digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Cisco claims Apple created phony company to sidestep iPhone trademark

money.canoe.ca — Apple went so far as to create a phoney company - called Ocean Telecom Services LLC - to get around Cisco's trademark, Cisco alleges. The company listed its attorney as James Johnson. His contact information was an e-mail address from Google's free web-based Gmail service. Apple is using to comment about Ocean Telecom.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • DOGPARTY, on 10/12/2007, -347/+13oh boo hoo cisco, you ripped the naming idea off them anyway and churn out that crackbaby of a device weeks before macworld just so you could try and get money off them
    • shrewduser, on 10/12/2007, -24/+161the copyright dates back to 1996.... moron.
    • JustinMMcKay, on 10/12/2007, -17/+244No idiot, the company that Cisco acquired had trademarked this name long before the iMac ever came along, and LONG before this announcement. Cisco is not "boo-hoo"-ing they are defending a trademark that is rightfully theirs.

      Furthermore Cisco does not even want money off of Apple, they want interoperability. That was in the article you obviously didn't read.

      Apple is trying to bully a trademark with deceptive tactics. That has worked in their past trademark protective suits, but this time they tried it vs. a bigger company than themselves and they are probably going to get screwed.

      Anyway, read the ***** article and go suck more apple dick please. I mean seriously, I am a fan of apple products and own many but the blind sort of fanboy-ism that comes out of people like you is ***** ridiculous, especially since you have no ***** clue what you are talking about.
    • unit101, on 10/12/2007, -99/+27Regardless of whether Infogear had the patent only 1 year before iMac came out, it doesn't change the fact that Cisco tried to capitalize on all the Apple iPhone hype to launch it's own product. The case is not as black-and-white as some people are making it seem. This article ignores one of the biggest arguements Apple can use, which is the fact that Cisco did not defend their trademark for years.
    • knupso, on 10/12/2007, -17/+83Apple is not the first one that came up with this ***** in the first place. They were just the first ones that over used it and made it mainstream.
      Sorry but Apple is in the wrong here.
    • stealthboy, on 10/12/2007, -13/+82> "the copyright dates back to 1996.... moron."

      Copyright? I think you mean Trademark.
    • geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -44/+13"Cisco is not "boo-hoo"-ing they are defending a trademark that is rightfully theirs."

      Unfortunately, however, they're waiting until just _now_ to defend it. Apple can cite thousands of links between Apple and iPhone, made for over 2 years, whereas Cisco only has maybe a hundred or so (over a course of 5 years). If Cisco was _really_ in it for the trademark (and not just the money, which is apparent from Cisco's asking for Apple to pay the court fees AND for "lost" profits AND for an injunction), they would have started attacking anyone who even jokingly used the iPhone trademark in relation to Apple's forthcoming phone platform.

      I will say, however, that this is the only legal foot Apple has to stand on; if this argument is not accepted by the judge, the trademark is clearly in Cisco's hands, and Apple will have the change the product's name and likely pay a bunch of "lost profit" penalties to Cisco.
    • DoctaStooge, on 10/12/2007, -5/+32@ unit101

      "Regardless of whether Infogear had the patent only 1 year before iMac came out, it doesn't change the fact that Cisco tried to capitalize on all the Apple iPhone hype to launch it's own product. The case is not as black-and-white as some people are making it seem. This article ignores one of the biggest arguements Apple can use, which is the fact that Cisco did not defend their trademark for years."

      So what if they are trying to capitalize off of Apple's "iPhone" hype, they wouldn't be the first company to try this. The case is about a trademark that Cisco apparently legally owns. If this is true, then Apple has not legal standing to use "iPhone" unless they pay Cisco for the use of the trademark.

      @ geminitojanus

      It doesn't matter if Apple can cite links between Apple and "iPhone". If Cisco owns the trademark, they own it. Once Apple tries to use the name itself without consent, they violate the trademark.
    • junkmail02, on 10/12/2007, -17/+43as much as i love Apple as a company and their amazing state of the art products, I have to take Cisco's side on this one.
    • PleaseJustDie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28@geminitojanus

      Apple has never officially announced they had an iPhone project until just a couple days ago. Just because websites all over the net said apple should do an iPhone doesn't make proof that apple has officially said they will. You can't sue someone for trademark infringement when they haven't even made or said they were going to make a product.
    • kernelhappy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29unit101

      "Cisco tried to capitalize on all the Apple iPhone hype" - ok, so Cisco rightfully owns the name iPhone, Apple knowing this decide they're going to fight and try and use it anyway. Now lets also remember that the official product announcement was just a couple days ago, prior to that it was just speculation what Apple would call their phone product.

      So given this I'm supposed to agree with you that Cisco is evil because they didn't jump to litigate before the official announcement, based upon a rumor that apple may use iPhone name for their new product. Furthermore I should view Cisco negatively because they are using Apples attempt to steal their property (the iPhone name) to further their own product. Seriously, doesn't your point seem the least bit silly to you?

      As far as Cisco defending their trademark, they are doing it in a timely fashion. I do not see Cisco trying to block Apple from using the iMac, iPod or iTunes names, only the iPhone, which was... wait for it... announced two days ago.

      I do agree that legal matters in situations like this are never B&W but everyone is saying that Cisco's case is pretty good and Apple has a tough road to fight. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I fully expect Apple to capitulate and use another name for the iPhone at some point in the future, I personally think Apple wants the fight for the name to bring media attention to their product.

      I won't even mention the similarity to this vs. Apple's fight with Apple records when Apple was formed and again when they released iTunes
    • geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -27/+9"If Cisco owns the trademark, they own it."

      This is where you're wrong. If a company owns a trademark, they've got to USE the trademark and DEFEND the trademark. That's the whole point of the trademark system: associating a word with a company, so that the word is "protected" and that people won't be confused between which company the word belongs to.

