Apple in trouble over 'iPhone' brand

Author: Ryan Garside
Published: 11th January 2007
Comments (34) Stumble
iPhone? More like iGroan! Another lawsuit coming up.

iPhone? More like iGroan! Another lawsuit coming up.

Steve Jobs and Apple could be in a little bit of trouble after the announcement of the swanky looking iPhone. Apparently, network-equipment maker Cisco Systems, own the name and had not finalised an agreement with Apple, giving it permission to use the brand name.

The implications for this are numerous. First and foremost it looks like the iPhone will have to have a name change. Perhaps something along the lines of iMobile or iCell (give Mr. Jobs some of your own ideas in the forum) might work. Alternatively Apple will have to pay Cisco royalties to use the brand. Now, however, after so much publicity the cost for Apple could be pretty hefty with Cisco now in a position to demand what it wants.

Senior vice President Mark Chandler had this to say about the confusion:

"Cisco entered into negotiations with Apple in good faith after Apple repeatedly asked permission to use Cisco's iPhone name. There is no doubt that Apple's new phone is very exciting, but they should not be using our trademark without our permission.

"Today's iPhone is not tomorrow's iPhone. The potential for convergence of the home phone, cell phone, work phone and PC is limitless, which is why it is so important for us to protect our brand."

In typical, shrug-ya-shoulders Apple style, Apple spokesman Alan Hely said to the BBC: "We think Cisco's trademark lawsuit is silly." Acting childishly won't get you anywhere Alan. He then went on to say:

"We are the first company to ever use the iPhone name for a cell phone, and if Cisco wants to challenge us on it we are very confident we will prevail."

Am I the only person who feels like these multi-million dollar clashes between massive corporations are not dissimilar to the historic wars of medieval Kings? Surely the iPhone will have to have a name change to avoid such an expensive lawsuit? Let us know your predictions in the forum.
Quote MrWillyWonka 11th January 2007, 16:21
Well, I'm if the name has already been trademarked by Cisco then in legal terms Apple are in the wrong, I don't see a huge problem with change the name to iMobile (I think it sounds better) unless some clever dude has some quick thinking and has already trademarked "iMobile"!

I'd say both companies are being a bit childish.
Quote ElThomsono 11th January 2007, 16:23
AFAIK, iMobile is already taken.

I hate the way apple have gone about this whole phone, marketing-wise. It really lets you know their target market though.
Quote TheSaladMan 11th January 2007, 16:39
If they can't get iPhone chances are they'll Use Apple Phone, like they did with Apple TV
Quote mclean007 11th January 2007, 16:49
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWillyWonka
Well, I'm if the name has already been trademarked by Cisco then in legal terms Apple are in the wrong
Possibly, but possibly not. The way trade marks work is that a mark can be protected over a number of categories, but it is unusual for a mark to be protected in every category. To use an example quite close to home in this case, Apple (the IT company) does not infringe Apple's (the Beatles record label) trade mark because the record company does not have protection to cover the manufacture of computer hardware and software. However, the record company was less than impressed when iTunes Music Store rolled along, using the Apple mark to sell records because in the record company's view iTMS was encroaching on their protected space. Dispute over the Apple mark was the genesis of the whole Beatles/Apple feud that has resulted in the Beatles' back catalogue being unavailable on the iTMS.

The short version, then, is that Apple may have a point - unless Cisco has obtained protection for the trade mark group in which mobile phones fall (and I'm no expert on the classifications so can't suggest whether or not this is likely), there is no reason why Apple shouldn't use the name iPhone for its mobile.
Quote unrealhippie 11th January 2007, 16:56
Quote:
Originally Posted by mclean007
Possibly, but possibly not. The way trade marks work is that a mark can be protected over a number of categories, but it is unusual for a mark to be protected in every category. To use an example quite close to home in this case, Apple (the IT company) does not infringe Apple's (the Beatles record label) trade mark because the record company does not have protection to cover the manufacture of computer hardware and software. However, the record company was less than impressed when iTunes Music Store rolled along, using the Apple mark to sell records because in the record company's view iTMS was encroaching on their protected space. Dispute over the Apple mark was the genesis of the whole Beatles/Apple feud that has resulted in the Beatles' back catalogue being unavailable on the iTMS.

The short version, then, is that Apple may have a point - unless Cisco has obtained protection for the trade mark group in which mobile phones fall (and I'm no expert on the classifications so can't suggest whether or not this is likely), there is no reason why Apple shouldn't use the name iPhone for its mobile.

