The IPKat has been deluged by eager IP lawyers (hat-tip Jim Davies, Louise Fullwood, James Heath and Rhyan Probert and SMP) keen to see him comment on the Cisco/Apple dispute over the iPhone trade mark.

According to the Guardian Apple launched the iPhone combined phone and MP3 player this week. Cisco objects that it owns the iPhone trade mark, after acquiring Infogear in 2000. Infogear had owned the trade mark since 1996. Cisco, which says that it has been in negotiations with Apple for some time, has now filed suit in the Northern District of California.

The IPKat, ever the conspiracy theorist, notes that while the iPhone was only launched yesterday, its existence and, more to the point, the fact that Apple was seeking a trade mark for it, has been common knowledge for months. A search of Google News a little while ago would have thrown up lots of stories about how Apple had applied for the iTunes trade mark. The timing of the lawsuit, or at least its announcement, appears to be timed to draw maximum attention to Cisco’s iPhone product.
iWONDER iWONDER Reviewed by Unknown on Thursday, January 11, 2007 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. There is clearly at least a superficial similarity between Cisco's trade mark - "iPhone" - and the proposed name of Apple's product - "iPhone" - but let's not jump to any hasty conclusions here.

    "iPhone" is clearly a very important product for Cisco. They've put it as a "featured product" on their home page and everything. Could be one of their major revenue sources for 2007 - one way or another...


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.