      Apple's only defense is "well, Cisco wasn't using the word, and they didn't protect it in these thousands of instances we can cite." This can dissolve the trademark, giving Apple right to use, and to trademark, the word iPhone for themselves. It depends on a judge's decision if Cisco tried to defend it enough.
    • DoctaStooge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23@ geminitojanus

      "This is where you're wrong. If a company owns a trademark, they've got to USE the trademark and DEFEND the trademark. That's the whole point of the trademark system: associating a word with a company, so that the word is "protected" and that people won't be confused between which company the word belongs to.

      Apple's only defense is "well, Cisco wasn't using the word, and they didn't protect it in these thousands of instances we can cite." This can dissolve the trademark, giving Apple right to use, and to trademark, the word iPhone for themselves. It depends on a judge's decision if Cisco tried to defend it enough."

      Read the Article:

      "Last spring, Cisco began selling a line of bulky but inexpensive IPhones that make free long-distance calls over the Internet, a technology known as voice-over-Internet protocol. Amazon.com sells them for as little as US$12, though they require extra software and hardware and are usually sold in kits that start around $70 and can cost $200 or more."

      Also:

      Cisco's trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office describes "computer hardware and software for providing integrated telephone communication with computerized global information networks."

      Gee, that seems like what the "Apple iPhone" wants to be. I guess Cisco has legal standing...If those instances that Apple cites are nothing but Rumors, that has no leagal standing. Only if someone used the name "iPhone" for a tangible product that does "computer hardware and software for providing integrated telephone communication with computerized global information networks." without Cisco challenging it, can Apple have a legal standing with citations, if I'm right, I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if this is 100% true.
    • unit101, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13My point is that yes Cisco is defending their trademark, but it might be too late. For instance, http://www.teledex.com/index.cfm?page=LP_4&crid=153&contentid=503 a VOIP phone from Teledex, which is a lot more similar to Cisco's product than Apple's. There is another iPhone product as well out there from another company, which supposedly Cisco did not try to stop from using their trademark.

      If Apple can prove that Cisco didn't defent their trademark they could loose the trademark. In fact, Britain filed in 2006 to have Cisco's trademark be revoked for lack of use (5 years of non-use constitutes abandonment in Britain). I'm not a lawyer nor do I have any insights into what each legal team is planning, I just think this whole situation is fascinating. If Steve Jobs really did make the keynote knowing the mess it would create, he has some cojones...
    • geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5"All the links between Apple and iPhone are not official. Up until the point, Apple has not officially associated itself with the iPhone name."

      They don't need to be official. They could have referenced iPhone to any phone product made by any company, and under the rules of trademark, Cisco should have defended its trademark, by contacting the people using the name erroneously and telling them to stop (yes, playing the big bad Cease or Desist company can sometimes suck, but it's the best way to prove you're trying to protect your copyright/trademark). Cisco didn't write _any_ of these letters, especially when they're marking a product called iPhone (which I didn't even know about until just now, which is ridiculous: Cisco should have marketed the hell out of them, it's a good product with a good reason to exist).

      So, like I said, it's still going to be an uphill battle for both companies. One was irresponsible and used a name they probably shouldn't have, the other was irresponsible in not protecting that name. But, like I said, if the court doesn't believe Apple's "they're not protecting it", Cisco wins, and that's the end of the story.
    • DoctaStooge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@ geminitojanus

      Was Apple making off of the name "iPhone", NO, because it was nothing but rumors, none of which were confirmed by Apple. Since no money was being made, why should Cisco have to defend their trademark? The moment that Apple uses the name, they violate the trademark. They could've very easily chose another name instead of iPhone, but they didn't.

      Also, what company used the name "iPhone" before Apple? Infogear, which was aquired by Cisco. If another company used the name, then by means they should have defended it, if it were to cause customer confusion, which, unless they were building a phone, it would not.
    • randomgeek, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3Wait, this is a trademark issue right? Which means if it's used often you lose it? Right from the start, Cisco should have nailed Apple for using the "small i preceding a product" naming scheme if they wanted to keep their iPhone trademark. This isn't a patent or a copyright. Trademarks CAN go away. And guess what? When some one thinks "small i preceding a product" who do they think of? Apple. Not Cisco. iTunes, iPod, iLife, iMovie, etc. I'm sorry, but I don't think Apple is "in the wrong" I think that Apple wants to continue using a naming scheme they've been using for years and that Cisco is complaining because suddenly their products name is irrelevant.

      I'm sure Xerox and Kleenex felt the same way, Cisco.
    • DoctaStooge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@ randomgeek

      Let's assume that your argument has legal standing, that any product with a "i" before it does not equal a trademark. If that's the case, why does Apple need to negotiate with Cisco to use "iPhone":

      "Apple first asked Cisco in 2001 to acquire or license rights to the name."

      So, given your statement and this line from the article, which one makes more sense. Well, if Apple needed to ask, then naming schemes can't be trademark protected, and the term "iPhone" belongs to Cisco.

      Also, by your argument, why didn't Apple sue Cisco over "iPhone" when they released the product? Because they can't, Cisco owns the Trademark.
    • funkychikensays, on 10/12/2007, -14/+2Why not call it the Apple iPhone?
    • themarq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14@funkychikensays
      For the same reason I can't open a burger joint called "Marq's McDonalds."
    • javaroast, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@unit101

      Teledex? Go to the USPTO website and do a trademark search. Looks like the Trademark has an initial letter of suspension along with all other active iPhone trademarks other than Cisco's. I wonder who could be defending their trademark???
    • Yorn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9There is virtually no difference between Apple releasing the iPhone blowing off Cisco and Eric Bauman (Ebaum's World) releasing "Lindsay Lohan doesn't change facial expressions" blowing off YTMND.com
    • kernelhappy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"I've said it before and I'll say it again, I fully expect Apple to capitulate and use another name for the iPhone at some point in the future, I personally think Apple wants the fight for the name to bring media attention to their product."

      http://associatedpress.newsvine.com/_news/2007/01/12/517473-apple-renames-iphone-to-itouch-mobile

      Yes, quoting myself is pompus. I wonder if unit101 and the rest of the apple fanboys still think Cisco is evil for trying to "steal" iPhone from Apple. Apparently Apple knew they couldn't win this against Cisco, got what they wanted, extra media coverage and have now moved on.

