What is Digg?Sponsored by Gilt Man
It's a Gilt Man's world view!
giltman.com - Get gear and gadgets at up to 70% off. Shop like a guy, dress like a man. You're invited.
184 Comments
- dongiaconia, on 10/12/2007, -9/+112I guess now we finally know why Apple felt they could basically tell Cisco to screw off.
- drum_bum, on 10/12/2007, -8/+110^^^ That's NOT Alex Albrecht
- DeathBorn, on 10/12/2007, -6/+66Phew, that's a relief, for a minute there I thought they were going to rename the iPhone the "Applephone!"
"Buy the Applephone, and get an upgrade to Bananaphone with a 6 month service plan!" - nuni, on 10/12/2007, -1/+37A sticker outside the shrink wrap. Ouch.
- FishyJoe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21I'm suprised they didn't just write on the box with a magic marker.
- monkeyrun, on 10/12/2007, -6/+26yup with the name iPhone sticked on the box like a post-it memo .. lol
- SonofMaug, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Hey schmuck, they were supposed to prove that they had been CONTINUALLY using the iPhone name with a photo or other submission by a certain date. They had not been using the name since they inherited the trademark from a company they bought, so they put up this BS photo a few days before the deadline and released their FIRST product called the iPhone 7 months AFTER the deadline to prove they had used it continually for 6 years.
Apple is calling their FIRST phone the iPhone with a trademark they believe Cisco let expire and they feel they will prevail in court. If they win, great, if not, I don't care what they call it but don't tell me they weren't just "trademark squatting" with no intention of producing an actual product. This is almost as bad as patent trolling. - unit101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15@ Broomett
Except that they released the phone 7 months *after* the deadline for Declaration of Use. - michaelb1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Z list, and I am a bigg digg nation fan.
- deanlowe, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Cisco should use ApplePhone if Apple uses iPhone.
- FunkyWitDaSysTm, on 10/12/2007, -12/+24oh, i wouldn't call it negotiating. more like:
Apple: "can we use the name iphone?"
Cisco: "uh, no."
Apple: "yeah, well, we're doing it anyway." - blapierre, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13You're right, it isn't.
- turpenine, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12flag, its because cisco was just squatting it and just wanted to take some of apples goodness.
- Electric_Sheep, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"Oh snap"
This is what detective journalism is about. Great article. I can't wait to see how this all plays out. - DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9klawz, did you read all of the article? Apple's supposed front company was next in line for the trademark. Cisco made the final deadline but with a shrinkwrapped box with an iPhone sticker on it, so really they didn't meet the deadline which means the trademark would turn over to Ocean Telecom which would presumably turn it over to Apple.
- ez12a, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@broomett
Did you even read the article? NONE of the phones had "iphone" written anywhere even in the paper manuals or online PDF manuals. They appended iPhone this past year when Apple approached them with the idea of using their "expired" iPhone name..
This clears up why Apple decided to go on presenting the iPhone with cisco's "iPhone" name...they probably had a bunch of people looking into Cisco's iPhone rights and didn't tell them about the Declaration and the required use of the name within a certain period of time. - thegreyfox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9What part of between did u miss?
- omgbanana, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10This seems to be what is important here:
The iPhone was a REAL product by Infogear. Infogear eventually ended up being owned by Cisco. We all know this is how Cisco acquired the trademark. However, did they axe the project with no intention of ever continuing it? What effect does that have on the trademark?
By the time Cisco had the trademark in their hands, the iMac on the market. By the time it was up for renewal, the iPod was on the market.
To me, it seems that the judge will have to decide between two scenarios:
1.Cisco truly was using and intending on using the iPhone name.
2. They saw a trend with the iMac and iPod and simply slapped a sticker on the CIT200 so they could sit on the trademark and get money from Apple (which is not legal).
This case is a pretty clear example why the Supreme Court has been accepting Intellectual Property cases for future decisions. This whole mess with copyright, patents, and trademarks needs some definition and cleaning up. - seanasy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10But did they have a product on the market that whole time? That's what the TFA is talking about. Infogear had an iPhone in 1999. Cisco buys Infogear. Cisco stops selling the iPhone. Therefore, Cisco has not been using the mark for 5 years and risks losing it.
- daverp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@monkeyrun
Neither Apple or Cingular are bigger, not even close. Apple = 81 Billion AT&T = 131 Billion Cisco = 175 Billion
also 131 Billion is of AT&T not just Cingular. - unit101, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/images/cit200_470.jpg
LOL! - tastypastry, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Ha ha! I see how you fooled us AlexAibrecht!
