Cisco files infringement suit against Apple over iPhone Trademark

Published on January 10th, 2007

Cisco files infringement suit against Apple over iPhone – MarketWatch — Here’s a case where Apple gets a taste of its own medicine.

… seeking to prevent Apple from using the iPhone trademark. Cisco said it obtained the iPhone trademark in 2000 after acquiring Infogear. Cisco said Infogear’s original filing for the trademark was on March 20, 1996. “There is no doubt that Apple’s new phone is very exciting, but they should not be using our trademark without our permission,” said Mark Chandler, Cisco’s senior vice president and general counsel, in a statement.

62 users responded in " Cisco files infringement suit against Apple over iPhone Trademark "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 JToso said, on January 10th, 2007 at 4:06 pm

I’m guessing CISCO jumped on the trademark just to sue Apple?

# 2 gquaglia said, on January 10th, 2007 at 4:07 pm

Difference between Apple’s iphone and Cisco’s iphone. Apple’s will be highly successful and they will sell millions. Cisco’s iphone will probably be off the market by this time next year.

# 3 GregA said, on January 10th, 2007 at 4:09 pm

Hmmm, so it looks like the iPhone vaporware announcement was all part of a pump and dump scheme on apple stock after all…

# 4 Spooof said, on January 10th, 2007 at 4:12 pm

I was waiting for this to happen or at least someone to explain how they could call it iPhone.

# 5 moss said, on January 10th, 2007 at 4:16 pm

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised by folks jumping to conclusions without examining at least the facts already public.

Apple and Cisco have been negotiating this trademark for ~2 years. Even yesterday, folks from Cisco said the deal was ready to be signed. So much for trolls.

The most knowledgeable analysts figure Apple built the cost of an eventual settlement with Cisco into the price of the phone.

# 6 patent-monkey said, on January 10th, 2007 at 4:32 pm

Cisco announced at the beginning of a press meeting yesterday that it was in fact in the middle of negotiating the agreement and anticipated that since Jobs announced the name, that there must be a signed contract coming to Cisco. Clearly not.

# 7 SN said, on January 10th, 2007 at 4:35 pm

I remember the good old days when you actually had to use a trademark to protect it!

# 8 Reality said, on January 10th, 2007 at 4:38 pm

Well, I guess they should have kept the “iTV” and gone with “Apple Phone”.

Live and learn, I guess.

# 9 Sheva said, on January 10th, 2007 at 4:43 pm

Cisco owns the trademark, Apple sholdnt be allowed to use it, period. It´s called copyright laws. You can´t argue that Cisco has the right to sue, and I think they are doing the right thing. End of discussion.

I just find it funny that they are willing to break the law to keep that name, since the iBrand is so last season. The funniest part is that they are getting sued for something they haven´t even finished, in short, vaporware.

# 10 John Earnhardt said, on January 10th, 2007 at 4:48 pm

COMMENT FROM CISCO – Intellectual property is the lifeblood of Silicon Valley and we all have to protect our property. The iPhone trademark is owned by Cisco, as noted in your story. We (Cisco) had hoped to reach an agreement to share our trademark with Apple, yet they decided to use the name without our agreement, so we, unfortunately, are having to go to court to stop them from using the name. This is not about money. We still hope we can reach an agreement, but when your neighbor steals your property, you have no recourse other than to call the cops and file a complaint. Full Cisco statement at: http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2007/corp_011007.html

# 11 pedro said, on January 10th, 2007 at 4:49 pm

Hahahahaha. How funny

#2 yeah, the cisco phone will flop, just like any other cisco product. I was going to go on the rant, but I’l be nice for now.

Hilarious

# 12 SN said, on January 10th, 2007 at 4:57 pm

9. “Cisco owns the trademark, Apple sholdnt be allowed to use it, period. It´s called copyright laws.”

God who knew that such complete ignorance could be so fricken funny!

# 13 Ryan said, on January 10th, 2007 at 5:07 pm

My guess is that Cisco couldn’t get a good deal from Apple. Apple has the iPhone trademark globally last time I checked. Cisco knows how successful Apple’s phone will be, so they probably wanted a percentage of the sales. Apple says no, and we now have a lawsuit.

