So maybe this is just idle speculation, but we may have a reason why Apple is getting away with calling its new cellphone the iPhone and doesn’t fear the Cisco lawsuit: the cellphone’s real name is the Apple iPhone.
Our rationale? What’s the name of the streaming media set top box that Apple announced? Apple TV, right? (There’s an Apple logo preceding the “TV” part in the name, hence, Apple TV.) Same thing with the Apple iPhone.
Any lawyers in the house that can say whether or not this little loophole is valid?
Virtually all my experience with commercial law dealt with restraint of trade; but, I think the fact that several firms also use the iPhone name for products is another critical portion of the equation.
“Is Apple in the clear?”
At best Apple is saying that “iPhone” is generic. Take for example, “Tom’s Tavern.” Tavern is generic but adding “Tom’s” makes it unique giving possible trademark protection.
But there is a problem with that logic. If Apple argues that iPhone is generic for “internet phone,” then Apple would have to admit that its use of “i” is also generic. For example, iTunes would become a generic term for “internet music.”
I really don’t think Apple wants to make that argument.
BTW, I personally think that simply adding an “i” for internet in front of a generic term should result in a generic term. But that’s just me.
Apple’s iPhone is also a music player and Apple the computer maker is prohibited by a previous lawsuit by Apple the Record Company from using that trademark. for Music, that’s why iTunes isn’t AppleTunes.
2. The Beatles lost that lawsuit.
2 …that’s why iTunes isn’t AppleTunes.
Agreed.
Apple Inc. kept insisting that the online store was the iTMS = iTunes Music Store, and -NOT- the AMS = Apple Music Store…
Apple Corp. sued Apple Inc., anyway…
Interesting to see how this plays out…
People have been mentioning that “iTV” was already owned, and “iPhone” is also used by a few…
Funny if they can just add “Apple” to the front of either name, and have that be enough to differentiate them from existing marks.
Especially since no one will call them anything but “iTV” or “iPhone”… 🙂
With all of the great devices that came out this week, why is this non-story the biggest story of the week?
Really, I expect these kind of articles on digg, Slashdot, and CNet, but if they’re going to show up here as well there’s no point in discussing technology on this blog.
This is meaningless. The story is the phone, not the name. Get a clue.
How is the phone old news? Did something get announced that’s better than it?
Christ, you’re an idiot.
9. “Christ, you’re an idiot.”
I have to agree with Pedro. We’ve been hearing about this so called life changing phone for months and it’s finally out and it appears to be over-priced crap.
I personally think the legal issues involved with the name are infinitely more interesting than the crap phone itself.
#5, Nope.
Cisco has already launched an iPhone.
While it is possible that a court could find some Apple argument that the trademarked name is invalid, the repercussions of that decision would outweigh any advantage to Apple. If Cisco lost then anyone could call their phone an iPhone. It would also presumably open up Apple’s iTunes and iPod names to challenge under the same doctrine that kleenix is common usage.
Ooopps, forgot to add the link in #11
http://tinyurl.com/y2gxe3
#10 – Saying the phone is overpriced crap, sans proof, is meaningless. It looks like a winner to me, and a discussion around if it will be a hit, and why you think it is crap, would be much more interesting than a thread about the name.
According to an article linked on slashdot the patent office requires proof of continuous use over 6 years. Cisco barely got an extension filed after the original expiration date had passed. (the patent office gives a 6 mo. grace period) the accompanying photos Cisco attached to the extension showed the a phone that would later become the iPhone with an iPhone sticker attached to it. All accompanying literature had, and still has, the phones original name in it (the Linksys CIT200 and the Linksys CIT310 (cordless internet telephony kit)). That literature has NO mention of the iPhone moniker. It appears if this does go to court Apple has a strong case to throw out the Cisco trademark and acquire it themselves. At least thats what their betting on.
Your Link…http://tinyurl.com/vlrpc
13, “Saying the phone is overpriced crap, sans proof, is meaningless”
Then it’s a good think I have proof, isn’t it!