- skyhighrockets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@d00ley
All you state is that Cisco owns Infogear, which had the original right to the patent, you clearly missed the huge portion of the article that explained how Cisco could lose the trademark because they didn't provide proof that they had a product called the "iPhone". In order to hold a trademark, you have to actually use it within the timeframe that have the trademark. When Cisco was required to give proof of their use of the trademark, they showed a product with no reference to "iPhone" anywhere except for a sticker outside of the plastic wrap. This could be easily challenged in court to show that Cisco didn't actually brand any product with "iPhone" until AFTER the 6 year timeframe had ended.
You need read the article more CAREFULLY, because you are obviously missing large sections of it. - WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6There's no 'i' in Apple.
- DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Did you read the article? Cisco is trademark squatting. They put a sticker on a box to prove they were using the name for crying out loud.
- ajchavar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@glockowner, what the hell is a nipply concept? is it NSFW? is it very cold?
- DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Who says a last-minute rebranding doesn't qualify anyway?"
I suspect that slapping a sticker on a box and taking a picture of it will not satisfy the judge that the product has been rebranded. I guess we shall see. - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/779/smbiz/iphone/
They've referred to the iphone since 2000. - DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"If that is how it pans out then why does Apple suddenly get the right to use the name?"
This quote from the article is the answer to that question (assuming it is true, and it does seem plausible to me),
"This could clear the way for the next company in line for the iPhone trademark, Ocean Telecom Services LLC"
Linksys may have been using the iPhone name recently but if it is found that Cisco let it's trademark lapse then it really doesn't matter. If Cisco's filing is invalidated then Linksys is using the name without a trademark. I'm not a trademark expert at all but it seems that there is a waiting list for trademarks and Ocean Telecom was next on the list for the iPhone trademark that Cisco apparently failed to use in time. - ingxia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5that's an Avery 5660 address label printed with a HP color laserjet. Makes me think of the free apple sticker I got with my shuffle... stuck it on my cell phone to call it an "iPhone"
- osbjmg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4monkeyrun - How is apple bigger than cisco?
It's easy to value a company, it's called market capitalization. It's what people trade all day in New York, portions of ownership in these companies. The stock market is a really key component of your argument there.
Can you cite your 217 Billion claim? If that is the case, the people over at yahoo, google, ameritrade, morgan stanley, and others have made a huge mistake! - ez12a, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@gadgetuk
look at the site and venture to their support section.
look at their manual, quick-setup, and brochure or whatever. "iPhone" is NOT mentioned ANYWHERE except the online site (which is easier to change than physical paper manuals and apparently PDF files). It calls it an internet telephony kit...and explains how to set up the "internet telephony kit" They just slap a sticker over shrink wrap? That's sad.
i'm sure they added (iPhone (R)) recently. - DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I'm going to assume for now that it was not selling with the sticker when that photo was filed until I hear otherwise, especially when this is taken into consideration: "A search of product reviews of the CIT200 shows no mention of the word iPhone [1]." If the sticker was in fact on the box when the product was for sale then surely some reviews would have mentioned this. Something like, "We are reviewing the CIT200 AKA the IPhone."
Someone that reviewed the CIT200 was quoted as saying, "In fact, this seems to be true since the Linksys CIT200 and the Linksys CIT310, (both of which I reviewed) are now called the iPhone and were only recently renamed on December 18th." - Darkkish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It looks suspiciously like cisco just threw that iPhone sticker on those boxes to piss off apple, I see iPhone written nowhere else on that box.
- omgbanana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Wrong. That is not how trademark law works. As ***** up as IP laws are, trademarks are specifically designed to be used. That's why companies sue over such retarded small things. If you don't exercise and protect your IP rights, you LOSE them.
You are NOT allowed to eat up all the trademarks you can think of, sit on them, and then sell them. You must be thinking of domain names. - timmyt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7"How does he have the exact same username then?"
He used I's for the L's. - Gadianton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The first iphone mark is inapplicable as the good and services description limits the mark to hotel guestrooms.
The Cisco has alledged that the Ocean Telecom mark was obtained by Apple using Ocean Telecom as a dummy corporation.
That mark was filed by Ocean Telecom on Sept 26, 2006 and has not even been assigned to an examining attorney, much less been registered. This is probably Apple's attempt to register an infringing mark (which registration will likely be denied by the USPTO) using a dummy corporation to limit Apple's liablity.
------From the USPTO Ocean Telecom mark-----
Thank you for your request. Here are the latest results from the TARR web server.
This page was generated by the TARR system on 2007-01-12 19:10:41 ET
Serial Number: 77007808 Assignment Information
Registration Number: (NOT AVAILABLE)
Mark
(words only): IPHONE
Standard Character claim: Yes
Current Status: Newly filed application, not yet assigned to an examining attorney.