# 14 John Earnhardt said, on January 10th, 2007 at 5:14 pm

If you want answers to most of your queries and Cisco’s motivation, you can see more flavor on this issue on Cisco’s blog from our General Counsel, Mark Chandler, here: http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/01/update_on_ciscos_iphone_tradem.html

# 15 Former Cisco Droid said, on January 10th, 2007 at 5:15 pm

Cisco’s products are usually called ‘ip’ somethings… like ipPhone..
like their 7900 series or even the handheld..
Where is their product? ip/cell/edge ?

In fact Cisco calls it an ip phone even on their own website…
http://tinyurl.com/y8gauj

Apple could call it a ‘can of soup’ and I would still buy two!
Cisco left out in the cold? again?
Looks like Cisco will have to transfer more execs to India…

# 16 Mucous said, on January 10th, 2007 at 5:21 pm

This is great. It’s about time someone went after Apple for a change. You get sick of their smugness after a while.

# 17 Jägermeister said, on January 10th, 2007 at 5:23 pm

#13

Fully agree with you, Ryan. It all boils down to percentage.

# 18 Dallas said, on January 10th, 2007 at 5:23 pm

What more iPHONE free (cheap) publicity and awareness for the Apple product?

Clever marketing, I say …

# 19 bill said, on January 10th, 2007 at 5:30 pm

Ok, how about some names for the Apple whatchacallit?
There are plenty of smart ass bloggers out there..

How about the juice?
a ‘Communicator’… aka Star Trek… oh. I like that..
Hand held Digital Entertainment provider thingie… HDEP
?????

# 20 Tom 2 said, on January 10th, 2007 at 6:05 pm

Well Apple should have known that you cant just jump into a totally different business without conseqences.

# 21 tallwookie said, on January 10th, 2007 at 6:11 pm

woot cisco!!

/cheer

# 22 James Hill said, on January 10th, 2007 at 6:15 pm

Wow… Look at all the replies to this story that didn’t address the main fact: They were already in negotiations… this is just a (normal) move by a company to protect the asset it is selling.

A number of you should consider suicide. Really.

# 23 tallwookie said, on January 10th, 2007 at 6:23 pm

woot casio!!

http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/09/casio-sells-its-one-billionth-calculator/

# 24 Ben Franske said, on January 10th, 2007 at 6:27 pm

#2, why because Cisco products have a history of flopping? I don’t think they do, at least not for businesses they are, after all, one of the most successful networking products companies. Just because you don’t own something that says Cisco in your house doesn’t mean they aren’t a large and profitable company that does a lot of business and sells a lot of units. You probably don’t have a Hobart mixer in your house either but they are tremendously successful in commercial kitchens. Some would argue there’s a lot more money and a lot less headache selling to businesses rather than consumers.

#7, Cisco actually does have an iPhone product under the Linksys brand. It’s fairly new so it may just be something they took to market to leverage in negotiations with Apple but such is the nature of the intellectual property business.

# 25 Brian said, on January 10th, 2007 at 6:33 pm

Pretty funny that the very laws apple has been hiding under for years has finally come around to bite them squarely in the ass.

I’d suspect Cisco is going to collect a hefty sum of cash to let apple use the ‘iPhone’ name.

Good work, Cisco. Stick it to those apple dorks.

And james hill, suggesting people commit suicide over remarks on a message board? Time to seek therapy!

# 26 James Hill said, on January 10th, 2007 at 6:44 pm

Why therapy? You failed at understanding the issue at hand, proven by your idiotic comment you can’t support.

Your death would make it so I wouldn’t have to read such stupidity… at least from you. Sounds like a good start to me.

# 27 TJGeezer said, on January 10th, 2007 at 6:48 pm

w00t!!!11 tallwookie. Hey, you got me started, d00d.

Never heard of Cisco being considered a “loser.” They own the Linksys brand, if you’re thinking small network devices, and VoIP giant Vonage sells Linksys with their contracts. And Cisco is everywhere there’s big network iron. Failure? Hardly.

Dallas (#18) might be right, though. Cisco owns the trademark, Apple is in a position to force Cisco to sue in order to protect it. Apple reaps a lot of publicity at Cisco’s expense. THEN Apple signs the contract.

I’d ask John Earnhardt (#10) if Cisco knew about this in advance (let us never use terms like “in cahoots”) but if Cisco did, I doubt Mr Earnhardt would be authorized to say so.

