iOops, Apple Didn't Actually Get The Rights To The Name iPhone
from the not-so-fast dept
In the weeks leading up to yesterday's big announcement there was a lot of talk about how Apple couldn't even use the name iPhone because it was a registered trademark of Cisco. Thus, it was as big of a surprise as any that Apple's new converged cellphone/iPod was indeed called the iPhone. The word out of Cisco was that the night before the announcement, they sent Apple the final terms of a license that would allow Apple to use the name, and that they expected a signed agreement right away. Well, apparently Apple didn't get back to Cisco quickly enough, and now the networking giant is taking Apple to court, seeking to prevent Apple from using the name. It seems likely that this is a threat to make sure that Apple takes Cisco's demands seriously, and that things will get worked out before the lawsuit goes to trial. Still, it's really astounding that Apple would make such an important announcement without having this matter long squared away.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Cisco can cry over the royalty payments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cisco can cry over the royalty payments
Given that Cisco makes an IP Phone (one of which is actually sitting on my desk), you can easily see how they could shorten IP Phone to iPhone. It's a business product, so joe sixpack might not be confused, but some people would.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's no business
No surprise, the lawyers were just dragging their heels.
Once the PR machine starts moving there's no stopping it. Apple have been planning the show for months, look at how smoooooth Jobs presentation went. The crowd were gagging and fawning like they'd been hypnotised. That's showbusiness, and the rule of showbusiness is that the show must go on darling!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There's no business
1. Take a trademark that PEOPLE HAVE KNOWN ABOUT FOR SOME TIME (it has been reported in the tech news that Cisco owns the "iphone" mark).
2. Piss all over it and claim that the mark is yours.
3. ???
4. Profit
Yeah. It looks like an old joke, but people trademark names for a reason. I can bet you that when Cisco purchased the company that trademarked the name, that name was one of the assets it purchased. To have Apple come along and simply steal it by screaming to the world that it's theirs is out and out stealing.
Apple has done this before. Look at Macintosh HI-Fi systems. Look at Apple records. (And Steve Jobs put the famous "Abbey Road" cover image as one of the images in his MacWorld keynote!)
The Apple "iphone" looks really interesting, if half-baked. It will probably look great in three years (just like the ipod looked great when the Nano came out). That doesn't give Apple carte blanche to steal the name, especially when they were in negotiations to secure the name from Cisco.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There's no business
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: There's no business
Quit being an Apple appologizing fan boy and deal with the fact that they're not the holy angels of the tech industry you want them to be. I think most of Apple's products are great too but that's no excuse for that kind of blatant infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There's no business
The Beatles are now on itunes, which means that there is cover art on itunes, and I would sure as hell bet that Abbey Road is on itunes.
So Apple has every right to use it in their keynote.
Do your research.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There's no business
Trademarks are there to protect the consumer from fraudulent use of names and logos to trick people into buying stuff that isn't the Real Deal.
I think Apple really should've lined up their trademark ducks and shot them before announcing the iPhone, but then again any publicity is good publicity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: There's no business
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
International
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: International
(Why do I even need to ask this question?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oops
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: oops
I love Apple too but this shit feels waaay too M$ if you ask me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes indeed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Linksys iPhone and Apple iPhone...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm...
It would be interesting if Cisco just told them to screw off and decides not to sell the name to them. What would they call it then the iPodaPhone or the iPoned ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Linksys iPhone and Apple iPhone...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
iPhone
Even if Cisco sues Apple, I think they'd have to prove 'damages'. And the relative notoriety of the brands, and expectations of the public, do have an influence.
Apple owns the iMac, the iPod, iTunes, etc. and no one can hear "iPhone" without thinking Apple. So the brand equity is clearly in Apple's favor.
Cisco is damn-near infringing on Apple for using the name, trademark registration or not.
My guess is that no trial will ever be held, the market will concede that Apple owns the name and it will come out to the market as "iPhone".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: iPhone
There is no need for Cisco to PROVE infringement. Apple's conceeded that simply in the fact that they were in the process of licensing to begin with. They're well aware who owns the name. In fact, if this ever made it to trial the court would likely automatically award statutory damages to Cisco since Apple knew they owned the name.
Cisco could probably sue Apple for criminal infringement as well stating that they fully knew the name was owned and stole it anyway. After that's said and done Cisco could then show damages on top of that. The law is quite clear about this point.