      When the phone launches I'll bet dollars to donuts that the reports on the evening news will say something to the effect "Apples iTouch Mobile phone went on sale today, you may remember it as the iPhone, that was until Cisco sued Apple forcing them to change the name". People will call it a iPhone even if the label says iTouch (myself, I want you to touch me.... oops sorry).
    • kernelhappy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yes I am a douchebag (a pompus one at that), I saw associate press in the link thought it was a news feed and didnt' realize the site was a spoof.

      I still bet dollars to donuts that my prediction about them changing the name will hold valid and that people will still call it an iPhone even if the label says otherwise.
    • h2d2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14For those idiots (including the Apple spokeswoman) who keep saying that Cisco or InfoGear have never enforced their trademark rights in the past:

      http://digg.com/gadgets/Proof_Cisco_InfoGear_protected_the_iPhone_trademark_in_the_Past
    • Elranzer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Come to think of it, now the iPhone UI doesn't seem so innovative anymore to me, and that was apparently the only thing it had going for it. The iPhone UI reminds a lot of Palm OS.
    • suppah, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1iRiver for tehwin!!11!!1!
    • suppah, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4and most of all the "multi-touch" thing isn't innovative: there are year-old demos of similar things on youtube
    • goodoldharris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It seems like Apple thought they would succeed in purchasing the trademark from Cisco right up until a couple weeks ago when Cisco released its iPhone. At that point, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to change the name before Macworld because it was printed on all of the marketing materials, website, etc. So they really had no choice but to go ahead and use iPhone at Macworld.

      But both products are phones, and Cisco owns the trademark and won't sell it, and so Apple doesn't have a case. Apple lawyers are now arguing that they do have a case but that means *****. That's exactly what lawyers get paid to do when they don't have a case - and they have to argue something because Apple just used the name at Macworld. Conclusion: in a couple of months, Apple will drop the iPhone name and call it something else. GUARANTEED.
    • MiDri, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@TomtheWombat -- http://www.apple.com/iphone/ ???
    • se1zure, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1I know Cisco Systems is big... but are they actually bigger than apple?
    • firemillen2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Dogparty might beat the record for most negative diggs. over 200? you're a ***** moron - says the digg community.
    • TenebrousX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"All the links between Apple and iPhone are not official. Up until the point, Apple has not officially associated itself with the iPhone name."

      http://www.apple.com/iphone/
    • broomett, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1funky...yeah...what do you think would happen if Microsoft had called the Zune the Microsoft iPod?
    • broomett, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2geminito...You DO NOT LEGALLY have to defend a trademark against RUMORS.

      Not to metnion, by entering negotiations with Apple, they WERE defending their tradeemark. (Defending does not have to mean filing lawsuits.)

      Look...you obviously know nothing about trademark law. So stop acting like you do. You read one article about having to defend trademarks and patents and now you think you are an expert.

      Amazing that you...a ***** kid most likely (or at least one with that level of intelligence) knows more than ther PATENT LAWYERS quoted in the article. You think those lawyers were all just absent the day their professors went over the "defending the trademark" clause?
    • broomett, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1se1zure...um...YES...Like over TWICE as big! Time to come back to reality.
    • UnderWurlde, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1a) Yes, Cisco _is_ bigger than Apple
      b) "At that point, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to change the name before Macworld because it was printed on all of the marketing materials" Ehm, printed? Not really. But so what? Most of the name useage was on digital format, which is easily modifiable and editable. When you have that much money, printing a few thousand pamphlets once again is not such a big deal.
      c) Cisco owns the name, came out with a phone a few weeks ago (and are being sued by some big investors for surfing Apple's wave and making them loose much money on the "iPhone rumors" that had been consistently floating around), and it should have been Apple that changed the name. I'm actually v. surprised that Jobs still pushed to use that name, knowing full well they didn't own the trademark. He's the one who insisted and plagued Cisco to sell him the name "iPhone" but I guess Cisco were being greedy little bastards; it might be a ruse from Jobs to get things to this point. "People" (albeit not all) like Apple, and have no clue who Cisco are - Cisco will actually end up looking like the bad guys in this wrestling match.
  • evhan, on 10/12/2007, -8/+45"The case hinges in part on whether Apple's phone... could confuse shoppers looking to buy Cisco's IPhones."

    There are shoppers looking to buy Cisco's IPhones?
    • syl1985, on 10/12/2007, -3/+41Good point, but with Apple protecting so vivaciously their own intellectual property this is making them look EXTREMELY hypocritical.
    • Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -10/+10They're still for sale.

      http://store.voxilla.com/voxilla/tw00296.html?id=dNS7UeD7

      Suck it, Apple.
    • geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -14/+6I don't think it makes them look hypocritical, in fact, the iPod/iPodcast lawsuits are actually strengthening Apple's case against Cisco; Cisco completely failed to protect their trademark in the eyes of the public when it came to the name "iPhone", and under trademark laws, failing to protect a trademark is constitutional ground for the dismissal of it. By waiting until Apple released plans to market the product as the iPhone, they're basically trying to play "Submarine Trademark", which the former measure completely protects against (unlike patents, where once you've got it, there's not a lot someone can do to take it away from you).

