[turtle777]

Originally Posted by driven 

This is really good for both companies.

Cisco gets free press for a product that was previously only known in niche circles. Apple gets (if this is even possible) MORE press for it's amazing new product. In the end a small amount of money will be exchanged and a few lawyers will make some bucks.

Everyone gets a happy ending.

I disagree.

It will confuse the consumer.

You will have dummies go and buy Cisco iPhones and expect the same product that Apple sells.

-t

[driven]

I doubt that dummies will be shopping anywhere that they sell Cisco iPhones.

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Man. You don't know how wrong you are. I'd be all for defending Apple in this, hadn't the iPhone trademark been filed in 1996 - a full two years before Apple came along with it's iMac.

Well here's an interesting something I found in the USPTO database.

Word Mark IMAC
Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: computer interfaces using hardware and software for remote communications and data transmission with a local area network. FIRST USE: 19911115. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19911115
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Design Search Code
Serial Number 74366045
Filing Date March 8, 1993
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition May 16, 1995
Registration Number 1909765
Registration Date August 8, 1995
Owner (REGISTRANT) Digi International Inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE 6400 Flying Cloud Drive Eden Prairie MINNESOTA 55344

(LAST LISTED OWNER) APPLE COMPUTER, INC. CORPORATION BY ASSIGNMENT CALIFORNIA 1 INFINITE LOOP CUPERTINO CALIFORNIA 95014
Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Attorney of Record JOHN DONALD
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR). SECTION 8(10-YR) 20050907.
Renewal 1ST RENEWAL 20050907
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

I doubt this changes anything for Apple. They'll probably still have to give Cisco something. But Apple has in fact had the iMac trademark, and it was registered before the iPhone trademark.

Edit: Just noticed this info was already posted. Sorry. I know it still doesn't matter though, since Apple didn't have product for several years after the trademark.

[Angus_D]

Apple spokesman Steve Dowling called the Cisco lawsuit “silly,” adding there are several companies using the term iPhone for VOIP products, and Cisco’s trademark is “tenuous at best.” “We’re the first company to ever use the iPhone name for a cellphone,” he said. “If Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we’re very confident we’ll prevail.”

Law Blog - WSJ.com : iLawsuit!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Angus_D 

Apple spokesman Steve Dowling called the Cisco lawsuit “silly,” adding there are several companies using the term iPhone for VOIP products, and Cisco’s trademark is “tenuous at best.” “We’re the first company to ever use the iPhone name for a cellphone,” he said. “If Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we’re very confident we’ll prevail.”

Law Blog - WSJ.com : iLawsuit!

This is true.
Founder VoIP iPhone
iPhone IP Telephones
iPhone - VoIP Solution

And Cisco certainly didn't seem very interested in protecting it's trademark against anyone but Apple. Having said that, it's interesting Apple has chosen a name already used in the telephony market for some less-than-Apple-like products.

If Apple obtains the right to use the name, I wonder how long it'll be before they begin suing these other users of the "iPhone" name?

[Rumor]

Someone will get paid but it may not be Apple or Cisco.

iPhone | Voice Over IP

Owned by Mike Kovatch of Santa Rosa, CA for 13 years.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Someone will get paid but it may not be Apple or Cisco.

iPhone | Voice Over IP

Owned by Mike Kovatch of Santa Rosa, CA for 13 years.

WTF is that website ? Just a JPG ?

But your point is correct: There seem to be far more iPhones out there than just Cisco. So it's probably gonna be thrown out in court. But again, it's the US legal system, all bets are off.

-t

[OAW]

Has anyone noticed that the name iPhone does not appear anywhere on the physical device itself? So no matter how the lawsuit turns out, it doesn't look like Apple will have to change the manufacturing of the device. You never know about the packaging though.

OAW

[andi*pandi]

well, maybe they're just savvy enough not to print the name on a prototype until they know how the lawsuit comes out.

[fast shadow]

This is SOP in trademark law. Since there was no agreement in place when Jobs announced, Cisco became obligated to "vigorously defend" its iPhone trademark or they will lose it by default.

[the.one]

It seems to me that Cisco has established that it holds the right to the iPhone name. We'll see what really happens once this comes out of the court system. For now, check out this site. I thought it was funny.

Apple vs. Cisco

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by fast shadow 

This is SOP in trademark law. Since there was no agreement in place when Jobs announced, Cisco became obligated to "vigorously defend" its iPhone trademark or they will lose it by default.

Wrong. Trademark != Patent.

-t

[tavilach]

Originally Posted by driven 

Perhaps they will end up releasing this as "ApplePhone". Nah ... that sounds too fruity.

Might I suggest...Phone?

Introducing Phone:

Phone combines three products — a revolutionary mobile phone, a widescreen iPod with touch controls, and a breakthrough Internet communications device with desktop-class email, web browsing, maps, and searching — into one small and lightweight handheld device. Phone also introduces an entirely new user interface based on a large multi-touch display and pioneering new software, letting you control everything with just your fingers. So it ushers in an era of software power and sophistication never before seen in a mobile device, completely redefining what you can do on a mobile phone.

[Eriamjh]

Introducing: iCom

[OAW]

Looks like Cisco may not own the trademark to iPhone after all ....

� Cisco lost rights to iPhone trademark last year, experts say | Ed Burnette’s Dev Connection | ZDNet.com

OAW

[turtle777]

Cisco will so lose out in court. I'm sure that's the reason why Apple is so confident.

-t

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by tavilach 

Might I suggest...Phone?

That makes no sense. Might I suggest PhonePod or maybe iPodPhone

[butterfly0fdoom]

How about MacPhone? Or Apple Phone? Those two are the most logical to me.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by butterfly0fdoom 

How about MacPhone? Or Apple Phone? Those two are the most logical to me.

It seems like Apple goes for "Mac" ... for the computers, and i... for the other consumer electronics.
The Apple TV is sort of odd...

-t

[Wiskedjak]

Looks like Apple may have lost, or at least didn't win

Apple and Cisco settle! iPhone name to be used by both - Engadget
Apple and Cisco have settled that "silly" lawsuit, with Apple agreeing to guarantee the exploration of "wide-ranging 'interoperability' between the companies' products in the areas of security, consumer and business communications" according to the WSJ. We don't know exactly what that means, but it doesn't sound fantastic for Jobs, who we're sure wanted to have exclusivity over the name without cutting a partnership with Cisco, and didn't want to have to pay a red cent for it. But this does sound a lot like what Cisco wanted initially from Apple, and might possibly wind up in some kind of SIP / VoIP solution that allows iPhones and iPhones to communicate. Apparently both will make use of the trademark in the market (i.e. Apple's and Cisco's iPhones will both continue to be iPhones), and all's well that ends non-litigious.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Looks like Apple may have lost, or at least didn't win

Woo. I don't mind Cisco and Apple working together. My 2 favorite companies.

[Eriamjh]

I was hoping Cisco would get iPowned.

Actually, this is best. No one will confuse a crappy VOIP phone with an iPhone.

[::maroma::]

Odd, I would've thought Apple would pay a sickening amount of money to keep the iPhone name exclusively. They are always so incredibly hardcore about their brand. But they must think this is the best course of action. I hope that Apple gets some cool stuff out of the deal as well. On the surface it seems like Cisco will be eating happily from the Apple tree, but I don't see anything saying what Apple will get out of the deal, if anything. Not sure they should get anything, but at any rate...