UPDATE ON CISCO'S iPHONE TRADEMARK - Intellectual property is the lifeblood of Silicon Valley and we all have to protect our property. The iPhone trademark is owned by Cisco, as noted in your story. We (Cisco) had hoped to reach an agreement to share our trademark with Apple, yet they decided to use the name without our agreement, so we, unfortunately, are having to go to court to stop them from using the name. We still hope we can reach an agreement, but when your neighbor steals your property, you have no recourse other than to call the cops and file a complaint. Full Cisco statement at: http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2007/corp_011007.html

This is surprisingly unprofessional of Apple. I'm kind of stunned.

I'm not a trademark attorney, but to me, the goods and services described in Cisco's trademark don't sound like as if they could be confused with Apple's product.....

"computer hardware and software for providing integrated telephone communication with computerized global information networks"

Anyone done a search to see what other "iBrands" are available......

iTalk..........taken

Arrogance is the word not so much silly. The reality distortion field this time will cost Apple, as the unbounded hype has made this name more valuable. cisco = DEEP POCKETS that can and will keep the most over-hyped product in years off the market.

regards

Already commented on this elsewhere, but FWIW...

[Caveat: IANAL - I'm a marketing and communications guy, hence, apply usual pinch of salt to taste.]

Here’s the thing about this: it really doesn’t matter all that much what Apple or Cisco choose to do now. Apple has already come out with an absolute killer of a launch, and branded the thing deep into the minds of all who lust after it.

It IS the iPhone, now and forever. No matter who wins or how Apple may or may not be required to re-label it.

Apple could even quietly concede, call it the “Apple Phone” and move on, in many ways, they’ve already won the brand battle.

Paul - use your own tool, Gindx: enter "cisco.com" in the Site field, and "iPhone" in the keyword field. Try the same with "apple.com". They've won.

You just know that 2 years from now, when the product has become firmly established as a major game-changer, everyone will be calling it the iPhone anyway. What the heck else would one call it?

Perhaps Jobs was crazy to come out and call it the iPhone, knowing that Cisco would go bonkers. Or perhaps he was crazy like a fox...

For more flavor on this suit and why, please view our SVP and General Counsel Mark Chandler’s blog entry at: http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/01/update_on_ciscos_iphone_tradem.html

He states, in part, “this is not a suit against Apple’s innovation, their modern design, or their cool phone. It is not a suit about money or royalties. This is a suit about trademark infringement.”

"They've won".

I'm using this case as a litmus test to find out who the truly RDF susceptible people are on the tech forums I read. I mean it's just perfect. It must have a 100% detection rate. The Voight-Kampff of delusional minds.

Roy, you forgot the salt.

I agree with all of you especially Michael O'Connor Clarke's detailed comments. At tis stage immeterial whether Apple calls it iPhone or aPhone etc, Apple won. Moreover, I am not sure a type product name has similar copy right need as a company name. For example, all TV manufacturing companies use TV, all Microwave manufacturing companies use Microwave, all telephone companies use "Telephone" when they sell or make their respective product. It appears, CSCO tried bargain a combined product in certain platforms to let Apple share the iPhone name, in the papers CSCO sent to Apple on 1/9/2007 night, a day before Apple's announcement. It is a big bargain than what Apple gains by using iPhone vs aPhone or other phone if needed to be. If iPhone definition changes into broader level all the similar manufacturer's can call their products as iPhone; similar to the above TV, Telephone etc. One of the questions here is, is it a type of product or a Copy right required brand name? If it worth to fight on such grounds, it may cost some money to Apple but worth fighting. However, if already defined such things then Apple should move on by registering iPhone copy right in other countries and choosing aPhone or other name in US to avoid distraction and or litigation cost.

Sounds to me like Cisco sent over some documents to sign that made outrageous demands -- knowing that Steve wanted to launch the iPhone at Macworld -- and/or Steve decided to give them the middle finger just because he can, because he's Steve f**ing Jobs.

I had a caffiene-fuelled theory first thing this morning that Apple was doing this to milk some publicity:

http://businessopinions.blogspot.com/2007/01/apple-deliberately-toying-with-cisco.html

But the commentary up here about public sentiment taking over the trademark by force is better still.

Just a note to add to your follow-up....

the Canadian TM for iPhone is held by ComWave, Apple's application has been oppposed by ComWave.....Cisco abandoned their Canadian TM for iPhone

Further Canadian details (you *so* want them) here.