      Apple's stance is "we marketed the product because nobody else was marketing a product named this" and "we protect our trademarks, here's a history of how:". It's a legal leg to stand on, but it's the only leg they've got. Likely, they'll settle with Cisco.
    • DirtyWorker, on 10/12/2007, -17/+4Haha, that looks like a bad Apple product ripoff. They even write it as iPhone, and Not Iphone or something stupid like that. Talk about riding on the wave which Apple created and have made so popular ever since iPod. Cisco is clearly trying to capitalize on Apple's success with the naming convention.
    • DoctaStooge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11FTA: Cisco's trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office describes "computer hardware and software for providing integrated telephone communication with computerized global information networks."

      It doesn't matter if the product confuses consumers or not, they are using "iPhone" for the same exact reason as stated in the trademark, that's already a violation.

      @ geminitojanus

      Also, how can Cisco defend its trademark on a product that was not revealed to the Public, and thus, never a trademark violation. For all we know, before the showing at CES, Apple could've called it the "iCell", not "iPhone" as was rumored. If they called it "iCell" at CES, Cisco would have no standing to even file the Lawsuit. Once Apple promoted "iPhone" as its own, it then becomes a trademark infrigment. It's not an infringement if people speculate the name is "iPhone" without Apple making an official announcement.
    • HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Let's not forget that Cisco has been bargaining in good faith with Apple over use of the trademark.

      If a company had to file legal briefs every time someone used their trademark name in a rumor about some other company they would go broke!
    • Rage67, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I heard the of the rumored iPhone awhile back...
      so obviously i went serching on the net...
      i found "cisco's" iPhone and thought to myself...
      mmmm, lawsuit?
      wouldn't Apple have filed an agreement already
      if they have been working on this phone for over
      2 years? not a smart move....
    • janmo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0ya in fact there might be, if you havent noticed, there is a tens of millions of people that use skype ( and all the other soft voip solutions) and it wont be long before those people look to iphone type hardware to extend the soft functionality they have.

      Also, i fully support Cisco's assertion that the voip iphone they produce will soon cross over to the domain which apple is in.

    • Niten, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yes. I'm actually thinking of purchasing an inexpensive handheld Skype communicator so I can do the VoIP thing without sitting down at my Mac. On the other hand, I have zero interest in a $500-$600 non-smartphone (read: locked down) cellular device only available with a 2-year contract with no less than Cingular. And even if I were interested, I would never purchase aforementioned pricey cell phone because Jobs seems to believe that he is above the law in this trademark dispute, and I will not condone that kind of reckless and hypocritical behavior.

      The Apple whateverPhone could have been so much more. What the heck, Apple?
  • UltimaNut, on 10/12/2007, -30/+7No matter what Cisco says or does I would have never thought of the Cisco product when someone said iPhone. With the "i" prefix I always think of Apple first. They wont change that, they cant change that. It was too late 1 year after the release of the first iPod when everything with the "i" prefix made me think of Apple first.

    They lost this battle in the minds of consumers long ago.
    • knupso, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33Really?
      I don't think it really matters what is in the mind of consumers in this situation.
      When I think lowercase i, I think of the internet craze in the late 90s.
      Apple did not came up with iXXXX, you know.
      Compaq iPaq
      Cisco iPhone
      Apple just overused the iTerm, and put it on everything they sell. Now they act like they own it.
      • DavidHalko, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1I think you made the point.

        Apple released the iMac in 1998 and the idea of prefixing an "i" to a piece of a product/company name was ripped off by HP later, when they released the iPaq in April 2000.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BHPtoTctDY
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPAQ

        Apple and Apple related products first started trademarking the i"stuff" - no one else did it before that.

        You believe it was related to the "internet craze in the late 90's" - because Apple produced the iMac and that is what they marketed it towards.

        A company needs to protect their trademarks, if it is not adequately advertised, if it is not adequately well known, then they could lose legal protections.

        Apple did the same thing with Microware's OS-9 when Microware did not adequately protect their trademark. People hear the term OS-9 and they often think of Mac OS-9 instead of Microware OS-9.

        While I disagree with the way Apple did it, I think Apple has a pretty interesting case with Cisco.
    • UltimaNut, on 10/12/2007, -26/+1Fine Ill add "some" conmsumers. At least us apple fanbois.

      "Really?"

      Yes really . Im entitled to an opinion. Yea yea ...everyone has one they all smell ..bla blah..bite me.

      Im not the only one who feels this way though.
    • knupso, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20Well you can feel however you want, but that's not going to change the judges decision.
    • UltimaNut, on 10/12/2007, -24/+2"Well you can feel however you want, but that's not going to change the judges decision."

      Did I mention a judge? No.

      Why the hell woudl Cisco use iPhone in the first place?? Someone didnt think that the name would sound to Appleish when it was suggested? They should have come up with thier own clever name . How about cPhone?

      iPhone I think of Apple as do ALOT of other people and this was before the announcement. A jude can say all he wants and Cicso can fight all they want. If Cicso wins and Apple changes , how much do you want to bet that people will STILL call it the iPhone?

    • knupso, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Why would Apple use iAnything? Couldn't they us aPod or aPhone?
      Do a quick search and you can see that other companies used the lowercase i before apple did.
      The i came from the 90s internet craze, it's not something that Apple came up with.
      You can blindly believe that all things i should belong to Apple, but the fact is they don't.
    • InsomniaSlim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12@UltimaNut

      Somehow I'm feeling your screen name is very apropos considering your arguments... and word usage.

      This is a case of trademark infringement, period. If Apple created something called an iPaq, you'd better believe HP would be all over it.

