1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News Apple in trouble over 'iPhone' brand

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Tim S, 11 Jan 2007.

  1. Tim S

    Tim S OG

    Joined:
    8 Nov 2001
    Posts:
    18,881
    Likes Received:
    78
  2. MrWillyWonka

    MrWillyWonka Chocolate computers galore!

    Joined:
    25 Jul 2004
    Posts:
    5,892
    Likes Received:
    12
    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.
     
  3. ElThomsono

    ElThomsono Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18 Mar 2005
    Posts:
    2,958
    Likes Received:
    319
    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.
     
  4. TheSaladMan

    TheSaladMan New Member

    Joined:
    15 Sep 2006
    Posts:
    135
    Likes Received:
    0
    If they can't get iPhone chances are they'll Use Apple Phone, like they did with Apple TV
     
  5. mclean007

    mclean007 Officious Bystander

    Joined:
    22 May 2003
    Posts:
    2,035
    Likes Received:
    15
    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.
     
  6. unrealhippie

    unrealhippie New Member

    Joined:
    24 Jul 2004
    Posts:
    1,261
    Likes Received:
    1
    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....
     
  7. konsta

    konsta New Member

    Joined:
    2 Jul 2005
    Posts:
    95
    Likes Received:
    0
    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]
     
    Last edited: 11 Jan 2007
  8. trailblazer

    trailblazer New Member

    Joined:
    10 Nov 2004
    Posts:
    131
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  9. samkiller42

    samkiller42 For i AM Cheesecake!!

    Joined:
    25 Apr 2006
    Posts:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    150
    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
     
  10. SteveyG

    SteveyG Electromodder

    Joined:
    23 Nov 2002
    Posts:
    3,049
    Likes Received:
    8
    iExpensivephonepod?
     
  11. M4RTIN

    M4RTIN New Member

    Joined:
    11 Sep 2006
    Posts:
    1,259
    Likes Received:
    3
    iFone perhaps? but i think they should just use the apple logo like the tv thing like previously mentioned.
     
  12. kickarse

    kickarse New Member

    Joined:
    6 Oct 2004
    Posts:
    1,281
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  13. Breach

    Breach Modding in Exile

    Joined:
    20 Jun 2005
    Posts:
    396
    Likes Received:
    1
    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?
     
  14. DXR_13KE

    DXR_13KE BananaModder

    Joined:
    14 Sep 2005
    Posts:
    9,125
    Likes Received:
    373
    hmmmm a name for it? italk. apple will lose, if it does not buy out the judge.
     
  15. Havok154

    Havok154 New Member

    Joined:
    20 Aug 2006
    Posts:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0

    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.
     
  16. r-gator

    r-gator New Member

    Joined:
    29 Jan 2002
    Posts:
    71
    Likes Received:
    0
    what about spelling it differently like iFön or iGhone (gh as in laugh) or iFohn ?

    That would solve everything, plus be amusing to boot.
     
  17. kickarse

    kickarse New Member

    Joined:
    6 Oct 2004
    Posts:
    1,281
    Likes Received:
    0
    How about in response to the Verizon networks "Can you hear me now?" they name the phone iMHere...
     
  18. blackerthanblack

    blackerthanblack Active Member

    Joined:
    17 Sep 2004
    Posts:
    676
    Likes Received:
    29
  19. David_Fitzy

    David_Fitzy I modded a keyboard once....

    Joined:
    8 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    206
    Likes Received:
    2
    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.
     
  20. Chuckysan

    Chuckysan New Member

    Joined:
    4 Feb 2004
    Posts:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    New name

    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
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page