Apple doesn't have a leg to stand on for arguing that they own squat. Now, I agree that this will likely never make it to court. Apple will settle and brand their device but Cisco will always own it unless Apple purchases it outright (which wouldn't be a stretch).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cisco's gonna win, but it's a little bitch nonethe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Buy 'em up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Buy 'em up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Buy 'em up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Considering the fact The Cisco is A ALOT bigger
(10 years)
Cisco is a monstrous tech company that really invents , develops, manufactures actually innovative hardware . (MP3 players and fluffy laptops are not innovations ). Cisco is not know for hitting people with lawsuits for nothing .
But they are around 3 times bigger than Apple.
And ten times more financially stable than Apple.
And they are going to hit Apple for all the right reasons.
Go Cisco :).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Buy 'em up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: iPhone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Might want to look at who's the bitch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Generic Names
trademark will become what is called diluted or fall into generic use, losing its protected status.
For example the word iPhone could follow the lead of what were once trademarks such as "escalator", "xray" and "zipper" that became generic.
Also in my opinion the practise of putting an 'i' (for Internet) or an 'e' (for electronic) in front of a word is not making a product 'distinct from others' as is required to be considerd a TM. This process itself has become generic.
eg As people have noted this product was widely touted as an iPhone months ago - probably well before Apple officially chose that name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think it was a strategic mistake by Apple.
1) pay up
2) change the name
If Cisco does in fact own the trademark (based on what we've seen they do), then they can demand whatever they want to license it's use. They have no obligation to license the name to Apple or anyone else. They would say pay us $100000000000000 or don't use it; that's within their rights.
Now, I think we agree that Cisco will never make jack squat with their own iPhone device, so it makes absolute sense for them to get whatever they can by licensing the name to Apple. But given that Apple has already started to build equity in the name (with the announcement and fanfare), the price just went up. And Apple did it to themselves.
Cisco does not need to prove damages if all they want is to assert their rights to the trademark. A court will grant injunctive relief (prevent Apple from using the name) as long as Cisco establishes their ownership of the trademark. If Cisco wants to sue for money, then they will have to prove damages, but could also be awarded punitive damages in excess of actual damages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Might want to look at who's the bitch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
er..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pots, kettles, sycophants and hypocrits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plenty of time to change the name...
Regardless of the name of the device when it comes to market in June, it is going to have a big impact on Apple, and on the industry for years to come.
I am fairly certain that Apple has a short list of backup names that aren't trademarked by whiney has-been companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Plenty of time to change the name...
In short parent is a f%^king RETARD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Has-been? what??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"whiney has-been companies"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why pick a vendor who stamps down what little rights you have?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cisco's iPhone with VOIP
Signing a two year contract at this time sounds ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now the only fanboys here are you and the other apple fanboys. Get a life you loser.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jobs shares
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two thoughts
1) If negotiations have been going on for years, maybe that's where the persistent iPhone rumors have been coming from.
2) The Cisco iPhone now looks like it was rushed out in case this came to pass, to forestall a court deciding that it wasn't serious trademark infringement if Cisco wasn't actually using the trademark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I own a Sony Ericsson P910a and I love it. It is very easy to use and has (in my view) one of the best phone/pda operating systems on it, but it is complicated compared to how simple the iPhone is to use.
BTW I am an ex-Mac fan boy with a kick butt Dell XPS M170 that cost less than a 15 inch powerbook (needed for mobile gaming).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Besides it's just a damned telephone!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That being said...Cisco owns the property of iPhone regardless of how much you think Apple should be entitled to use it. Just because a company comes out with a slueth of products and then decides to name something thats already out there, doesnt automatically entitle them to rights. Are you going to try and tell me that the X-Games should have the right to the Xbox just because they are the first to use an X before the name? You people who are making excuses for Apple are retarded. Bottom line, copyright infringement and the bearer of that name should have the rights to fully prosecute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so firstly.....MOO.
ok --
ppl have been doing this for years
remember 'e-commerce'
or -- ez-bake, ez-chef.....
iphone will be same thing
i bet apple will win and they will have to co-exist!
kinda like Franks Pizza, and Franks Original Pizza next door
moo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So to all i-people: MOOOOO (and get a life .. jeeez)
Tanith
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Take Note
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bait and switch on the iPhone name
By line-extending the iPod name Apple reduced their loyal customers' decision making to question 3: how many editions do they wait before they buy it. If Apple has to change the name to something else, that shouldn't dampen the initial wave of enthusiasm... what difference does it make what they call it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have an idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And what about Nuvio's iPhone?
