Cisco sues Apple for trademark infringement: ruh roh!

"It is our belief that Apple intends to agree to the final document." Not so much. We're not quite sure what broke down in talks between Cisco and Apple, but they ain't playing friendly no more. Cisco just announced that it has filed a lawsuit in Northern California to prevent Apple from infringing upon its registered iPhone trademark. The word yesterday was that Apple and Cisco had been involved in "extensive discussions," and that they were expecting Apple to sign up for whatever final agreement they proposed. "Cisco entered into negotiations with Apple in good faith after Apple repeatedly asked permission to use Cisco's iPhone name," says Mark Chandler of Cisco. "There is no doubt that Apple's new phone is very exciting, but they should not be using our trademark without our permission." Obviously all we've heard so far is Cisco spin on the situation, but so far it sounds like they're being fairly reasonable with Apple on this -- it is their own dang trademark after all. So what gives, Apple?

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]

[csjk789 @ Jan 10th 2007 9:40PM]

I suggest you buy a Mac product like I did.

I used to hate Macs, then I bought an iPod mini and it worked great. Then I needed a new computer and decided what the hell why not try an iBook, I have 30 days to return what I expected to be a total piece.

I've bought nothing but Macs ever since and switched all my PCs over to Ubuntu and Knopix.

Before you're so quick to criticize, as I was, try it out.

[sue_apple @ Jan 10th 2007 6:53PM]

About time - hope Apple looses this one big time, because it would serve them right.

[Skullfighter @ Feb 18th 2008 3:05PM]

This is the Apple MO. Where should I begin.

The photographer who took the picture of a wall of TV's. Apple entered into negotiation to use the pic, backed out without paying and used it anyways for the release of Apple TV.

Artist after artist who's music has been used for iPod commercials without consent. They air the ad, wait for a letter from an attorney, and then pull the ad. Mission accomplished.

The iPhone from Cisco.

I hope they get hit with punitive damages. Something to make them think before stomping over everyone.

Last thoughts... This is Jobs 101. He was kicked out of his own company because of his shady deals and hot temper. We're surprised to see this still?

[Skullfighter @ Feb 18th 2008 3:08PM]

Oh, and then they go and sue every freakin company who dares use anything even close to iPod.

Hypocrites. (Almost as bad as politicians)

[The Duke @ Jan 10th 2007 6:54PM]

Apple totally deserves this. Like another guy said, there's no way Apple would share the "iPhone" name if their positions were reversed. I hope Apple loses bigtime!

Apple goes around suing other companies for having the word "pod" in their products, I thinks it's high time Apple got a taste of what they've been dishing out!

Word.

[Ethan @ Jan 10th 2007 6:55PM]

I believe the technical term is PWNED!

[RickSellers44 @ Jan 10th 2007 7:48PM]

Yeah, I'm sure the mega-corporation of CISCO will pwn Apple.....

[A @ Jan 10th 2007 6:56PM]

And now Apple gets a taste of its own medicine. I think they deserve this, they seemed to have the attitude of " we're apple, you're cisco, we could care less if you trademarked this name, because, we're apple."

[Speeddemon2008 @ Jan 10th 2007 6:59PM]

Although i do like apple it is about time! I think this lawsuit actually has some ground.

[Morder @ Jan 11th 2007 1:49AM]

I am not an Apple lover mind you but when I think of "iPhone" immediately I think of Apple. Hell, i I immediately think of Apple. I wonder if Apple could counter-sue Cisco for commandeering Apples brand by Cisco linking their product with an already/somewhat familiar "too close" kind of name...

[oki @ Jan 10th 2007 7:31PM]

Ouch, apple does deserve it. but i still hope the name stays as "iphone"

[Regula Oblique @ Jan 10th 2007 7:39PM]

I think everything was OK until Apple showcased the phone and used the "iphone" name @ macworld, thats where things got ugly, Apple could of made up another name for the time being until everything was ironed out but they couldnt wait, now it looks as apple is losing this one and were gonna be looking at aphone come this june, get "a phone"! lol :)

[LPXXFAINTXX @ Jan 10th 2007 7:00PM]

Apple fan boys really piss me off. Especially in those smug "Im a PC, Im a Mac" commercials. They totally deserve this...