“It looks like a winner to me…”
Yeah, you’re the guy who can tell whether a woman is a bimbo or not, simply by looking at her picture. And that’s even without knowing the definition for bimbo!
“a discussion around if it will be a hit,”
I personally have no interest in whether or not it’ll be a hit. Considering how many records Def Leppard and Bon Jovi have sold, I have little confidence in the tastes of the consumer.
My feeling is that since Apple tried to make a deal for the iphone name and failed they figured that they would just call it the ipohone and let the lawyers fight it out. With the introduction of the appletv, they have started the “apple-blank” naming convention and so if the lawyers can’t get the iphone name they can easily switch to Applephone.
Since most of the estimations of “crap” don’t reference either technology or marketing sense, perhaps we might consider someone with experience in this marketplace. Eh?
Nokia thinks Apple’s sales goal of 10 million the first year is way too conservative.
After drinking Mr. Job’s Koolaid on the announce day, and found the Design stunning, I was surprised over the following:
1) no flash for the Apple iPhone’s camera (Sony has flash on their higher end cell phones). The reason most cell phone cameras suck is there’s no flash. 2) no built-in GPS and 3) nothing was addressed what happens when this phone gets dropped, as everyone one of us has dropped our cell phones. 4) very surprised this phone won’t interface with Outlook.
For Sam Foley:
The Open Source iPhone might to be more to your needs:
http://www.linuxtogo.org/gowiki/OpenMoko/iPhone
It has GPS and is software upgradeable.
Apple was in talks with Cisco about using the name……but at the same time they were seeking a vast array of legal opinion about a challenge based on the appleiphone name. What they found was a preponderance of opinion that with the **apple** applied, and Cisco’s basic non-use of the name left them almost surely safe. At most it might leave them with a very few million dollar hit by Cisco.
Business and copyright law aren’t my thing, but I think Apple should win this law suit easily, unless Senator Stevens is the Judge. 🙂
#15 – Then where’s your proof, besides your bullshit?
Wait, you never have proof… just meaningless posts.
Question:
Would Apple accept another company calling their device – even if it had nothing to do with music – the “Smith iPod?”
The answer of course is no, as evidenced by the fact that they threatened to sue a company that made a big square sensor with the name “pod” in the title. not iPod…just “pod.”
Why anyone gives Apple the benefit of any doubt is beyond me. They are as soulless and corporate as Microsoft every day of the week. Perhaps moreso, since they pretend to be good consumer-oriented idealists.
It amazes me that most of the pissing and moaning around this issue, especially in the comments of the linked article, are so USA-centric…
Cisco has the US Trademark on iPhone, so Apple is dissed for using that name – even though Apple has the trademark [or has applied for it] on the name in:
Australia – granted Dec 2004, applied Oct 2002
Canada – applied Oct 2004
EU – applied Oct 2002
New Zealand – applied Sept 2006
Singapore – granted June 2003, applied Oct 2002
UK – granted Apr 2006, applied Oct 2002
http://tinyurl.com/yjtgb8
Apple is safe announcing a non-shipping product with the iPhone name because they don’t have to market it in the US under that name… they can agree to call it something else – in the US – knowing that people will call it an iPhone anyway.
Cisco tried to play hardball with Mr Tightass, himself… and are shocked, I tell you… SHOCKED! that he didn’t agree to future interoperability with the his lastest gadget …
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=9166
Meanwhile Jobs admits that he wants to control every cough and spit that ends up on the iPhone. This includes things like ringtones.
Poor little Cisco, fooled by “negotiations in progress”, while hoping the leverage of the upcoming announcement – they were in negotiations for the name, so they knew what was coming – would work in their favor.
F’em. They gambled and lost.
#26, as is often the case, it is the threat of the lawsuit that stops or prevents so many actions. Large companies will drag out the whole process in order to run up huge legal bills for the opponent until they give in. Even if they win, these legal costs are not always recoverable.
