Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Tim S, 11 Jan 2007.
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.
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.
If they can't get iPhone chances are they'll Use Apple Phone, like they did with Apple TV
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....
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]
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.
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.
iFone perhaps? but i think they should just use the apple logo like the tv thing like previously mentioned.
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.
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?
hmmmm a name for it? italk. apple will lose, if it does not buy out the judge.
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.
what about spelling it differently like iFön or iGhone (gh as in laugh) or iFohn ?
That would solve everything, plus be amusing to boot.
How about in response to the Verizon networks "Can you hear me now?" they name the phone iMHere...
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.
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.
Separate names with a comma.