# 28 HMeyers said, on January 10th, 2007 at 7:18 pm

Anyone who thinks Apple is getting burnt or their dues is silly.

Steve Jobs knew he didn’t have the trademark, he decided he didn’t care and wanted the only logical name for his product for the launch.

Apple will be writing off whatever happens as a business expense and they will still easily make a profit. The worst thing that could happen is Cisco getting a couple of million dollars for infringing on the trademark of a Cisco product that no one has ever heard of.

Steve Jobs doesn’t care; he used the name he wanted for the launch and if Apple has to expense a mil or 2, that’s fine by him.

So many silly comments in this blog entry by people that clearly don’t know much about how big businesses operate. Microsoft has been infringing copyrights, breaking contracts and violating trademarks for years willfully because if you are big, it pays.

# 29 pedro said, on January 10th, 2007 at 7:44 pm

#15 Former Cisco Drios=New Mac Sheep

#24 You’re mean. You wrote what I decided not to, just to be nice for a change. Oh well, that goes to show you that when something’s true…

# 30 Canadian said, on January 10th, 2007 at 8:16 pm

Did he say iPhone? I think it was all a spelling mistake.

He ment iFone.

Really, they have six months before the final name for the product needs to be decided.

Yes Cisco had the trademark. Yes, Apple will sell a tonne of these phones. What will the final name for the phone be? We’ll find out in June.

# 31 ChrisMac said, on January 10th, 2007 at 8:34 pm

#28 pretty close..

and exactly why we like to cut them to ribbons

# 32 bill said, on January 10th, 2007 at 10:08 pm

Check out the LinkSys iPhone…
You decide which phone you want.

http://tinyurl.com/y593hy

# 33 Lauren the Ghoti said, on January 10th, 2007 at 10:14 pm

#24 -
“You probably don’t have a Hobart mixer in your house either but they are tremendously successful in commercial kitchens. Some would argue there’s a lot more money and a lot less headache selling to businesses rather than consumers.”

Bad example. Up til a few years ago, Hobart made excellent home appliances under the name Kitchen Aid. Actually, very few companies expand from the consumer to the commercial market; the opposite is much easier. Hobart and Cisco are two prime examples. That’s also why there’re IBM micros, but no Apple mainframes.

# 34 tallwookie said, on January 11th, 2007 at 12:03 am

#32 – form factor looks a lot like my sch-t509 – weird

# 35 Naomi said, on January 11th, 2007 at 12:35 am

I’m going to patent my name spelled backwards.

If Apple made masturbation devices, would they be called iCame / iMoan / iPud ?

iSwallowed

# 36 Mr. Fusion said, on January 11th, 2007 at 1:27 am

Yawn, who cares. Both companies get some publicity.

If Apple doesn’t pony up the money, then CISCO just gets an injunction AFTER Apple goes to market. Then Apple has a load of product it can’t sell.

# 37 JoaoPT said, on January 11th, 2007 at 2:28 am

They’ll just make all of the packets and manuals with enough space after the name so they can change it to iPHONEY with just an y…

# 38 Sheva said, on January 11th, 2007 at 5:41 am

hmmm….

Facts:
- Cisco is the most successfull company in the networking business (85% market share which means your data is probably flowing through a Cisco router right now)

- If you never heard of Cisco, it´s because Cisco operates at business level. You never heard of it because you don´t need a high end router/hub/switch at home

- Cisco owns the Iphone trademark, and unless they say so, Apple can´t use it in the US. Some people seem to think Apple can just decide to pay and use it, this is wrong. If a court rules in Cisco´s favour (and it will) Apple will have to change that name, period.

got it? good. bye now

# 39 venom monger said, on January 11th, 2007 at 6:28 am

Quoted from engadget.com:

Mark Chandler, SVP of Cisco, has weighed in with his own take on the situation. Apparently Cisco wasn’t hitting up Apple for cash, asking for royalties or hedging for an IT contract — or at least none of those were “issues at the table” and keeping them from an agreement, so there’s always the slight chance a couple such bribes were already givens. Apparently what Cisco was actually out for was an “open approach,” with Apple opening up its iPhone enough to allow interoperability with Cisco’s offering. “We wanted to make sure to differentiate the brands in a way that could work for both companies and not confuse people, since our products combine both web access and voice telephony.”