      I think Cisco had a right to call their product whatever they wanted, as well as trademark it, and I doubt it was to ride the wave of Apple. They created an internet phone, called it the iPhone. Apple felt like they could announce their product without completing negotiations, so Cisco is defending its mark... and rather respectfully, I might add.
    • HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19"Why the hell woudl Cisco use iPhone in the first place?? "

      They had the name trademarked BEFORE Apple jumped on the iName bandwagon!!!!
    • sfsdfasdf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Nobody ever responds after they get totally owned :(
    • se1zure, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"They had the name trademarked BEFORE Apple jumped on the iName bandwagon!!!!"

      True. I think Cisco using the name iPhone is trying to hop on apples success with the whole i-----.
      Sure, apple didn't invent the idea of using i before a name,
      Nintnedo didn't invent the idea of using motion sensing on a game console, but they were successful at it.
    • broomett, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Jesus Christ Ultima...Apple didn't wasn't even the first company to use the iXXXX name for MP3 PLAYERS!

      And by the way...to the AVERAGE non pathetic person...the only thing they associate with the IXXX naming is hte iPod. the avearge, non pathetic person does not automatically think iMac, becuase the average non-pathetic person nover considers iMacs when they think of computers.

      You don't enter the average mind with 3% market share.
  • ashwinmudigonda, on 10/12/2007, -56/+0This is the problem with American "intelligence". It is not ***** secret. How many of us heard about the balloon project that was sent during the Cold War days to spy on Russian nuclear tests? Huh? We read it as Area 51 and UFO's. And today, the government tells the public EXACTLY what they are going to do in the next 1 week. Do we know where next the Jihadist ***** is going to bomb next? Why doesn't Al Jazeera do that for a change. Todays' Headlines "Abu Mussaf Al Bastardi has strapped his bombs and will bomb the whore market in downtown Tikriti. Stay tuned as the body counter is reset." Screw the media.
  • Kale, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3FTA: "Those are clearly two businesses that don't overlap, except for maybe the bathroom in an airplane," Cohen said.

    ??? :(
    • leftfield, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Barry Cohen, a partner in the Philadelphia office of Thorp Reed & Armstrong, said Cisco had a strong argument. Judges usually allow products from different companies to share the same name only when they're starkly dissimilar - Delta Airlines and Delta Faucet, for instance.

      1cm above what you copied and read(I hope), you must have goldfish-like memory retention
    • Mitthrawnuruodo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3FTA: Barry Cohen, a partner in the Philadelphia office of Thorp Reed & Armstrong, said Cisco had a strong argument. Judges usually allow products from different companies to share the same name only when they're starkly dissimilar - Delta Airlines and Delta Faucet, for instance.

      "Those are clearly two businesses that don't overlap, except for maybe the bathroom in an airplane," Cohen said.


      Read the context.
      EDIT: Doh, too slow. :(
    • shakin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8How did you manage to read that part, but not the preceding sentence?

      He was talking about how it's acceptable for two companies to share the same name like with Delta Airlines and Delta Faucets because their businesses don't overlap. As a joke he added that they may overlap in an airplane's restroom.
    • Kale, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9D'oh! I guess I should apply for a refund for that speed reading course.
  • Pimpalicious316, on 10/12/2007, -19/+3OFF TOPIC:

    my screen says 3 comments...yet i see none. God bless block lists :D

    ss: http://tinyurl.com/y92oks
    • syl1985, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Ewwwww, Noia is still ugly...
    • Pimpalicious316, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3which would you recommend? i really don't think much about skins as I have been using this one since i first got FF a year or so ago :)

      oh, and feel free to dig down my OT comment, it was simply a first for me to have no comments show up due to block listing.
    • syl1985, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3It'll sound silly in this thread pimpalicious, but iFox - the best FF skin going as far as I'm concerned.

      Linkage: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/1315/
    • paulmalenke, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I would have to agree, That theme does look bad, and there is nothing worse than a windows user that does not match their windows theme with their FF theme. It is just not pretty!
    • Pimpalicious316, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2wow! thanks for the link to iFox. this is certainly a better theme than Noia :)
  • illegalcortex, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I'm still a bit fuzzy on how this "Ocean Telecom" was being used to try to get around the trademark. The article is a bit sparse on details.
    • futureb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4i thought that same thing. was ocean telecom applying for the trademark? so how could apple use them? to own the trademark & then license it to apple? or were they just trying to set up a situation where it looks like multiple companies want the trademark, so it's common usage.

      need more info...
    • jakebarnes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It may be being used as a company to absorb the liability legally. But not sure
    • MikeD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There is such a thing as an international trade mark. It could be that Cisco does not have one. Theirs may be US only.

      If that is the case then Ocean's could apply for one for use in other parts of the world. Apple could negotiate with them for use. And, bam. The legal battle takes a completely different turn. Two legal trade marks for the same name. In two different jurisdictions.

      That might have been a battle Apple could win.
    • illegalcortex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1But if Ocean whatever could do that, why couldn't Apple just do it directly? Is it because the court would someone use that as bad faith because they could show Apple knew about Cisco's ownership, whereas this other company could claim ignorance? If so, it seems like a rather risky venture.
  • mrgreen4242, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I suspect that Apple launched it with the name iPhone knowing that by the time they released the product they would have to change the name to Apple Phone, or iPod Phone or something but the month or two of hype and prelaunch legal battle would be enough to cement the name iPhone into peoples heads as being the "real name" even if they end up calling it something else.
    • naio21, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Sure, as being sued is great marketing...
    • mrgreen4242, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The old adage of "any press is good press" applies here. Apple makes cool product. Big lawsuit over it's _name_ gets it in the papers a lot for a couple months. Lawsuit resolved either with an amicable agreement or a name change. Everyone and their brother has now been exposed to full length articles, not just "little" ads, about what it is, when it comes out, what it does, and any new name it may end up with.

