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This discussion has been archived.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 Anonymous Coward on Friday February 02, 2007 @01:11PM (#17861022)
    I thought Cisco already lost by not using the trademark for a 5 year period after purchasing NetGear (who did use the trademark). And isn't there a falsified affidavit - with a false claim of continuing use - submitted by a Cisco representative to the trademark office to extend that unused trademark? And did not Cisco submit a photograph of an already shipping product that did not go by the name iPhone to the trademark office as (false) proof of the trademark being used in commerce? Anyone else seen the picture of that sticker Cisco affixed to the outside shrinkwrap of the back of the non-iPhone product?

    Methinks Cisco is delaying because Cisco does not want to lose too quickly.
  • Re:Oh. My. God. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 02, 2007 @01:21PM (#17861192)
    Nobody cares. Let me know when there's something *meaningful* to report.

    1) Don't waste your own time reading stories that you don't find interesting.
    2) Don't waste your own time commenting on same.
  • Re:Oh. My. God. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by defy god (822637) on Friday February 02, 2007 @01:51PM (#17861682)

    well, if you click on the second link provided, you'll see that it actually does matter if they use the trademark (within the 5 years of your own quote). they have to show continued use of said trademark during those 5 years. that's what the fuss is about photoshopping the logos in, trying to fake their use of it. if not, they have 6 months to file a type of ammendment stating they did use it (which Cisco has filed). funny thing about that filing, employees of Cisco signed under risk of perjury that the trademark was fully in use. if it is later found that it was not, then comes in the other part of your quote stating that it can "only be canceled on certain specified grounds".

    the photoshop work is trying to rewrite history. they are essentially rebranding their products to support their current claims on the trademark.

  • so what? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by oohshiny (998054) on Friday February 02, 2007 @02:45PM (#17862672)
    Yes, and Apple isn't using the trademark at all yet, since no iPhones are actually shipping.

    So, even if Cisco just starts using the trademark now, they are still months ahead of Apple.

    Of course, Apple knew that the iPhone trademark was claimed by Cisco since they were negotiating with them long before they released their iPhone. Looks to me like Apple is just trying to strong-arm the trademark away from Cisco by whatever means they can.

  • So has Cisco, and apparently before the Apple announcement.

    Isn't the point to the article is that Cisco was apparently not using the name before the Apple announcement.

Wernher von Braun settled for a V-2 when he coulda had a V-8.

Working...