Check out www.iphone.com.
Unless Nuvio has a trademark license to use this mark from Cisco, seems Cisco is being selective about who they are trying to "protect" their trademarks against. If Cisco hasn't been consistently defend/enforce its trademarks, it would seem to give Apple more ammunition to move forward with its use of the mark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are also ignorant and don't realize that the vast majority of the internet and business networks run on extremely expensive cisco equipment.
If anything Cisco would buy Apple and run it into the ground just to see the look on Steve Jobs face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple will pay up either way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A) If the role were reversed, I guarantee you Apple would have sued the HELL out of the other company for infringing their trademark. I mean, heck, just look at all of the lawsuits they've filed against companies that dare to use the word Pod in a name. Even if it is a completely unrelated technology, they still do it, and that's just a partial use of the name. This is a complete and blantant ripoff of the whole name.
B) There's nothing really new or innovative about the iPhone. As others have said, any PDA phone offers pretty much all the same features. In fact, it's missing what I would consider key features such as wifi syncing, 3G HSDPA, and the ability to download from Itunes over the air (thanks to the aforementioned lack of 3G).
C) does anyone else in here think that the price on the iPhone name just went WAY up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you reap what you sow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why even call it an iPhone?
Apple should choose a name that speaks to bringing all aspects of the device and fitting it in with your daily life. Or maybe a more generic name like the iPod was when it came out. Apple could even go out on a limb and not put an i in front of the name.
There are plenty of people who have phones that are mp3 players, or cameras as well, and the user never uses anything but the phone. This is typically because the other features aren't very good. If Apple truely thinks that each part of the iPone can stand on its own, then the device should be sold at BestBuy without a cellular contract, so if i just want to use the contacts and mp3 player, I can do so. I shouldn't be forced to use one aspect of the device. Apple would have serisouly shaken up the wireless market by selling a presumably popular phone unlocked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So its a phone right?
It's a phone - i'll shove my happy hat on than
Woooooh
It looks great but basically has a load of stuff I couldn't care less about, seems set to tie me into one operator alone and has a battery life which is more than likely pants
So thats the phone/internet device/worldpeace generator covered - on the subject of trademarks Cisco should go straight to court without passing go - I'm not normally fond of laywers but i'll make an exception for this world class piece of arrogance
On another note - anybody know if any research has ever been done into exactly what creates fanboys of any description? I find them amazing and quite funny in all honesty and am just curious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have a question...
Yes, they own the trademark and have the legal high ground here, but if they had no product or plans to use it, are they any better than those pesky typosquatters (or, perhaps, the folks that sued RIM)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have a question...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Countering stupidity
Is that right? Better sell or else what? Angry emo kids end up on Cisco's doorstep?
"I personally think it would be funny as hell if Apple went and just bought Cisco, took iPhone, and sold Cisco off again, granted I know it wont happen but still that would be funny in my opinion."
It would be especially funny considering that Cisco's market cap is approximately 2x that of Apple. Perhaps Cisco should buy Apple and shut them down instead?
"I dont care if Cisco owns the trademark "iPhone", cisco's iPhone and Apple's iPhone are completely different products."
Except that they're both phones with the same name? Sure, I understand.
"Hey mac fanboy, I'm not one of the wonderful world of winblows, I'm a linux user, and apple is built on darwin, which is linux."
Hey Linux fanboy, Darwin is built on BSD, not linux.
"On another note - anybody know if any research has ever been done into exactly what creates fanboys of any description? I find them amazing and quite funny in all honesty and am just curious"
I'm guessing some degree of obsessive compulsion combined with the need to subvert oneself into a group identity.
******
As to the story, this is really simple. Apple doesn't own the trademark. If Apple wants the trademark, they have to pay for it. Apple's negotiating strentgh went down dramatically once they announced the product without securing the rights. Dumb move.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Believe me, Apple's lawyers are not stupid. This is more complicated than it seems. Also, it created another night of news stories on our local news here. Even if Apple changes the name (which I think they will), mission accomplished.
Apple TV and iPhone. Hmm... Apple Phone seems more likely. Did the actualy mock-ups actually say iPhone anywhere on them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
can i use the word phone anymore
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
new " i Dog "
and some one always complains. My wife even asked me what's an " i dog" and I said it's kinda hard to explain but if you slide over hear I can show you.
Windows boys listen up!" i dog" is coming and in the END you will be the ones
bent over.
Apple Forever!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marketing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]