Ed Burnette over at ZDNet asks a question we haven't seen anywhere else. Has Cisco already lost its right to the iPhone trademark? Several specialists in trademark law describe how Cisco's trademark was registered back in '99 and may not have been properly renewed or used within the 6 years (plus 6 month grace period) span allowed. Expert Jay Behmke writes "If Cisco didn't launch a product using the iPhone name, their trademark registration would be canceled and they would have no bargaining chips with Apple. So in order to keep the trademark active, they had to file the Declaration of Use, and start selling a product under that trademark...It is possible that the Declaration of Use is defective, as there was no continuous use, and the sample that Cisco submitted was for a product not released until 7 months later."
Read the whole thing to see where these experts are coming from. It's still a matter best left to lawyers to figure out, but the article points up some very interesting background about the issue. In the end, at least in our opinion, Cisco's case may fail because Ivan in package design was vacationing in Nassau that week... Sticking the iPhone sticker onto a pre-existing box? In the words of our own Mike Rose, "that's not even half-assed, it's more like like one-eighth-assed."
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1-12-2007 @ 7:37PM
midlomuncher said...
"It's not about money."
Yeah, right! Nice job Cisco. Why don't you concentrate on making your crappy Linksys products work properly.
Reply
1-12-2007 @ 9:04PM
Nathan said...
Just when I was glad years iPhone rumours were behind us it looks like we will have years of iPhone trademark stories...
Reply
1-12-2007 @ 9:06PM
Leonard Nimrod said...
"Cisco's trademark was registered back in '99"
Cisco had to re-register the trademark after it's acquisition of InfoGear?
Reply
1-12-2007 @ 10:28PM
Mike Rose said...
According to CNet's legal analysts, they did re-register the trademark in 1999 and then filed under the wire for the 6.5 year affirmation.
Reply
1-12-2007 @ 11:20PM
bud said...
Unfortunately, at best, Cisco looks like a squatter and robber baron, having bought the name in the first place, then sitting on it without active development for so long.
It's all a publicity grab. Apple could merely change the name of the phone, then where would Cisco be? They would still be holding a handfull of nothing.
VOIP is not going to be that big a thing until there is WiMax and free Broadband Wireless clouds available to all, and the phone companies will try their best to continue to provide"phone" services, and pretend VOIP does not exist.
How much money is Vonage making?
Reply
1-12-2007 @ 11:55PM
Malcolm Bishop said...
There is a chance that Steve was more prepared for this than the media are aware! Usually the way!
Reply
1-13-2007 @ 3:50AM
biscuit said...
I'm not so hot on US law, but under European trade mark law Cisco would probably be in trouble over a couple of things. There's this non-use issue, but there's also grounds to say that the mark has become misleading and no longer serves its purpose as a badge of origin.
If you asked someone looking to buy a phone/cellphone the question "Who makes the iPhone?", how many of them do you think would say Cisco?
biscuit
Reply
1-13-2007 @ 11:04AM
tf said...
biscuit, as to Europe and, Malcolm, as to being prepared, yes, Apple knows what it is doing.
http://www.out-law.com/page-7650
Somebody filed a trademark revocation on the same day that Cisco attempted to "re-launch" the brand, presumably on behalf of Apple as Ocean Telecom is acting on the filing front.
Reply
1-13-2007 @ 11:39AM
Guy said...
Apple just needs to pay what Cisco wants, or change the name now. Whether Cisco has a case or not it doesn't matter right now. None of us are trademark experts and even if we are it doesn't change the fact that we don't know everyhing Cisco did or didn't do. Cisco has more than enough money to drag this thing out, they are a huge company, one of Forbes top 150. There would be nothing worse than late May a judge issues an injunction not allowing Apple to release the iPhone. Maybe Apple has every right to the name, and even if they do, it will take atleast a year of litigation to get that finalized. Or what if in July a judge issues an order to stop selling all iPhones, what then.
Steve Jobs likes to be in control, and he is great when he is, but if this goes to court, the release of the iPhone may not have anything to do with production, or design, or anything else he can control, it will be decided by the US courts and various judges. Watch any trademark or patent cases, and one judge will issue an injuntion, then 2 weeks later another lifts it, while a higher court intitutes if again. Does Apple want to be at the mercy of those judges? Cisco has nothing to lose except some voip phone, and cisco make more money form Tivo(for example) than from Vonage, so that phone is nothing to them. While Apple has everything to lose. Average Joe consumer isn't going to wait forver for their iPhone forever, they may wait to June but if the date keeps going back and back, at some point they will get the Treo, or PPC, or HTC, or Blackberry.
One thing is that sort of ironic, everyone that visits this site, or Cingulars, or even Apples site is giving money to Cisco since half the internet is using their routers. Somewhere between your computer and every website you view, you are using Cisco routers.
Reply
1-13-2007 @ 3:45PM
Jason said...
Ooh, ouch. After looking at the analysis of the renewal, including the picture with the pasted-on iPhone label, I take back the comment I posted last week when this was first reported here. I made a mistake; Cisco should lose.
Reply
1-13-2007 @ 6:54PM
Reg said...
There should be an unwritten rule that says companies in the valley should play fair with each other.
Cisco should really have joined the Google + Yahoo + Apple triumvirate in ganging up to take on the big evil Microsoft instead of becoming evil itself.
Reply
1-21-2007 @ 9:23AM
Arno said...
I think apple has to be sued just because they sue everyone else. If you say Microsoft is evil try spreading inside information on apple products, you 'll be sued the crap out off you!
Guess the article does point out that Cisco doesn't have a case.
Reply