And don't even THINK about comparing the iPhone with the Zune.

Zune - $250
iPhone - $500-$600

Of course the iPhone's going to be better, dumbf*cks.

[applesucksLeo @ Jan 10th 2007 11:47PM]

For $600 I can get the new XBOX360 v2.0 due out about the same time which has 120GB HDD,ipTV support,does REAL 1080P via HDMI...oh , and it just happens to be an awesome 65nm process CPU gaming machine/HD-DVD player :)
I`ll say it again;the iPhone is a niche market device at best tied to a lousy non-3G Cingular network. Not everyone wants to hold a brick to their face and then touch-dial with all that face oil all over the screen.Their are many inexpensive phones right now that VOICE dial flawlessly using the software made by Voice Signal Technologies.
I almost got taken in by the Jobs RDF and then soon realized not many people like having an oily albeit thin...brick type phone.$600 will also get you a decent laptop on sale that is a real computer and isn`t tied to a 2 yr. Crapular contract.
Mobile communicator indeed ! That would be my Pocket PC making calls via Skype.Lets see that "communicator" do that Stevie :)

[whosthebigwinner @ Jan 11th 2007 4:48PM]

You are correct, the zune is less expensive.
Go ahead and call ahead and order the next generation- oh wait you have no phone.
Well then just hop on google maps and find the nearest retalier- oh wait you have no google maps.
well then just hope online and buy one- oh wait you have no web browser
besides all this you have the e-mail services.
I could even take a picture of your sorry a$$ with it too.
I am just guessing here, but maybe that is why it gots more

[Chris Merchant @ Jan 10th 2007 7:01PM]

Oh yeah, unless they can settle, which it seems is far out of the question; the whole 'snooze ya loose' clause goes into effect, and Apple is going to need a new blankie.

Chris

[Kevin @ Jan 10th 2007 7:01PM]

Keep in mind that Cisco trademarked "iPhone" amid all the buzz and rumors. They're going to come under a lot of fire for suing. The response to the product has been so tremendous that the majority will side with Apple.

[R @ Jan 10th 2007 7:04PM]

Kevin,

Cisco has owned the trademark since 2000 when they purchased Infogear, who had registered it in 1996. I don't think Apple has been working on the "iPhone" for 10 years.

You might want to read the press release before you post.

[Aram @ Jan 10th 2007 9:59PM]

it doesn't matter if people are gonna side with Apple... if they use iPhone without proper authorization, they're violating the law whether the public likes it or not.

[chuck.northrop @ Jan 11th 2007 2:48PM]

I'm with Kevin on this one--the Apple spin has become a vortex and the public will side with Apple no matter who registered the trademark when. I'm thinking Apple is spending some of it's brand equity here by creating a controversy that has a life of its own. Can you say "'free' marketing"? You can't buy this kind of press so why not generate it? The spin will last months and then Apple can throw another name on their device.

[Rick @ Jan 10th 2007 7:04PM]

Oh, the Hubris of Steve Jobs!

I called this one yesterday. I said to a buddy (after seeing Cisco's "We expect Apple will sign the agreement" release) that my bets were on Cisco asking for major cash (and rightfully so, because dammit, the trademark is *theirs*).

Second part of the bet was that Jobs tells them to f--- off anyway: "We'll see you in court, because I gotta keynote to deliver! We'll just settle by paying them from the wheelbarrows full of money we're going to make off the Apple phone."

Still: C'mon Apple; get some consistency with the naming scheme. iTV becomes Apple TV, so why press for iPhone? Oh, I know why. To keep brand parity, recognition, and loyalty for/from all those millions of iPod users. Well, it's gonna cost ya!

Mind you, I'm an Apple fan/MacFreak, but I'm also a shareholder. Don't piss away my $5k in gains in the past 2 days because of your ego, Uncle Stevie!