See the whole post: http://tinyurl.com/yn8vxl

# 40 pedro said, on January 11th, 2007 at 6:45 am

You’re a bunch of insensitive people. Don’t you know the ammount of personal distress this feud will generate on that poor yet-to-be-born iphone?

Talk about an identity disorder

Am I iphone or a phone?

Should I just transmit on wifi or edge or both at the same time?

Do I play music or video or both?

If I’m playing audio and they tell me to browse myspace, what should I mute? same thing with video & youtube?

Why do I not have keys nor buttons? Am I a samsung voice recognition phone or a nokia 7380?

Why does the nokia N800 looks so much like me?

You’re creating a system bomb to that little cute thing

Don’t worry little bugger. To help you ease your pain, iphone home.

Hey, they could change the name from iphone to one representative of this fued: i’llphone

# 41 SpammedALot said, on January 11th, 2007 at 7:32 am

Apple already stepped away from using “ITV” – must’ve decided to take a chance on the Cisco trademark.

# 42 Curmudgen said, on January 11th, 2007 at 7:41 am

“- Cisco owns the Iphone trademark, and unless they say so, Apple can´t use it in the US. Some people seem to think Apple can just decide to pay and use it, this is wrong. If a court rules in Cisco´s favour (and it will) Apple will have to change that name, period.”

Surely Apple knew this, so why market a product with the same name?

# 43 airwhale said, on January 11th, 2007 at 7:49 am

The device looks kinda sweet, I must admit, running OSX and all. However, if they don’t own the name, then use another. If they keep it up, Cisco should release their own iPod

I always wondered why they didn’t go with one of their old names – any reason “AppleTalk” shouldn’t work? (…and yes, I know what it is). The humor wouldn’t be lost on any of us, right.

peace

# 44 TJGeezer said, on January 11th, 2007 at 8:15 am

#42 – That’s why I suggested Cisco might have known about all this in advance. It’s one way to make sense of what Apple did – the huge publicity it generates. Classical PR: Free coverage as genuine news.

#39 – That’s a better explanation. Cisco wanted interoperability, and Apple didn’t get where it is now by sticking with open standards. But that begs the question of why they’d use a trademark known to be owned by another player – and another player with huge, deep pockets at that. Cisco is no small developer house with a good software idea for a Microsoft to steal. Cisco can be just as big and mean as Apple if it wants to.

# 45 James Hill said, on January 11th, 2007 at 8:18 am

Suicide. Seriously guys. A number of you should consider it.

# 46 chuck said, on January 11th, 2007 at 8:25 am

On the Apple web-site, the newly announced (and renamed) Appletv is referred to by showing the apple logo followed by tv.

If they can ditch iTV, then they should ditch the iPhone name too – just call it Applephone – but use the apple logo instead of the word “apple”.

# 47 Mike said, on January 11th, 2007 at 9:03 am

The apparent problem for Cisco, as some commentators have brought up, is that they are trying to enforce a trademark which is almost exclusively associated with Apple. Bloggers, the media and financial analysts have been calling an Apple produced phone the “iPhone” for over six months now.

Question for the lawyers here: Can you register a trademark, sit on it idly for several years, release a product a month before the thing that everybody in the world already associates with the name, and then reasonably expect to be able to enforce the trademark?

# 48 pedro said, on January 11th, 2007 at 10:15 am

Exactly what is the trademark, putting an i before a word?

Now you know people, never use a word that starts with an i in your product and surely never ever add an i, that’s trademark infringement.

# 49 GregA said, on January 11th, 2007 at 10:45 am

#38,

You missed one thing. Apple has already done substantial damage to the iPhone trademark. Not only will they be seeking injunctive relief, but I suspect they want the treble damages as well. The settlement could well reach into the billions of dollars, wiping out years of Apple gains in the marketplace.

Apple is going to take quite a drubbing over this clear cut case of trademark violation. Shame on Steve for this clear cut case of IP theft. It is so blatant that I suspect that the iPhone demo was his Swan Song.

Also…

Ive beem using my Razr phone all day today. One thing I noticed, is when Im not using hands free, I am using it with one hand. The more I think about that gawd awful touch screen interface, the more doubts I have that the apple engineers thought the touch screen through. At the size that thing is, there is no way to use it one handed.