Adding to the fun, Steve Jobs stated that Apple Computer Incorporated is now called Apple Incorporated at the keynote emphasising that Apple is no longer about computers alone, this (given Apple Incorportated's lack of response) has raised rumours of Apple Computers buying out/combining with Apple especially given the other rumours that the entire Beatles catalogue and some unheard songs would soon be launched....
Quote konsta 11th January 2007, 17:08
Mclean 007: Whilst you are right regarding classifications of trademarks, I somewhat doubt that this would be relevant in this instance. Cisco are a communications company, they have launched a phone under the mark. It is beyond belief that they would have sought to protect it under anything else other than Class 9, which covers computers, electricals etc.. The only other possible class would be Class 38 (communications services), which seems unlikely. Moreover, it's perfectly possible to register a mark in multiple categories.

Marks are eligible for removal from the register (not automatic) if they are unused within 5 years of registration. I would suggest that the reason Cisco released their phone last week was to prevent any possible argument that the mark was not in use. I don't know how long they've held the mark for.

Also, if there wasn't a problem, it's unlikely that the two would be engaged in talks right now, as there wouldn't be a case to answer for.

[/reponse by trademark law student]
Quote trailblazer 11th January 2007, 17:28
In the "apple announces iphone" thread, quack has put a link to the cisco blog about this here
It appears that cisco bought a company called infogear in 2000, they had a mark on the name iphone from 1996 for a device with web access and telephony. In short cisco say they wanted to work with apple but... anyway it's all in the blog link. BTW sorry for pinching your link quack but it looks like the two threads are going the same way.
Quote samkiller42 11th January 2007, 17:39
This is plain rediculas and very silly, maybe apple should consult other people before doing things, if i decided to name something like "iBook" they would come down on me like a ton of bricks, but dont like it when its on them.

Sam
Quote SteveyG 11th January 2007, 17:56
iExpensivephonepod?
Quote M4RTIN 11th January 2007, 18:07
iFone perhaps? but i think they should just use the apple logo like the tv thing like previously mentioned.
Quote kickarse 11th January 2007, 18:08
I agree... Apple seems to always act like a child sticking his fingers in his ears, running around, yelling, kicking and screaming just so your not heard when you have a valid point.

This year Macworld IS a publicity stunt for Apple to gain leverage on the name, iPhone. The more people that know it's an Apple product and who like Apple will side with them, no matter the legality.

If the iPhone was only a phone I don't think it would make as much a difference to the companies. I understand Apple has a themed naming convention. BUT, iPhone has been taken for the exact purpose of use that Apple has decided to use it for. And, they are wrong.

If the judge is unbiased and just, and what judge is, than he'll toss the win to Cisco. BUT, I don't think this will ruin Apple's rep with so many zealots.
Quote Breach 11th January 2007, 18:30
Yeah it sounds like Apple thinks that because it's Apple Cisco should just give them the name. Cisco had it for over a decade now and is using the name on one of it's products, sounds like they are pretty intent on keeping it.

How would Apple not see a lawsuit coming for using a trademarked name without permission? nur?
Quote DXR_13KE 11th January 2007, 19:11
hmmmm a name for it? italk. apple will lose, if it does not buy out the judge.
Quote Havok154 11th January 2007, 19:28
Quote:
Originally Posted by mclean007
Possibly, but possibly not. The way trade marks work is that a mark can be protected over a number of categories, but it is unusual for a mark to be protected in every category. To use an example quite close to home in this case, Apple (the IT company) does not infringe Apple's (the Beatles record label) trade mark because the record company does not have protection to cover the manufacture of computer hardware and software. However, the record company was less than impressed when iTunes Music Store rolled along, using the Apple mark to sell records because in the record company's view iTMS was encroaching on their protected space. Dispute over the Apple mark was the genesis of the whole Beatles/Apple feud that has resulted in the Beatles' back catalogue being unavailable on the iTMS.

The short version, then, is that Apple may have a point - unless Cisco has obtained protection for the trade mark group in which mobile phones fall (and I'm no expert on the classifications so can't suggest whether or not this is likely), there is no reason why Apple shouldn't use the name iPhone for its mobile.


Actually, the record label Apple had sued Apple Computers ages ago over the Apple name but they came to an agreement that as long as Apple Computers didn't move into the music creation business, they could use the name. It wasn't that Apple music didn't have the legal rights to go after Apple Computers over the trademark, it's that they chose to let it go under the deal they made.

I don't see this boding well for the Apple iPhone since Cisco has an actual product, unlike those companies that trademark names just to make royalties off of other people. This is about product naming and confusion created by it. Apple will either need to cough up a lot of money or find a new name.
Quote r-gator 11th January 2007, 20:54
what about spelling it differently like iFön or iGhone (gh as in laugh) or iFohn ?