[Billy Kincaid @ Jan 10th 2007 8:10PM]

>Still: C'mon Apple; get some
>consistency with the naming scheme.
>iTV becomes Apple TV, so why press for iPhone?

Best response in this thread.

Apple should definitely change the name. Apple TV sounds dope for what it is. Apple Phone isn't too bad. iPhone honestly sounds like it's trying to be the iPod when it's really trying to be a smartphone.

[John Springer @ Jan 11th 2007 1:10AM]

The interesting thing is that "iphone" wouldn't have any particular value if it weren't for "imac", "ipod", "itunes"... In other words, the value that cisco is trying to extract for iphone is value that apple has created for it. I think cisco is in danger of being the one causing confusion in the market place (which is what trademark violation is all about.)

[erik brunn @ Jan 10th 2007 7:37PM]

They are going to do a deal, but Cisco has to protect its trademark and copyrights. Otherwise Cisco can lose the iPhone trademark. So they have to apear to do something. They will prolly settle for $1.

[Frank @ Jan 10th 2007 9:47PM]

Not only did they own the trademark since 2000, but they released their iphone product before Apple. Apple has no chance of winning this one. Dumb move Apple.

[amir @ Jan 10th 2007 7:06PM]

Apple could have just gone with iFone or iTalk and saved themselves a bunch of trouble.

[Christos7 @ Jan 10th 2007 7:43PM]

I'm a huge Apple fan (and also a shareholder) but I gotta side with Cisco on the trademark issue.
Apple has created the ultimate multi-faceted communication device ... how about calling it the iComm (as in iCommunicator) instead of iPhone? ... Steve can have that one for free ... alright marketing is not my strong point.

[ctsooner @ Jan 10th 2007 7:08PM]

Go search Tess http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm and you will see that Apple did Trademark iPhone for a very different application than the original trademark owners (prior to Cisco)

[Todrick @ Jan 10th 2007 7:45PM]

while Apple deserves this, I'm betting they are going to take the line of, "everyone knew that the iPhone was an apple product, long before Cisco used the term...

which is 100% true, if i asked my mother, "who makes the iPhone" last week, she would never have said Cisco...

not sure it holds up in court, but there is a reason that Gizmodo looked like such fools for their "iPhone is coming" announcement of the Cisco phone

[alex @ Jan 10th 2007 8:43PM]

Cisco: I want 10 bucks for each phone you sold.
Apple: I'll give you $9.99
Cisco: No, I want the full $10
Apple: Unfortunately I can't offer you the $10 you're asking.
Cisco: See ya in court, then.

[Zadillo @ Jan 10th 2007 7:11PM]

If worst comes to worst, Apple could just go ahead and call this the iPod Phone or something, as people had previously speculated. I've actually heard some people complaining that the iPhone name isn't really good for this anyway, since it puts too much emphasis on the "phone" aspect of the device and doesn't accurately describe the music or Internet functionality of it, not to mention the other potential application functionality it has. iPhone really doesn't seem like a very good name for the product anyway.

[resource @ Jan 10th 2007 7:12PM]

LPXXFAINTXX - What are you talking about?

Who has compared the Zune to the iPhone?

That's apples and oranges. Literally.


I think this will be resolved although Apple deserves this. They sued too many people for bullshit.

Isn't Steve Jobs buddhist or something?
Damn Karma...

[LPXXFAINTXX @ Jan 10th 2007 7:17PM]

Trust me, I've seen comments by fanboys in other posts.

"Zune is now screwed!"
"HAH, take that Zune!"
"This is sure to kill the Zune"
http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/1008
etc.

[Zadillo @ Jan 10th 2007 7:18PM]

Well, there have been some comparisons, but not really direct. I think the main point of the comparisons is that Apple kind of leapfrogged the Zune in terms of UI and capabilities, and the general expectation is that the next iPod will also have many of the same capabilities of the iPhone, so it is natural to start thinking about iPod/Zune comparisons, and what MS will do in response.

[Rob @ Jan 10th 2007 7:13PM]

Haha! How does this affect the analysis of the bet between the brother and the other guy about whether Apple would come out with the iPhone by March 2007? It's no longer an "iPhone" so who wins now??? LOL!!

