| Apple's defense: VoIP is different? Thanks for the research, Karl. You can also look at the text of Cisco's trademark - it's for a networking device, no mention of cellular
some more public information:
What Cisco/Linksys said yesterday on lawsuit: "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,"
Apple's response on CNBC (paraphrasing): Their trademark is for IPhone as in IP(internet protocol)hone and they sell a VoIP phone. However, our product is a cell phone and is called "i"Phone to be similar to our "i"Pod.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. |
|
 N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | Redmond Lawyers, start your copiers!
This one will generate a mountain of paperwork.
Or PDF's..... |
|
| Or .doc documents...
Or proprietary .MSxml files...
(Should be called the "iCost+" as it ain't cheap...) |
|
|
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | reply to SD6
Isn't this like Ford making a new sport/utility truck and calling it a Camaro? |
|
gateguyPremium
join:2001-02-12
Reisterstown, MD Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to cableties
said by cableties:(Should be called the "iCost+" as it ain't cheap...) Cars are not cheap either, but I see plenty of them being driven around.
--
Have fun, enjoy. |
|
| reply to SD6
If I were to post "I am going out this afternoon to buy me an iPhone" and by iPhone you assume I am talking about the Apple product then Cisco has a case. What Apple needs to show (and I don't know how they will do it) if they want to fight this (and not just pay up which is what they will do) is that the word iPhone has become so widespread in general usage that the trademark is meaningless... sort of like the word "klenex" may be applied in general to a generic brand.
--
If it is not recorded, it simply does not exist. |
|
 GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4 | reply to SD6
This is kind of like an antitrust questions where it's about how you define the market. Here, it's about defining the class of goods and services.
I think Apple will have their hands full trying to legitimately make arguments as to why Apples as the junior user of the mark doesn't run afoul of Cisco registered trademark.
------------------------------------------
Word Mark IPHONE
Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: computer hardware and software for providing integrated telephone communication with computerized global information networks. FIRST USE: 19970606. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19970606
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Design Search Code
Serial Number 75076573
Filing Date March 20, 1996
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1B
Published for Opposition December 29, 1998
Registration Number 2293011
Registration Date November 16, 1999
Owner (REGISTRANT) INFOGEAR TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 1775 WOODSIDE ROAD REDWOOD CITY CALIFORNIA 94061
(LAST LISTED OWNER) CISCO TECNOLOGY, INC. CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 170 WEST TASMAN SAN JOSE CALIFORNIA 95134
Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Attorney of Record KAREN MARIE KITTERMAN
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Affidavit Text SECT 8 (6-YR).
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to gateguy
Um, what does a car analogy have to do with the high cost of legal fees? (as in it's going to cost Apple now for it's premature dance)
OMG!!! You..you aren't one of those Apple Zealots, are you???  |
|
GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4
3 edits | reply to Dezbend
said by Dezbend:If I were to post "I am going out this afternoon to buy me an iPhone" and by iPhone you assume I am talking about the Apple product then Cisco has a case. What Apple needs to show (and I don't know how they will do it) if they want to fight this (and not just pay up which is what they will do) is that the word iPhone has become so widespread in general usage that the trademark is meaningless... sort of like the word "klenex" may be applied in general to a generic brand. What you are talking about is dilution. I just can't imagine that they would win with that. Xerox, Kleenex, Thermos are all marks that struggled with this. Here, I don't think iPhone is being commonly/generically used to refer to certain types of phones. Maybe it is, but I don't see it.
It becomes dangerous for a company when trademarks are used as generic nouns/verbs for the object/action. For example, "get me a kleenex", or "xerox this paper" or "pour it into the thermos" are all phrases that are dangerous for companies.
Proper usage of the trademark is as an adjective. For example, saying "get me a Kleenex tissue" or "copy this paper in the Xerox machine" etc. is okay.
A trademark owner is obligated to police their marks and enforce them. Here, Cisco is bound to take action to protect its mark unless it wants to lose rights to it.
The items are similar enough to warrant what we are seeing now. |
|
| That is why I said I don't know how they would do it. I don't see a legal "out" for Apple unless they can show a jury that e-anything and then by extension i-anything is so common it is untrademarkable...
--
If it is not recorded, it simply does not exist. |
|
gateguyPremium
join:2001-02-12
Reisterstown, MD Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to cableties
said by cableties:( Should be called the "iCost+" as it ain't cheap...) said by cableties:Um, what does a car analogy have to do with the high cost of legal fees? (as in it's going to cost Apple now for it's premature dance) Interestingly enough, I thought your iCost reference was in relation to the iPhone itself, not the legal fees. The wording used was not clear enough to make that distinction.
What Should be called the "icost+"?
Not a Mac Zealot as much as a frustrated Windows Developer.
--
Without data, it is just an opinion |
|
 CheesePremium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1 | reply to SD6
said by SD6:Thanks for the research, Karl. You can also look at the text of Cisco's trademark - it's for a networking device, no mention of cellular some more public information: What Cisco/Linksys said yesterday on lawsuit: "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," Apple's response on CNBC (paraphrasing): Their trademark is for IPhone as in IP(internet protocol)hone and they sell a VoIP phone. However, our product is a cell phone and is called "i"Phone to be similar to our "i"Pod. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Then it would be IPPhone....Since IP would leave just hone and Internet Protocol Hone would make no sense  |
|
GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4 | reply to Dezbend
said by Dezbend:That is why I said I don't know how they would do it. I don't see a legal "out" for Apple unless they can show a jury that e-anything and then by extension i-anything is so common it is untrademarkable... Sorry. We agree then. |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to Goober
... which is funny, because you don't hear people use the term "Xerox" as to 'copy' something any more.. it's mostly gone back to "COPY" to describe the action.. as in "I need to make a COPY of this" rather than "I need to Xerox this page"... I guess something things just don't hold as well as "Kleenex" tissue or "Band-Aid" bandage have.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. |
|
GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4 | It's true. The Xerox term has fallen out of common generic usage it seems. Maybe it's because Xerox brand copiers aren't as ubiquitous as they once used to be? |
|
| reply to fiberguy
Among the more infamous examples of this dilution of trademark: the crescent wrench. |
|
 rawWar EaglePremium
join:2001-01-17
Madison, AL | reply to lesopp
said by lesopp:Isn't this like Ford making a new sport/utility truck and calling it a Camaro? Yeah, and claiming it's different because it's designed to work on interstate highways only.
--
[BBR]raw
America's Army
BBR Enemy Territory clan founder |
|
DesdinovaPremium
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD | reply to MrBradTX
And aspirin which was a brand name that's since entered common parlance as a word (of course, so has heroin, but hey...*grin*). |
|
emptywigHuh? What?Premium
join:2002-08-05
Pasadena, TX | reply to SD6
Where do they find these attorneys?
The idea that Apple could just usurp the trademark because they wanted the iPhone "to be similar to our iPod" is one of the most preposterous assertions I have ever heard. There is no way that they can use someone else's trademark just to make the name of your products similar. Absolute rubbish.
wig
--
Sometimes a paradox is just a paradox |
|