Wow, also I underestimated the degree to which cell phone users HATE Cingular and ATT wireless. Just wow. What was apple thinkin…

# 50 tallwookie said, on January 11th, 2007 at 11:04 am

#49 – ouch, that sucks – the razr is among the worst pos mobile device out there – malfuctioning hardware issues, crippled bluetooth, faulty OS, and the patches break the phone more then they fix it

# 51 Mike said, on January 11th, 2007 at 11:30 am

It’s also interesting that http://www.iphone.com links to yet another “iPhone” service from another company which seems to be unrelated to either Apple or Cisco.

# 52 Mike Voice said, on January 11th, 2007 at 11:32 am

49 Apple has already done substantial damage to the iPhone trademark.

A trademark Apple owns in several other countries…. and Apple has owned iphone.org for years…

Not only will they be seeking injunctive relief, but I suspect they want the treble damages as well.

Treble? 3x of what, exactly?

Will they bring in the RIAA’s accountants to help “estimate” their “losses”?

# 53 GregA said, on January 11th, 2007 at 11:35 am

#50,

Don’t know what you are talking about. Mine works fantastically. The pay per use on GPS sucks though, however it has been worth every penny the three times I have used it. The last time I used the GPS, I had to go to an industrial electricians store to buy a 500 volt switch. I bet the GPS saved me 2 hours AT LEAST. Also, the GPS works amazingly well on the lakes. You always know exactly where you are.

Why would I need bluetooth? When I buy music on my phone, it automatically appears in windows media player. Amazing! No Sync required!

And one more thing.

When I am in a VCast service area, I can watch live tv on it.

But, yah, it sucks, whatever you say dude.

# 54 GregA said, on January 11th, 2007 at 1:30 pm

Mike Voice,

Stock market closed. Apple lost all of their gains from the iPhone announcement due to the lawsuit. I wonder if apple calling the lawsuit “silly” helped or hurt the stock? Thats more than a billion dollars already lost…

That means, before it is even released, the iPhone is already a bigger loser than the Zune.

# 55 Mike said, on January 11th, 2007 at 2:44 pm

#54,

That might be clever if it were at all true. AAPL opened just under $87 on Tuesday morning before the announcement, and it closed today at $95.80 after a -1.20 loss.

So should we just go ahead and conclude now that you are full of shit?

# 56 Mr. Fusion said, on January 11th, 2007 at 3:26 pm

#45, Suicide. Seriously guys. A number of you should consider it.
Comment by James Hill — 1/11/2007 @ 8:18 am

Where is an editor when you need one? I’ve had posts edited for far less offensive then this.

# 57 jag said, on January 11th, 2007 at 4:39 pm

its a nice device, i watched the keynote and am liking the apple even more… might be a decent addition to my windows world…

just sooo damn expensive hardware

# 58 Sam said, on January 11th, 2007 at 4:57 pm

I am tired of these ‘i’ naming stuff from everything Apple, so childish

# 59 pedro said, on January 11th, 2007 at 5:03 pm

#57 bad news, in revenge to MS that never created a “nice” way to synch pocketpc’s to macs, mac decided to make it hard to sync the i’llphone to a pc

# 60 Booya said, on January 12th, 2007 at 6:38 am

“Apple Phone” for the win!

# 61 Mike Voice said, on January 12th, 2007 at 8:26 am

#54That means, before it is even released, the iPhone is already a bigger loser than the Zune.

Yeah, sure….

Apple can call it “iPhone” in: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, European Union, Singapore, United Kingdom – because they have either been granted the mark, or have applied for it.

http://tinyurl.com/yjtgb8

They can call it something else, in the US – if they have to – but everyone will call it “iPhone” no matter what the official name is.

Cisco tried to use the looming announcement date as leverage against Apple, and lost the bet.

Mr Chandler says it wasn’t about money: “We hoped our products could interoperate in the future.”

You try to force the kings of closed systems into giving you interoperability with their newest gadget, and wonder “why can’t we all just get along”???

Am I supposed to believe Mr Chandler is really that naive???

# 62 pedro said, on January 12th, 2007 at 9:02 am

So the Beatles (or what’s left of them) cannot be mad because mac used their trademark, but mac has all the right to be mad at Cisco. Yeah, I can see the logic in this.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!