Posted on 01/13/2007 8:49:36 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.zdnet.com ...
The article contains an expert legal analysis, and it looks like Cisco probably did lose its iPhone trademark due to non-use of it before they introduced their iPhone.
I'm not an Apple fanboy, but if this is true, Cisco shot themselves in the foot by dragging out the negotations till the demonstration and then suing.
Pretty funny and stupid. Should have took the easy cash while they could.
The Apple iPhone only has EDGE speed, not the newer faster 3G according to Cingular. I want a faster internet connection.
And who knows if it even a good quality phone?
Same with frivolous patents. It borders on unethical.
I read the article. If true, it does sound like they lapsed it through neglect.
Cars are particularly sold this way, and also the iPod and upcoming iPhone.
If the iphone doesn't have 3G then it's old even before it's out. I think another silly omission is GPS with that big screen. I think I'll wait for version 2 which I bet will be 3G.
Not really. Regardless of what the courts decide it will take them past June to decide it, in the meanwhile Cisco should easily be able to get an injunction keeping Apple from using the name until the court case is decided (and vice versa). It's the timing that puts Apple in the biggest bind, they have to get this all settled by release date, most likely either by paying Cisco or by changing the name of the product because the courts just don't move that fast.
What about the fact Cisco released an iPhone product is December of 2006, a month prior to Apple? Even if the trademark is decided by the court to be abandoned, how does Apple get rights to something someone else reclaimed prior to them?
Apple may have a chance. Trademark is about public perception of a product, and the public was practically chanting "iPhone, iPhone" from Apple for months before Cisco even introduced its iPhone. Remember the surprise? "iPhone, from Cisco? What the hell is that? There was supposed to be an Apple iPhone."
But courts just don't move that quickly, and Cisco can make sure of that. When was the last time you saw a case between two large companies that actually had to be decided by the courts (settlements don't count) finished in 6 months?
I'm not sure. From the article, it looks like Apple can show bad faith on Cisco's part, especially the box with "iPhone" slapped on it to make the USPTO think Cisco was still using the name. Also, Apple can say Cisco only restarted the use of "iPhone" because of all of the speculation and hype over an Apple iPhone -- IOW, Cisco profiting off of Apple.
This is just a bad situation overall. Apple should have bought "iPhone" from Cisco through a shell company (so Cisco wouldn't milk them) a couple years ago. Cisco wasn't using then it anyway, and probably didn't have plans to.
LOL - if nothing else, it kept Apple and the iPhone in the headlines all week... nice marketing move!
(CES? What was that??)
Never. And we've seen from SCO that it can be purposefully drawn out for several years. But the problem would be in Cisco getting that injunction. Apple would surely immediately ask for a summary judgment that Cicso's trademark is invalid due to fraudulent filing -- and fraud is pretty obvious from the photo in the article.
Cisco "renamed" an existing product as "iPhone" in December, 2006. Funny thing is, the only place "iPhone" appears is on the packaging. Too little, too late, to jump on the gravy train, imho.
Didn't think of that one. Smooth move.
So Cisco doesn't have anything better to do than file nuisance suits?
Hmmn, iPodPhone, iPP? Maybe not, not a wise marketing move! Okay, aPhone would be better.
Getting the injunction is easy, as long as ownership of the name is in question the only responsible thing the courts can do is not allow either company to use it. There's nothing fraudulent about the filing, Cisco has a product out with that name, and has paperwork between Apple and themselves negotiating the sale of the name, up until the recent stuff from the "experts" there's no reason for Cisco to not assume they own the name. Sure there was some 11th hour (or maybe 13th hour) actions to defend the territory, but that's just a smart thing to do when somebody comes offering to buy a trademark you're not actually using, make sure you've actually got something to sell.
The mark has lapsed. Stupid on the part of Cisco. Sort of like Ford allowing "Galaxy" and "500" to lapse in the United States.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.