      If they were being sued for some sort of patent infringement it might not be as "good", but trademark violation over the name really doesn't mean much to the end user as far as it being a quality/desirable product.
    • ray901, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2As they are unlikely to win the case (and considering their history of suing anyone who comes near the name pod) I think Apple should rename the phone to iPwned

  • beaunewcomb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21So Apple is trying to claim that iPhone is too generic to trademark... yet, they try to force people not to use the word "podcast" or really any variation of the word "pod" ... sounds like a major double-standard.

    To call the word iPhone as commonplace as "aspirin" is a joke... I don't think they have much of a leg to stand on.
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4No they don't. They never tried to stop anyone using "podcast". They tried to stop someone trademarking "podcastready".
  • jordandiggsit, on 10/12/2007, -15/+1Anyone else notice how recently all DIGG users seem to have become LAWYERS spouting off any little snippet of information they heard on any random website?

    Let the lawyers worry about the law and start saving your pennies for the APPLE iPHONE!
  • nailz420, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4Whats wrong with using iFone? Note to self, trademark "iFone"...
    • geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4iFone is phonetically similar to iPhone, and you can lose a trademark for phonetic similarities just as easily as spelling similarities.
    • cmiz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I know that Toyota was sued for their "Lexus" name by a company that owned the trademark to "Lexis"... I'm guessing that legally speaking, iPhone and iFone are the same thing.
  • ispcaster, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Step1
    First you must to stop talking out your asses like you understand trademark law.

    Step2
    You need to investigate what 'class' (understand a trademark is made up of classes) and description the Cisco iPhone name is trademarked under.

    Step3
    Then post something worth reading.

    Next.
    • beaunewcomb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5I'm not saying I understand anything about trademark law, but if the article is correct, Apple is simply setting a double-standard and being completely inconsistent... It doesn't take a lawyer to understand simple business ethics.
    • DirtyWorker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yes, let's trust an article that write "IPhone", clearly not even understanding that it's "iPhone" the little "i" means much in this case. As it's the branding Apple has used since iPod was released.
    • futureb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@jpcaster

      why don't you investigate, then post something worthwhile to read...instead of calling everyone an idiot.

      angry much?
    • 1598741, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ispcaster
      and you can go ***** yourself, who the ***** are you? some person who scrubs the floor?
  • slammerama, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I just want to hear the legal arguments. If this actually made it to the courts(which it will not), Apple would have no defense. Once Apple tried to acquire the name from Cisco in 2001, that would clearly show that Apple fully understood the trademark belonged to Cisco. How anyone can say this lawsuit is silly is beyond me, considering lawsuits like the McDonald's Hot Coffee case go on in our court system every day as serious court cases.
    • spock627corfu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Before you go on about the McDonald's coffee case, you might want to read up a little bit:
      http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
      http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/myths/articles.cfm?ID=785
      http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
      http://friends.macjournals.com/mattd/hotcoffeemyth
    • jakebarnes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Why digg down Spock. It's rediculous that people use the McDonald's example, ever. It was a well argued, suit with a just finding on damages. Just because you think she won $100 million doesn't change the fact that it was only around 3-4, and number predicated upon the amount of profit realized by McDonald's coffee sales, per day. Also, McDonalds implicitly admitted that they knew the coffee was burning people, and figured that it would be cheaper to settle in court, than to actually lower the temp. of the coffee.

      The conservative party will try to make you believe the opposite is true... Unlike them? Interesting. When you argue the stance that the courts are out of control with their damages, you should know you are acting as a spokeperson for Republicans.
    • Champzilla, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@jakebarnes

      How does this have ANYTHING to do with replublicans?

      BLOCKED
  • jordandiggsit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Community news websites only remind me just how stupid humans are.

    I'm getting my news from google bots from now on.
    • jordandiggsit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Humans are stupid. I'm with you.
    • ThirdPrize, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Couldn't agree more.
    • naio21, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Only apple fanboys are stupid. And they aren't human.
  • donKey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Good read. I definitely side with Cisco now.
  • rockchops, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1To the author of the article: For a story about a covented name, you should at least get the name right. It's "iPhone" NOT "IPhone" dolt. As if there haven't been iProducts (spelled with lower case i) around every corner of the internet now for years now. Buried.
  • joper90, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2why don;t they just call it the iFone or something ... (like vodafone)
  • kernelhappy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1grrrrr
  • ThirdPrize, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Is there a legal difference between an iPhone and an IPhone? Bearing in mind that all Apple rumours come from apple originally, you would have thought they would have checked this out beforehand. The trouble with apple now is they are stuck with calling their things iWhatever. Yes, its a brand but its a bit of a cliche now. Perhaps like iTv became Apple Tv the iPhone will become the Apple Phone.
    • shark615, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1no difference
    • jakebarnes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1iTV wasn't the name, because there's a product called eyeTV already out, which has TiVo functions. Think about this...
  • DocWhoWho, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Apple, you can now shut up or pay up. If you want iPhone, pay what Cisco wants. If not, stfu and call it Apple Phone or whatever.
  • thatistrue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0They need to change the name, a good suggestion:

    http://www.dubicle.com/show.jsp?a=i_sms&name=Steve%20Jobs&msg=Cisco%20claim%20iphone%2C%20you%20need%20to%20change%20a%20name.%0AWhat%20should%20it%20be%3F%0AiDunno&t=7:59 AM
  • leftfield, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I think they should just let the iphone name go, the cisco/linksys thing is crap and will be forgotten by the time they start selling the cellular phone in June under it's new name.
  • Lazrius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This getting good now! I'll be right back I need to grab a chair.
    • morgdx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ballmer, is that you?
    • Lazrius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No, no, no I'm a big fan of the iPhone. Just funny to see what some companies go through.
  • Raian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3What a bunch of scumbags. Just call that ***** phone the (Apple)Phone... like that other overpriced slab the (Apple)TV.

