Like any unnatural high, after the thrill comes the aching come-down. And there was no high quite like Apple’s announcement of the iPhone, laced with anticipation and cut with bodily thrills (some attendees at Macworld 2007 reported light-headedness and sweatiness of the protrusions); who would’ve suspected that the subsequent downer would arrive so soon?
Already coming in for some minor stick over the absence of 3G, non-user-replaceable battery, lack of expandable storage and closed software environment, the iPhone has now had its very name contested. Cisco who, through acquisitions at the turn of the century, has now owned the iPhone trademark for over a decade is now suing Apple for trademark infringement. According to the networking giant, talks with Apple were nearing agreement when, with papers still unsigned, Steve Jobs took to the stage and wowed press and public with his latest débutante; Cisco expected the deal to be closed shortly after, a state of affairs which failed to arise.
According to their corporate blog, Cisco are motivated not by money, product jealousy or even spite. Their PR people summed it up so:
“This lawsuit is about Cisco’s obligation to protect its trademark in the face of a wilful violation. Our goal was collaboration. The action we have taken today is about not using people’s property without permission.” News@Cisco
Whether or not the legal team (and their expensive lawyers) would agree entirely with that, I wouldn’t want to say, but the general tone in the blogosphere seems to be that Apple have – perhaps in their excitement, perhaps through simple arrogance – overstepped the mark. In response, Apple are pointing to the various places where they hold the iPhone trademark (including the UK) with patents that potentially have enough minor differences from Cisco’s so as to allow both products to exist. Maybe.
Does this mean we’ll have to restart the device-formerly-known-as-iPhone name brainstorming again?
Given Apple’s ownership for the worldwide use of iPhone, this seems like a rather shortsited attempt at Cisco to gain publicity .
Cisco doesn’t have a choice. They must make every effort in the eyes of the trademark law to protect the mark – otherwise they will lose it. “Use it or lose it” situation. I don’t think Cisco is doing it for publicity or to milk Apple – but simply to protect the mark.
It’s too late for Cisco. Time Magazine, The NYT, The WSJ, USA Today, scores of other publications, and hundreds of bloggers have been calling the Apple product the iPhone for years, and Cisco never tried to stop them. No way can Cisco NOW claim that the Apple iPhone will cause confusion in the marketplace.
Ask anybody who makes the iPhone, and most will say Apple, and you would have gotten the same answer last month
You are in a lose-lose situation, my friend. One: Cisco wins, Apple changes the name of their phone, and your domain name now refers to Cisco’s product; or two, Apple wins, and Apple legal makes you change your domain name.
Which side are you rooting for?
agrmarcasepatentes Hands down, Apple’s app store wins by a mile. It’s a huge selection of all sorts of apps vs a rather sad selection of a handful for Zune. Microsoft has plans, especially in the realm of games