Cisco Systems said today it is suing Apple in federal court over Apple’s use of Cisco’s registered iPhone trademark for its new handheld device. Cisco has owned the trademark on the name “iPhone” since 2000, when it acquired InfoGear Technology, which originally registered the name. And three weeks ago, Cisco’s Linksys division put the trademark to use, releasing an Internet-enabled phone called “iPhone” that uses VoIP. “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. “There is no doubt that Apple’s new phone is very exciting, but they should not be using our trademark without our permission.” Cisco is seeking injunctive relief to prevent Apple from copying Cisco’s iPhone trademark.
January 11th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Ok so rename it Apple Phone just like the new Apple TV. And the phone does not really need a removable battery, Just plug it it. I think that Cisco is just jelous that Apple can make better products. Apple has also had the “i” in almost all their producs. ipod, imac. They should be aloud to make “iphone” so really cisco stole the “i” from Apple long ago. Thats just what I think. You might think differently
January 11th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Apple’s use of the trademark “iPod,” “iLife,” iWork, etc. does not, ipso facto, mean that Apple may use any like trademark. This is an issue related to the ownership rights of Cisco in the trademark “iPhone.”
Apple does not own this trademark and can only use it by license or purchase. From what I’ve been able to gather, Apple Legal believes that since Cisco’s “iPhone” is a VOIP product, there will be no marketplace confusion, since the Apple iPhone operates on a different platform.
I don’t agree with this argument, but regardless, my question is how could Apple Legal let Jobs go out and announce the iPhone–knowing that Cisco owned it and that litigation would be a foregone conclusion-possibly: [1] ultimately increasing the cost of licensing the trademark from Cisco; or, [2] possibly suffering a court order enjoining Apple’s use of the mark and delaying the lauch date to the market?
Examining these questions from a purely business judgment position, why would you choose this path after all the research and development, money and effort poured into the Apple phone? Surely not as a public relations gimmick [as some have suggested].