Finally, after weeks and weeks of arguments and disputes between Apple and Cisco, the two companies have finally come to an agreement on the iPhone name. As we all know, when Cisco bought out Infogear in 2000 they acquired the iPhone name, which they later began to use last year on their VoIP dual-mode cordless phones. in January of this year, Apple announced news of the iPhone (like you didn’t know) without an agreement with Cisco to use the iPhone name, which sparked Cisco into suing Apple.
After two deadlines being pushed back for Apple to respond to Cisco’s terms, the two companies finally managed to come to an agreement and both companies now have rights to share the name.
“Under the agreement, both companies are free to use the iPhone trademark on their products throughout the world. Both companies acknowledge the trademark ownership rights that have been granted, and each side will dismiss any pending actions regarding the trademark,” the companies said in a statement.
One lawsuit down, a possible two to go, Apple!
[Via Macworld UK]more...
Cisco has announced that they have extended the deadline to negotiate with Apple on the “iPhone” name to February 21st. In related news, the last person who can not only keep up with the seemingly endless extensions to this legal issue but also still cares about this has probably fallen asleep by now.
In my opinion, it doesn’t matter what Apple calls this thing. I think we’ll stop posting about this until there is real progress.
If the trademarked name, “iPhone” is a gorgeous trophy wife, Cisco just pranced her around the party. Yesterday, Cisco put out a print advertisement for their iPhone in the New York Times. As if to say to Apple, “You may like what she looks like, but she belongs to me.”
This is a huge move by Cisco who has been criticized in the past for not doing a whole lot with their iPhone product. Perhaps just building a case for the upcoming legal proceedings, or maybe taking advantage of increased iPhone coverage to pimp their own product.more...
Apple and Cisco are temporarily calling a cease fire as they have temporarily suspended their lawsuit and vow to settle out of court. There is now a new deadline of February 15th to come to terms.
Regardless of where you fall on this issue, one thing seems to be incredibly clear to me: Apple doesn’t understand trademark law. According to AHN, “Apple’s director of music public relations, Natalie Kerris told eWeek, “We think the Cisco lawsuit is just ‘silly’, because a number of other VOIP companies are already using the name iPhone.”
IMHO, defending your licensed trademark is not silly. What do you think?
Just when you thought the iPhone trademark war was simple, in comes another player into the fray. Apparently, it was Comwave Telecom Inc, a Toronto based company which claims they have used the iPhone name even before Cisco. Although Cisco has held the trademark since 2000, in Canada, things are different. In Canada, it takes 3 to play doubles tennis, bacon is ham and the first person to use a term, owns it. Which means that Comwave, who has been using the term, iPhone since 2004 owns the rights to the name in Canada.
[Via Central Chronicle]more...
As previously mentioned, Steve Jobs and Apple are no strangers to legal battles over trademarked names. This article reveals from the pages of former Apple CEO John Sculley’s biography, that Steve Jobs was advised to choose another name for the “Mac” in 1984 because another company already owned the name. Apparently, it took over 2 million dollars worth of out of court settlements to secure the name. This further proces that when Steve wants something, he just takes it.
[Via One Compare]more...
The Cisco CEO called the lawsuit with Apple over the trademarked “iPhone” name a “minor skirmish” that could have been avoided if they had negotiated early as discussed.
In my opinion, this isn’t just a minor skirmish, it is a BFD. It’s not like Apple came up with a unique name and some mom and pop came out of the woodwork to claim the name. This is Cisco! Any basic desktop search would have pulled up Cisco’s trademark. This is an example of Steve and Co. brazenly claiming something unclaimable and then trying to muscle its way into it.
“All we ask is that people respect our trademarks and our intellectual property,” he told the paper. “We would have traded that for just interoperability,” or the ability of the Apple phone to work smoothly with Cisco products.”
See, that’s just it. Apple doesn’t want interoperability. It’s not a criticism, past decisions prove it be a point.