Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

“Cisco Sues Apple Over Use of iPhone Name”

So the AP reports. Earlier press reports indicated that the two were close to a deal, but one suspects that the failure to close it before the sensation created by the announcement at MacWorld led Cisco to raise its price. Overlawyered readers anticipated the story Dec. 18. (Update: Ashby Jones has more detail.) Further update: […]

So the AP reports. Earlier press reports indicated that the two were close to a deal, but one suspects that the failure to close it before the sensation created by the announcement at MacWorld led Cisco to raise its price. Overlawyered readers anticipated the story Dec. 18. (Update: Ashby Jones has more detail.)

Further update: Cisco responds in the comments. NB that “raise its price” above doesn’t necessarily mean “money,” but can include other valuable consideration—such as access to Apple’s proprietary technology.

Filed under: ,

7 Comments

  • For more flavor on this suit and why, please view our SVP and General Counsel Mark Chandler’s blog entry on this issue at: http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/01/update_on_ciscos_iphone_tradem.html

    He states, in part, “this is not a suit against Apple’s innovation, their modern design, or their cool phone. It is not a suit about money or royalties. This is a suit about trademark infringement.”

  • “It is not a suit about money or royalties.”

    Did they ask for an injunction then? If it’s not about money why were they in negotiations to license the name?

  • “It is not a suit about money or royalties. This is a suit about trademark infringement.”

    The ONLY REASON to worry aboue trademarks is… money. To say that it is about trademark infringement IS to say that it’s about money. Therefore, the guy is LYING when he says it’s not about money, or he’s LYING when he says it’s about trademark infringement.

    Take your pick.

    • By Deoxy

  • Can anyone recommend a good trademark lawyer so I can strike while this iron is hot? Icar, Istove, Ibible, and Icommode are just a few of my thoughts for great names on products I might make someday. Got to protect myself right? Remember, you read it here first!!!

  • Deoxy: Is trademark infringement always about money? Overlawyered’s next post concerns an “Overlawyered.blogspot.com” website that seems to be tailored to be mistaken for this one at first glance, as well as several linked websites using commercial trademarks in their names. Does Overlawyered have to be making money from this website to be able to sue or apply for an injunction to stop this false-flag operation?

    • By markm

  • Happymac, if Cisco do NOT sue they automatically loose trademark protection.
    They also see their property stolen and marketing efforts ruined by Apple, who just recently sued another company for calling something “Pod”. Apple claimed that was trademark infringement (even though the full name of the product wasn’t iPod or anything like that and the product not in any way competing with any Apple product) yet now Apple brings a phone with the exact same name as a phone sold by another company and everyone has to accept that fact just because it’s Apple doing it?

    Of course it’s about money, but it’s not about sueing Apple out of business.
    It’s about making Apple stop stealing a brand name belonging to Cisco (and that name has belonged to Cisco for several years).
    Apple knew that name belonged to Cisco, yet willingly and knowingly went ahead and sells their own competing product under the same name. That’s illegal.

  • “Deoxy: Is trademark infringement always about money?”

    Unless there is impersonation/fraud going on, YES.

    The reason to stop the blogspot stuff is that they are impersonating/plaigerising Overlayered.

    When it coms to a name, especially when no product actually exists that BEARS the trademark in question, so no attempt at fraud is even POSSIBLE, the only thing left is money.

    • By Deoxy