Kick in the teeth for Apple?

[ayoub]

Cisco sues Apple over iPhone brand...

Cisco is probably one of the few companies, along with Google, Apple, and Microsoft, who defends their brands to the death, and by any means necessary... Having the iPhone brand since 1996 and releasing it last year will help them a lot.

Will Apple have to rebrand their biggest risk yet?

This will be a fun battle to watch :D

Comments

[laurel714.livejournal.com]

My brother works for Cisco. I'll ask him what he thinks about it.

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

Cool! :D

[f-l-i-r-t.livejournal.com]

I don't think it will end up being a big deal for a lot of reasons. One, Apple isn't stupid, their lawyers would have done the research and would know that the iPhone had been trademarked already. They either have checked branding precedences and know that they have more legal footing as they have been using 'i'Insert Product Name for a very long time.

To be quite honest, it was very cynical of Cisco or any company to use an 'i' name you are completly and totally hoping to trick customers into thinking you are an Apple product or at least hoping to get free product recognition. I am not explaining this well, but Cisco is being cynical and Apple stubborn. But as I said, Apple is not stupid, they would have known about it and known as soon as they announced their phone this was coming, so, I am pretty sure they are prepared.

Also if you look carefully. Apple has started branding the new products slightly different. They have the Apple symbol in front of the name, so technically it is Apple iPhone, not just iPhone. Same with tv it is Apple 'sybmol' tv.

I am not defending Apple because it is Apple, I am just saying they usually know what they are doing or take risk based on knowledge that things will sway their way slightly. All the research I did said that Cisco has the iPhone brand since 2000, and only officially released their product in late December 2006 - all feels very cynical to me.

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

There are two factors that will work against Apple though. They started negotiations for the brand with Cisco, so they recognised Cisco owned the brand.

And the launch last year was a re-launch of a brand that Cisco bought in 1999.

Cynical though it may be, Cisco are probably relishing this particular battle, and, if Apple want to keep the iPhone brand, they'll probably end up paying for it.

At the end of the day, the lawyers will get rich, Cisco will get publicity, and cash, and the price of the final iPhone will go up.

The machinations, however, will be fun to watch :)

[markbuster.livejournal.com]

I don't mind if they call it "Purple Monkey Dishwasher"- I want one!

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

I'll wait for the inevitable iPhone nano ;)

[markbuster.livejournal.com]

Phones don't do well as Minis. In fact, some cells are so damn small that they are hard to use! But we will all wait for an iPhone, I doubt that they made enough. I certainly want one. It's such a pain to bring my MP3 player, and Palm, and cell phone. Now if it could just open my garage door, we would really be in business!

[garyg.livejournal.com]

i read two interesting perspectives on this today: 1) iphone is not a well defended trademark by cisco. and trademarks are all about defence - there are other companies with an iphone. 2) cisco got the trademark in 1996, or about there. if they ever didn't have a product using that name for 3 years then they are in a weak position to depend the trademark.

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

Interestingly, Apple didn't try to take iTV from http://www.itv.com

But they did request permission from Cisco, and entered into negotiations...