A well known case is SCO v IBM. The case started March, 2004. almost four years ago. Yet, they haven’t made it out of discovery. Both sides have paid several millions in legal fees. Only a large company like IBM or SCO’s backing of $25 million (MS money ?) has kept this alive.
Well, I’ll be the first trademark lawyer to post a comment, it seems:
First, I believe there are several REALLY good opportunities for Apple to defeat Cisco’s claim of ownership I’ve noted as I have followed this story — Cisco’s in my view no better in this dispute than what folks perjoratively call “patent trolls” (as a patent lawyer also, I abhor this term, but that’s another story) Let’s call them a “trademark troll.”
But, that wasn’t the question, so–
Second, this is probably a fallback in case Cisco’s rights in the mark are upheld — this is a really good argument when you are arguing non-likelihood of confusion in the marketplace (the underlying requirement of most trademark actions). Basically, a house brand preceding a trademark that is only marginally protected (maybe it’s arguably descriptive or others are using similar marks in various commercial areas), can reduce a likelihood of confusion. Folks will say in their own minds — oh, this is the Apple iPhone, not the Cisco one. Once they say that, a trademark action will absolutely fail. If there is no confusion, there’s no action (in a traditional tm infringement action, anyway).
@ 6 it was the “@” campaign – the IBM thing you speak of.
Trademarks are not my area of expertise, but the material I’ve read about Cisco failing to protect its trademark to ‘iPhone’ is pretty convincing. I highly recommend this blog entry;
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=236
I think Cisco made a last ditch attempt to defend the trademark by slapping the name on that preexisting product. We’ll see if Cisco can convince a court that maneuver is sufficient.
You’re right about Cisco being rather selective about who it chose to challenge over use of ‘iPhone.’ That will evidence against Cisco, too.
Incidentally, Cisco would not really be losing anything since it acquired the iPhone mark after it was previously abandoned. What Cisco really wanted was a ‘marriage’ to Apple, likely regarding its VOIP products. Apple said ‘you’re not my kind of girl.’ Rejection is hard to take.
In regard to the Apple Corp.’s suit, the issue was actually whether Apple Computer had entered the music business with iTMS. The court, on Apple Corp.’s own turf, said no.
I must agree that Pedro’s remarks are inevitably nonsensical. If names were placed before comments at DU, I would skip them.
how about i make a new phone and call it mike apple iphone?
and, they can still drop the i and call it apple phone
hahaha, I really got all excited about nothing.
As It turns out the iPhone really is a huge dog.
Check out this thing from nokia.
http://www.nseries.com/770experience_2/hacks_kismet.htm
It seems like putting “i” “e” “web” or “virtual” before a word is now in the public domain. — sort of like putting -ette or -ily after a word.
#28 – Thanks for a very clear and, most of all, well qualified summary of the trademark situation. Given that Cisco is, as Cringely put it (http://tinyurl.com/t798v), biggerand richer htan Apple and just as mean, Apple’s flipping them off was puzzling. I thought maybe free publicity accounted for it, but your explanation makes better sense.
#30 – Thanks for the link, too. Good bit of reporting there.
Seems Jobs, whether one likes him or not, is as canny as ever. Or his lawyers are, anyway. Still, no matter how you cut it, creating a stiuation where you know courts will get involved… that’s always a gamble.
Anybody know if the international trademark situation (#25) might have any bearing on the outcome inside the U.S.?
I think Apple deserves any product starting with the letter “i” in front. Everybody else just started put letter i’s on almost anything after they blew up with their… Apple has more originality than most companies out there. Why can’t people be more original in these days.
Cisco should’ve stayed shut and wait till Apple market the iPhone in US. Dumb of them. Well iHell with them!
I don’t know if the dispute over the name “iPhone” is even making news with the general population. I don’t think anyone really cares, but they do care about the phone, which I still personally think it’s overpriced for what it is. I’d rather get a Treo or Blackberry and have all the open sourced goodness that comes with them. My two cents. Ta-ta.
Nationwide VPN