Date of Status: 2006-10-04
Filing Date: 2006-09-26
Transformed into a National Application: No
Registration Date: (DATE NOT AVAILABLE)
Register: Principal
Law Office Assigned: (NOT AVAILABLE)
If you are the applicant or applicant's attorney and have questions about this file, please contact the Trademark Assistance Center at TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov
Current Location: 042 -New Application Processing
Date In Location: 2006-10-04 - geohsia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@Gadianton
I think the criteria of the specimen is that the example submitted must be used in commerce, not what a current product used in commerce would look like if it had the mark. I think they just want proof/any proof, that the mark is active and in use, which it was not. What is interesting (if you read below), is that it says, even if you have NOT continually used the mark in commerce(within the 5 year period), you still must submit the declaration of usage. What does that mean? Does this mean:
a) Even if you have not used the mark in commerce continually in the 5 year period, as long as the mark is used in commerce at the time of renewal, you can renew
-or-
b) Even if you have not used the mark in commerce continually in the 5 year period, as long as you renew, you are granted a renewal until year 9/10
I think I have a headache now ;-)
http://eteas.uspto.gov/s08n15/
You may file a Combined Declaration of Use & Incontestability under Sections 8 & 15 only if you have continuously used a mark registered on the Principal (not Supplemental) Register in commerce for five (5) consecutive years after the date of registration. You must file the Combined Declaration, specimen, and fee on a date that falls on or between the fifth (5th) and sixth (6th) anniversaries of the registration (or, for an extra fee of $100.00 per class, you may file within the six-month grace period following the sixth anniversary date). If you have NOT continuously used the mark in commerce for five (5) consecutive years, you must still file a Section 8 Declaration. You must subsequently file a Section 8 declaration, specimen, and fee on a date that falls on or between the ninth (9th) and tenth (10th) anniversaries of the registration, and each successive ten-year period thereafter (or, for an extra fee of $100.00 per class, you may file within the six-month grace period). FAILURE TO FILE THE SECTION 8 DECLARATION WILL RESULT IN CANCELLATION OF THE REGISTRATION. Note: Because the time for filing a ten-year Section 8 declaration coincides with the time for filing a Section 9 renewal application, a combined §§ 8 & 9 form exists. - cbergeron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Does anyone around here understand how Trademarks work?
If you don't use it in commerce, and forcefully prevent it from becoming diluted, you lose your rights to it.
If Cisco cared about the trademark "iPhone", they would have sued/tried to shut down every website that was rumoring that Apple was going to release a product with the same name.
IANAL, and this is _clearly_ oversimplifying; but some of you dolts are posting crap that's even _more nonsensical_ than mine - and I'm relatively educated on the topic.
The reason it's going to the courts, is so a JUDGE can decide based on the ACTUAL LAW. We can speculate all day long about how the law "could" be interpreted, but it's the Judges that have an actual understanding of it (because they have earned their rank up to "Judge"). Judges are the equivalent of circus highwire walkers - they have the unprecented responsibility of balancing uneven politics [the left and the right, aka: the pole], while simultaneously balancing their own values (weight), for the ultimate goal of doing the best for the American people (forward progress).
Yet, for any one false move they are criticised. Try walking a single "step" in their shoes - they are the few people on Earth with a trustworthy core good enough for our US Constitution.
There should be an amendment passed that replaces the "President" with a "Council of persons nominated by Former Supreme Court Justices whom do the same work of the aforementioned single-person". - andyduncan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Um, you need a physical product if the trademark applies to, you know, a physical product, and slapping an Avery Label on an existing product isn't going to cut it. It's ***** hilarious, but that's about it.
Someone who owns a cat, please please please slap an iPhone Avery Label on it and file a trademark. - DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"you don't need a physical product at all."
Then why were they required to provide a picture of a product for sale with the name, oh wise one? - DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Flag, I see you are still sticking with your MO of insulting people instead of adding something useful to the discussion.
- skyhighrockets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@d00ley
Did you eve RTFA!? - geohsia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Its sad, that such a good product has to get marred by these types of things, but from the patent and trademark office, with the declaration of use, they need a specimen. Earlier poster specified that a mark is sufficient. It is not. Section 8 specifies a specimen:
SPECIMEN
What is a "specimen" of use?
A specimen is an actual example of how you are using the mark in commerce on or in connection with the identified goods and/or services. This is not the same as the drawing of the mark, which merely represents what you are claiming as the mark.
I don't know if the example in the article is the actual specimen submitted by Cisco, but if it is, it does not seem to meet the criteria specified. - Refrag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Apple won't care because they aren't using it anymore.
- Gadianton, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Actually, the specimen is usually simply a picture of the product with the mark. So if that box was actually used in commerce it will be an adequate specimen of the mark, even if it is simply a sticker on the outside of the shrink wrap.
- boombashi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3dude, now that thing is sexy.
- Four20, on 10/12/2007, -10/+13edit - lol he fooled me
digg down - rafk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3ZING! smart and sneaky people over at Apple, sneaky like ninjas...
-
Show 51 - 100 of 187 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 