Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Businesses Government Hardware Apple News

iPhone Lawsuit Put On Hold For The Moment 72

Posted by Zonk
from the show's-over-folks-go-on-home dept.
SoulReaverDan writes "The recent lawsuit between Cisco and Apple on the iPhone trademark has taken an interesting turn. Cisco and Apple have agreed to a temporary truce, to allow Apple time to respond to the lawsuit (and, one assumes, avoid more legal fees). The article goes on to mention Apple's claim that several companies are using the iPhone name, which dovetails nicely with a great blog entry over on ZDNet. Alan Graham lays out a search of various websites, showing that not only is Cisco not the only one using the iPhone name, they're trying to use it just a little too hard. The image of the CIT300 (note this is NOT the CIT400 that Cisco is suing Apple for at all) on Amazon has the iPhone logo, but it lacks the logo on the Linksys website or on CDW's website."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

iPhone Lawsuit Put On Hold For The Moment

Comments Filter:
  • by BunnyClaws (753889) on Friday February 02, 2007 @01:39PM (#17861476) Homepage
    I've heard of a Cisco VoIP phone I have one sitting in front of me right now. I just never heard of a Cisco iPhone. For the record I do not do my shopping at Staples I go through Dunder-Mifflin for all of my office supply needs.
  • by argent (18001) <peter.slashdot@2006@taronga@com> on Friday February 02, 2007 @03:45PM (#17863646) Homepage Journal
    I find Apple's behavior in regards to iPhone to be cynical, calculating, and arrogant.

    They're a corporation. Cynical, calculating, and arrogant is baked into their genes, lock, stock, and SEC regulations.

    On the other hand, Cisco didn't even bother putting an iPhone label on their product WHILE they were in negotiations with Apple. What do you call that?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 02, 2007 @07:44PM (#17867444)
    Actually, Cisco was shipping a product under a name consistent with their entire product line. Then late in December of 2006, when it became clear there would be a big announcement from Apple at its Expo early the next month, Cisco decided to append a new name to its already-shipping product. Strangely, this new name did not match Cisco's product line naming conventions. Interestingly, Cisco's sudden use of this new name matched the product Apple announced less than a month later: the Apple iPhone. On digging further, it became evident the newly rebadged Cisco product suddenly sporting an iPhone name told a story of its own. The story is that Cisco had failed to use a trademark it acquired by purchasing another company in 2000. This trademark Cisco owned the registration to in 2000 (Cisco did not own it prior) went un-used for over 5 years, in spite of the United States law requiring the trademark be used during that period. Cisco then submitted an application to the trademark office claiming it had used the name, when in fact it had not. Cisco failed to submit this application on time, but only did so during the grace period. Cisco wholly forgot to submit the required pictorial proof of usage and did so out of time. The picture Cisco submitted? An already-shipping product, on the back of the box outside of the shrinkwrap it had a single sticker affixed. Guess what single word this sticker on a product Cisco did not sell as the iPhone at that time contained? Well, I think you can guess.

Save energy: Drive a smaller shell.

Working...