That would solve everything, plus be amusing to boot.
Quote kickarse 11th January 2007, 20:57
How about in response to the Verizon networks "Can you hear me now?" they name the phone iMHere...
Quote blackerthanblack 11th January 2007, 21:16
iPhod :?
Quote David_Fitzy 11th January 2007, 21:27
Since it's still going to be targeting the music player market (with 8Gb) I'm surprised they didn't just keep the iPod name, iPod Phone Edition. It depends on where the Ipod fits in with the iPhone in their grand scheme. I suspect that they'll become one in the same eventually, iPod will become your PDA, Mobile Phone and Music/Video Jukebox, what a horrible thought.
Quote Chuckysan 12th January 2007, 00:46
I guess I'm the only one that thought the name "IPhone" was incredible lame in the first place. With all that the device does, and thinking about what features they would intergrate on v.2 and v.3 of it, I'd say a way better name would be "ICom". It would fit more in line with the "IPod" approach and leaves them completly open for any new tech that may show up in the near future.

Chuckysan
Quote Cthippo 12th January 2007, 01:52
Icom is a major radio equipment manufacturer. Don't think they'd like that name at all.
Quote SaII 12th January 2007, 03:14
Apple should've saw this coming, Cisco put out their iPhones a long time ago.
Quote DriftCarl 12th January 2007, 06:07
Apple forced some poor arcade machine security company to change the name of their money pod or whatever it was ( a story on here months ago). saying that they own the rights to anything with "pod" in the name. Now they are claiming that ciscos lawsuit is silly when Cisco last year launched a phone under the Lyncsys name called iPhone.

I hope it costs Apple loads, recently apple have started to think that they are the kings of technology, all because they managed to sell a few mp3 players.
Quote JADS 12th January 2007, 07:36
How about the iPenis?
Quote Fozzy 12th January 2007, 07:38
say someone were to make an airplane car then add a docking station called the idock. Apple would sue the **** out of them. For them to call it silly when we all know they would do the same is flat out retarded
Quote Colonel Sanders 12th January 2007, 07:43
Quote:
Originally Posted by DriftCarl
I hope it costs Apple loads, recently apple have started to think that they are the kings of technology, all because they managed to sell a few mp3 players.

Couldn't agree more. Apple users have always considered themselves special and they truly are different.

Lately, I like Microsoft more than Apple. MS at least has a right to act like the king of technology (percentage of market). I'm sure theres some odd lawsuits from MS but at least in MS lawsuits theres more than just a bunch of lawyers screaming "Were Apple! iPhone will sound so cool on our product!"

L J

-JADS, WTF? Are you 13 or younger?
Quote Iago 12th January 2007, 09:14
iPwnd?
Quote DXR_13KE 12th January 2007, 09:58
http://www.inovixproducts.com/IMP-5500-Series_r104.html

PHEAR TEH iPocket 5500!!!!!! RAWRRRR.....

hmmm..... other names, Iwii, Icrab(p instead of b), Ilose..... :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by DriftCarl
Apple forced some poor arcade machine security company to change the name of their money pod or whatever it was ( a story on here months ago). saying that they own the rights to anything with "pod" in the name.

so NASA is really in bad waters.... and the army..... and peas.....and beans and about every vegetable that grows in pods, and the band P.O.D.......and podcasts.
Quote Phil Rhodes 12th January 2007, 15:20
iCan'tbebothered.

It's an mp3 phone.

But look, it's got a touchscreen and an Apple logo!

Obviously, it is worth three times the usual price for a similar device.

Phil
Quote Cthippo 12th January 2007, 17:54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Rhodes
iCan'tbebothered.

It's an mp3 phone.

But look, it's got a touchscreen and an Apple logo!

Obviously, it is worth three times the usual price for a similar device.

Phil
QFT! :thumb
Quote quack 13th January 2007, 00:01
Cisco may have already lost the trademark. Oops.
Quote David_Fitzy 13th January 2007, 08:12
I like iCom (despite hating the iPrefix)
Quote Havok154 13th January 2007, 10:06
Looks like they have renamed the phone to "iTouch Mobile". Since the orginal news site requires you to register, I havn't confirmed this, but it seems very likely.

Apple Renames iPhone to "iTouch Mobile"
Quote tacticus 13th January 2007, 10:14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Havok154
Looks like they have renamed the phone to "iTouch Mobile". Since the orginal news site requires you to register, I havn't confirmed this, but it seems very likely.

Apple Renames iPhone to "iTouch Mobile"
and if you read that site they say just below that it is a fake

http://www.nowpublic.com/ap_denies_story_that_apple_has_folded_on_the_iphone_name from the same thread
Quote Havok154 13th January 2007, 10:20
Quote:
Originally Posted by tacticus
and if you read that site they say just below that it is a fake

http://www.nowpublic.com/ap_denies_story_that_apple_has_folded_on_the_iphone_name from the same thread
Cool, thanks. Like I said, I wasn't registering for the site, but figured it could be fake since I didn't see the news anywhere else today.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.





Stats: 0.128 seconds