisco is doing is protecting what is theirs. They have every right to. Maybe for once, Apple could re-name it, the Apple Phone. I'd say "Apple Talk" but that's a networking protocol for Macs to talk to Windows and Windows to talk to Macs.

 

Edit

 

Quote I found on Cisco's press release:

"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, 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," Chandler concluded.

Link to official press release: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

[N]F

Edited January 13, 2007 by nightfox (see edit history)

[Hercco 0]

You just have to wonder how companies of this calibre can do that kind of screw-ups. IPhone is quite a generic name and even if it wasn't you'd think it's a standard procedure to check if your new product name has already been trademarked. Cisco is in position to potentially pump a lot money from Apple. Apple's iPhone has already got a lot of publicity and the big marketing machine has been started. I bet Apple won't be changing the name easily and would pay for the name a hefty sum.

[Arbitrary 0]

I've got to say that most companies who do something similar to what Cisco did (you know, sue someone because of a name that they thought belonged to them) are rather pathetic. I mean, come on! It's just a name. These companies really don't have to fall head over heels in pain over such a small legal issue. But on the other hand, it is a good opportunity for the suer (aka Cisco) to earn some big bucks out of Apple.

 

And yes, while I agree with nightfox that Apple clearly broke the law, it just seems rather childish to see these companies fighting over something like this. In fact, it seems even more childish that there are laws to protect a certain brand name. I'm starting to think this plagiarism thing is getting out of hand.

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

Couldn't Apple just name it iTalk or something instead of iPhone?xboxrulz

[Markymark2 0]

Hehe ...NO is the answer because Italk is used as a product name by many companies..a quick google and I found pages and pages of different products..mainly Voip systems or mobile phone companies..so they will be stepping on other companies toes...Why not call it IHype?

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

or just call it iParle (from French for talk) or iVoco (latin for call)xboxrulz

[nightfox1405241487 0]

or just call it iParle (from French for talk) or iVoco (latin for call)
xboxrulz

If anything, this radio station I was streaming today brought this lawsuit up and the host said that Apple might re-brand it as Apple Phone like they did Apple TV. I think they were going to call it "iTV" but again, legal issues came up and so they fell back to Apple TV.

[N]F

[Saint_Michael 3]

Well of course you can't forget Microsoft little hand in this, remember they own a good size chunk of Apple stock. Of course Apple is trying to be like Microsoft and bend all the rules about copyrights and all that good stuff. But I say if Cisco was smart they sell the name, it's not like they are using it or anything.

[nightfox1405241487 0]

Well of course you can't forget Microsoft little hand in this, remember they own a good size chunk of Apple stock. Of course Apple is trying to be like Microsoft and bend all the rules about copyrights and all that good stuff. But I say if Cisco was smart they sell the name, it's not like they are using it or anything.

Linksys uses it for the Linksys iPhone: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

[N]F
Edited January 14, 2007 by nightfox (see edit history)

[unimatrix 0]

Apple should have trademarked anything starting with the lower case i and having to do with interactivity or filed a business process patent for things using the internet start with a lower case i followed by a capital letter....Given how screwy the business patent process is now, Apple probably could have gotten it approved.

[Markymark2 0]

You miss the point Unimatrix..just like with thier tech Apple is jsut behind the times..they kinda think they own any words that have "I" at the front but a simple google proves they dont..if I can do it why cant they?Arrogance? they think if they do it that the other companies will back down..like with Creative and the jog wheel...

[Artluo100 0]

I thought that apple and cisco already agreed on the the iphone trademark.