  • ZoTheGorilla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Maybe I'm a conspiracy theorist ... But the question is why would Apple go down this road knowing there was a naming issue with a Silicon Valley Powerhouse?

    My wild guess is this ... With the Apple Iphone you will not be able to use Skype or other Voip tools ... that would be free talk time and with the Cingular restrictions coming to the table, Apple needs Cisco to force their hand and bring voip to the Apple iphone. So they can say ... Look Cingular we had a deal but the law forced us.

    • Bulvers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's pretty simple really... The reason Apple did this is because no matter what happens they win. It doesn't matter if a judge sides with Cisco or Apple on this situation because now 90% of the population will STILL call Apple's phone the iPhone.

      Apple may have to pay for the infringement and change the name.. but it doesn't matter if they call it the Apple Phone or the iCell, people will still refer to it as iPhone, and Cisco is going to be out of luck. We see product naming become the norm in the business I am in.

      Just remember it doesn't matter what Apple or Cisco or a court says, all that matter is what the rest of population says.
    • flyingzumwalt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"So they can say ... Look Cingular we had a deal but the law forced us."

      A more accurate assessment than you may realize. It's "Hardware Manufacturers (Apple & Cisco) vs. Big Telecom (Cingular)". Nothing new there. The telecom companies have spent the past 20 years doing everything that they can to stifle innovation in the communications field because every step forward is another nail in their coffin. Meanwhile, hardware manufacturers have to innovate in order to remain competitive. If I'm not mistaken, Cisco was always one of the first to tell Ma Bell's babies to go stick it. Meanwhile, Apple's been doing the same with the music industry for years. It only makes sense that the two bad kids would combine efforts to finally crush big telecom's well funded and long standing resistance to VoIP.
  • binarymelon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3The biggest problem with Cisco's lawsuit is that they haven't tried to protect their trademark before this, when there are numerous products in direct competition with theirs using the iPhone name. Just search 'iPhone voip' in Google and you'll find a few.

    http://www.google.ca/search?as_q=iphone+voip&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=cisco+linksys&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images
  • jordandiggsit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9How fast can DIGG users bury this to -20?
  • Zaeyde, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How much do you want to bet that Apple changes the name at the last minute to look like the "good guy?"
    It's already got the recognition of iPhone, and people will call it the iPhone.

    "Hey, I got the new iPhone! It's awesome."
    "Don't you mean iMobile?"
    "Yea, whatever. It's an iPhone."
    • jakebarnes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They could hav released it as whatever they wanted to. People would still call it iPhone.
  • pathfindertech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Why not just call it the "iPod Phone" and move on with life. or Apple Phone. who cares its just a friggin name and everyone knows what it is. Apple can market it as whatever they want, and everyone will just call it the iPhone as a nickname.
  • GreySpec, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Listen up guys.... Apple will come out unscathed BECAUSE:

    1) Whenever someone SAYS iPhone, they will probably be referring the the Apple phone, CISCO loses,
    2) Many companies have been using the term iPhone, and Cisco hasn't cared about them, CISCO will definitely lose here.
    • ZoTheGorilla, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Your agrument will not stand in a court of law.
    • FishyJoe, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Not only that, whenever Cisco uses iPhone for their product, it will just bring attention to how boring and unoriginal their Cisco iPhone is.
    • binarymelon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ZoTheGorilla

      Actually it will:

      Take prompt legal action if other businesses use your trademark without permission. A trademark may become weakened or even generic if others use it to describe their products and you do nothing about it. You or your lawyer should send a letter by certified mail (return receipt requested) demanding that the infringement cease. If your demand is ignored, be prepared to go to court to seek an injunction - but first do a careful cost/benefit analysis to satisfy yourself that it's worth the expense.

      Cisco hasn't been enforcing their trademark before Apple and will have a difficult time explaining why not.
    • Corneliusm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Actually, Cisco has been using their trademark and enforcing it. Despite the fact that Cisco only acquired the trademark in 2000 after acquiring Infogear (which original filed the trademark in 1996, two years before the first iMac), there already is an iPhone that has been marketed/sold since the late '90s.

      As recently as last year, Cisco has been selling a VOIP phone under the iPhone name.

      Apple has had a history of ignoring trademarks (see Apple Computer vs. Apple Corp). i

      Either Apple will drop the iPhone name or Cisco will take them to court. And if that happens, Apple is *****(TM).

  • Vtorch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If I could have the power to be invisible for one day....I don't want to use that power to watch a girl undress or anything like that. I wanna be in the same room when an Apple Exec says to Steve, "Uh Steve.....we can't use the name iPhone anymore."

    LOL.
  • fixyourthinking, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Has anyone heard of this clause in trademark law:

    "An owner of said mark has 6 years to utilize the mark."

    The cellphone's real name is the Apple iPhone. What's the name of the streaming media set top box that Apple announced? Apple TV. (There's an Apple logo preceding the "TV" part in the name, hence, Apple TV.) Same thing with the Apple iPhone.

    Apple might be in the clear regardless simply because Cisco never protected their IP with 4 other iPhones out there and thus fails to keep their trademark under US law."
  • fixyourthinking, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'm also getting tired of reading this message:

    Apple goes after everyone who uses the "iPod" or "Mac" name ... how is this any different.

    The word Phone is a VERY generic term the words "Mac" and "iPod" are actaul specific words for specific products. When I say the word "Mac" - you know I mean a computer from Apple. When I say the word "iPod" you know I mean Apple's famous MP3 player. When I say the word "Phone" - I mean that generically. When I say the word "iPhone" - most people make the conclusion ... "Oh, that must be an Apple Product, didn't they make the iMac?"
  • DoctorDoom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Why Apple is CRAZY to call their new device iPhone by claiming it isn't a VoIP phone....