[RickSellers44 @ Jan 10th 2007 8:32PM]

Even if Cisco has the right to "iPhone"... it's not like Cisco invented that prefix "i" that is horribly attached to every electronic now.... which came first, the iPod or Cisco's iPhone....

And who cares anyway,... Apple could call it the iDildo and I would still be in line to buy it.

[Dp462090 @ Jan 10th 2007 10:45PM]

"which came first, the iPod or Cisco's iPhone...."
the Infogear (Cisco) iPhone came out in 1997. The iPod came out in 2001.

[AKBlade13 @ Jan 10th 2007 7:18PM]

Yeah, this is why the USPTO sucks. I think they're both pantened for different things. But we'll see. I wonder why though Cisco just stopped negotiations, or maybe it was Apple.

AKBlade13

[Rudy Vega @ Jan 10th 2007 7:20PM]

Maybe the Apple lawyers think they have a case because of precedent and their other trademarks. If I create a cartoon character called Icky Mouse I am gonna get sued regardless of whether Disney owns that.

Maybe Apple wants an excuse to drop the whole stupid iWhatever naming convention across the board.

Maybe they were distracted thinking about how much more the Beatles are going to hate them now that it's Apple Corps vs Apple, Inc....

[alex @ Jan 10th 2007 8:43PM]

I better go register iCum trademark

[Chris @ Jan 10th 2007 7:18PM]

Oh, I think was expertly played by Cisco. The company played nice with Apple but pushed the negotiations to the day of the announcement. Confident that an agreement was imminent, Steve goes on stage and announces the name of the product. And then, once the name is in the hearts and minds of the media and the public at large, Cisco has Apple exactly where it wants it. So it plays the ace up its sleeve: a lawsuit.

An injunction will only force Apple to stop using the name 'iPhone.' As it's being reported in the media, the lawsuit does not seem to seek punitive damages or compensation. Cisco knows that it can't get much this way either. And what Cisco is after is money.

So Apple has very little choice right now—either it pays up, or it changes the name or the product.

I expect an out of court settlement before the end of the month.

[Alex @ Jan 10th 2007 7:47PM]

While it not being called the iphone is not vital, it will confuse consumers that it was called the iphone but now it is called the _______. I can just imagine that 6 months from now, somebody walks into the apple store (the will be sold there) and asks for the iphone, the sales rep points to the "apple phone" (just for a place holder), the consumer gets confused, and leaves, sans iphone. That could be a but exaggerated but you have to think of everything in retail stores.

[acidscan @ Jan 10th 2007 7:19PM]

HEY !, Now I know why they cost so much, they are gonna pay their lawyers with this high cost !

[michael @ Jan 10th 2007 7:22PM]

i dont really think apple needs to use the iphone name anyway. too many people had already called it that, and they did change itv to apple tv. maybe iPort for portable or something.

[Brian @ Jan 10th 2007 7:23PM]

What goes around, comes around.

[r @ Jan 10th 2007 7:28PM]

has anyone considered that apple may win? legally speaking, they do have a case even if cisco trademarked the name first.

[e @ Jan 10th 2007 7:25PM]

I say Cisco wanted more money after they saw the keynote, and Apple said "hells no".

[Zorque @ Jan 10th 2007 7:25PM]

Why don't they just call it the pPod or something? The "i" stood for "internet" originally, so why not switch to something else?

[Eric @ Jan 10th 2007 11:04PM]

Hey, with changing iTV to Apple TV, I half expected Jobs to call it the Apple Phone in the first place. IMHO, it's a much better, more representative name for the device, anyway, considering the technology Apple is premiering on that device.

[Michael @ Jan 10th 2007 7:29PM]

I'm thinking it went something like this...

Cisco - we want $x million now, and $x per phone for use of the trademark.
Apple - OK, but we get exclusive rights to the name
Cisco - nope, we are still going to make our iPhone products
Apple - forget it (consults lawyers, 'releases' product)
Cisco - fine, see you in court