Cisco sues Apple for trademark infringement: ruh roh!

by Paul Miller posted Jan 10th 2007 at 6:49PM

"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]

Filed under: Apple

Tags: apple, breaking news, BreakingNews, cisco, iphone, lawsuit

Subscribe to these comments

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Neutral

Supp0rtLinux @ Jan 10th 2007 7:38PM

Perfect... so by June Apple can rebrand their phone to correlate to Cingular rebranding to AT&T...

Neutral

Cactus @ Jan 10th 2007 7:38PM

I look forward to buying the iNewton. Oh wait, it's not a smartphone... well, um, iTalk? iThing? iCell?

Next thing you know, the Beatles are going to sue again because they took "Computer" out of their corporate name...

Neutral

Rom Bokobza @ Jan 10th 2007 7:25PM

okay, cisco is obv jealous of apple. Why would they call it an iPhone if they know apple used the "i" for everything. Cisco is a jealous bioch.

Neutral

nakmario @ Jan 10th 2007 9:52PM

Wow...

Apple was dumb not to see that coming. I totally thought they had worked something out. Kudos to Cisco for waiting until SJobs "released" the iPhone. I should have bought some stock earlier today...

Rom Bokobza,
you are not any brighter either. Cisco has owned the iPhone trademark for longer than the iPod has been around.

Neutral

AndyM @ Jan 12th 2007 8:57AM

Most people are gong to call Apple's phone the iPhone no matter what the outcome is, it is firmly in people's minds Apple iMac, iPod now iPhone. I suppose they could use MacPhone or PowerPhone.

Neutral

Dean Wermer @ Jan 10th 2007 10:02PM

We have no idea if Cisco's proposal was "reasonable". I'm guessing they were greedy, figuring they had the leverage to be so. It will serve them right if Apple rebrands it to "Applefone" or the like.

Neutral

RJM @ Jan 10th 2007 9:02PM

Yet another example of Apple's arrogance:

"We think Cisco's trademark lawsuit is silly," said Natalie Kerris, an Apple spokeswoman.

They were good with the iPod, but the iPhone will be their Waterloo......

Neutral

RJM @ Jan 11th 2007 10:41AM

Cisco legally owned "iPhone" long before Apple was iAnything!

Neutral

Doogs @ Jan 10th 2007 9:22PM

I don't know where to stand on this one.

First, yes, Cisco does hold the "iPhone" trademark, and has held it since long before the advent of the iPod.

But...they didn't bring an iPhone product to market until it was painfully obvious to just about everyone in the world (the exceptions being my neighbor's grandmother and someone in Mongolia) that Apple was preparing a wireless communications device in hopes of capitalizing on the success of the iPod. The logical name, the name being tossed around in the press and around water coolers? iPhone.

So. Seems to me Cisco has the trademark, and thus are well within their rights to file suit. But that doesn't stop them from being a bunch of jealous trademark campers choosing the "iPhone" name for a consumer product in hopes of either a) doing exactly this to Apple or b) getting people to buy the product because they think it is related to the iPod.

Neutral

Boogie @ Jan 10th 2007 10:11PM

Wouldn't it be funny if this was all a ploy to garner more publicity for the upcoming phone in question? Apple's upcoming tv module for video viewing is going to be called AppleTV (with the apple computer symbol placed before the word TV). What's to say the intended name for this phone isn't really ApplePhone (with same logo in place before Phone)? No such thing as bad publicity, especially when a company is announcing a product that hasn't even received FCC approval and is six months away from target launch.

Neutral

nakmario @ Jan 10th 2007 10:03PM

ok people,
it is really simple.

iPod was first released in 2001

iPhone was a trademarked whose ownership was bought by Cisco... in 2000

Also, Cisco has RELEASED a VOIP phone and branded it the iPhone like 2 months ago.

Apple has... not (announcing a release is not the same thing as actually releasing something).

You apple fanboys make me laugh, I think those turtlenecks are preventing blood from reaching your brain.

Neutral

Brian @ Jan 11th 2007 8:37AM

Wow... how incredibly arrogant of Apple to announce a product using a trademarked name. How does Apple think they can possibly win this lawsuit?

Maybe in the corrupt courts of whatever asian country Apple just lost their last suit in... but not in the US.

Neutral

Pat Horne @ Jan 10th 2007 11:09PM

Classic business move! Lure Apple into a sense of security for the sale of "iPhone", and after they pass the point of no return, let the sharks loose to get every penny out of Apple they can. And will!

Apple will pay it in the next 4 months and we'll all get our $599 iToy anyway. Absolutely shrewd.

Neutral

rjlawrencejr @ Jan 11th 2007 1:22AM

If I were Apple I would just make a motion to have the lawsuit dismissed, change the name to something generic and call it a day. The name iPhone is already associated with Apple whether Cisco cares to admit it or not. No matter what Cisco does, the name iPhone is generically Apple and iPods much like iPod = mp3 player to many people whether the mp3 player is an iPod or not. In fact Cisco would do well to not even talk about it as it only gives Apple more press and exposure.

Neutral

Ben @ Jan 11th 2007 2:16AM

Apple has been instrumental in bringing new technology to the market. I became an apple fan in 2002 and have been extremely pleased with the products that they have offered. Infallible, no, the nearest to perfection on the market, yes.

Even though Cisco has the patent on the iPhone they should be reasonable with the naming of a product that is actually existing and successful. If I had patented iPod in 1995 should that allow me to sue because the letters I chose matched a product. NO!!

Give me a break. Is this going to become such idiocy that everyone in America decides to patent every combination of letters, words, and symbols to the point that creativity is elimnated.

Go you.

Add your comments

Your comments:

Remember me

E-Mail me when someone replies to this comment

Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.

When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.

To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.