    Because if they do, they can NEVER add this functionality, to this or any new permutation of the phone!

    It is the same problem with their suit with "Apple Core". Apple could potentially make a big-jillion dollars directly distributing "for profit" music from big artists, but then they would be a "record company" and infringe on Apple Core, so they have to make 1 cent or whatever on each song and give the rest to Universal.

    Next year MANY cell phones will come out with auto-switching to Skype / VoIP service. So what, Apple can never do this? That doesn't fit in their "have it our way" walled garden approach. People can't add Skype software to this thing anyhow, and if Apple makes it "easy" then they are gonna get sued again.

    They are totally nuts, Apple Phone is JUST as good, and they aren't limited at all.

  • jackmacokc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4i say kudos cisco....stick it to the mac fanboys
  • jd72277, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It should read "Apple is REFusing to comment...". Not "using".
  • Kericr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I almost dugg this article. Then I read the comments. I want none of my friends to be subjected to the apple fanboy lunacy comments on this thread.
  • Vtorch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What do you guys think of the fact that Apple, themselves, recognized Cisco's ownership of the registered trademark and tried to negotiate with them for the rights to that name?
    • diggtomanjeri, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ultimately it probably won"t make a difference. The two iPhone's between Cisco and Apple use different technologies and are ultimately different products. As long as Apple can prove that it's product and use of the name iPhone doesn't impede directly on the sale of Cisco's product then Apple will probably be able to use the name, or at the very least have to legally refer to it as "Apple iPhone" in the US (Apple has the copyright in other countries that Cisco does not). Cisco would have been smart to just take some cash at the very beginning.
    • shark615, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Jesus Christ they are in THE SAME INDUSTRY your whole arguement is irrelevant.

      VOIP or CELL phone is irrelvant theare both telecommunications devices and thats all that matters.

    • Vtorch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I don't think that will matter. Cisco will argue brand confusion & Apple will argue what the definition of a phone. As a lawyer, I cannot see how Apple can win this. It's fascinating to read other people opinions on this matter, though.
    • diggtomanjeri, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1> VOIP or CELL phone is irrelvant theare both telecommunications devices and thats all that matters.

      No that isn't all that matters. What matters is the LICENSE granted by the FCC. Cell phones require a very specific type of license and bandwidth that is very regulated. VOIP is entirely different so while they both may qualify as telecommuncations devices they are by no means similar products.
    • broomett, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0diggtomanjeri....AMAZING that you know more than the patent lawyers quoted in that article.

      So..are you saying a company coud come out with a music player that plays formats other than iTunes and generic MP3 and call it an iPod? (Hell, I guess I could come out with a CD player and call it iPod, becuase the iPod doesn't play CDs.)

      Gotta love Digg where 1`2 year olds try to act like experts on everything, and even go so ar as to contradict the LAWYERS who actually know what they are talking about.
  • e3boy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1i bet tey'll end up calling it the "ipod phone" anyway.
  • kingyubba, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Apple just needs to call it the "MacPhone" and be done with it.... avoid a multi-million dollar lawsuit.
    • Vtorch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yes. After all it is a product that runs "OS X." Might as well.
  • ksoon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Meh, personally they should just re-name "iMobile" and bury all of this...it sounds better anyways.
  • superKduper, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2

    Steven P. Jobs is an embarrassment. Expect Disney to kick him of their board before he embarrasses them, too!
  • rjani57, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2For many years now, Apple is synonymous with latest trends and capitalizing on it. I am very surprised that they have not done so with the phone and instead elected for controversy with this one. iPhone is so...ooo not Apple.

    If I was running their marketing, I would have picked i-fon (last 3 letters in italics). How many ppl using SMS these days use the word "phone"? Against how many that use "fon"? Users would more easily identify with the latter, and like i-Pod, it keeps it in the family.

    Over to you guys in Apple. If you are listening...

  • mile, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3About time apple falls from the tree and splats on the ground. When are people going to wake up. This company offers NO DISCOUNTS on their products and the DONT ALLOW competition. Imagine you people come up with an APPLE CLONE. My God - the entire planet would reverse itself with the flow of attorneys into your hometown, followed by the media.

    Apple wont allow that, wont ever run sales, doesnt allow competition and MICROSOFT is a monopoly? HA. Talk about a company monopolizing ITS OWN customers. Doesnt bother me so much since those apple toys are just that.

    There is NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING that an apple can do that any other hardware (PC, non-PC) cant do and its been this way since the late 1980s.

    Apples days are over. Its nothing more than a music distribution company now. Morons download music and keep fattening the music industry executive whores.. Audiophiles at least pony-up and buy the CD and get MUCH BETTER quality and rip the content themselves at FAR BETTER quality WITHOUT tracking information following them.

    Wake up people.
  • Vtorch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I got an idea.

    Since Steve Jobs said that the iPhone converges an iPod, Phone, and Internet Communicator....

    Why not name it......

    "iTreo"

    (LOL.....just kidding)
  • expatasia, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Wow! You guys all seriously need to get some p*ssy (or d*ck)!

    Life is short! Go do something that matters.
    • shark615, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Something that matters like posting on Digg about how everyone else needs to get dick or pussy?

      Right
    • rjani57, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1nuff said! now't
  • doughboy334, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Cisco got it first, **** off Apple
  • mraustin1337, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Really I want to know... What was apple's plan? I don't understand how they could have been so ignorant as to release this...
  • Chairboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The name choice for the company is interesting. "Ocean Airlines" has been used in a number of movies and television shows. It's a realistic sounding name, but doesn't infringe on any actual airlines. I wonder if the person who chose the name 'Ocean Telecom' consciously did so with the fake airline in mind? It's very 'Acme' without the obviousness of actually using Acme.
  • defy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2All great attorneys operate through Gmail, I thought everyone knew that.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 87 of 87 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.