More iPhone intel*

The IPKat's friend and keen cricket fan David King of Australian law firm EKM Legal has been doing a bit of digging on iPhone trade marks (see previous blog here). He says:

"In Oz, Cisco hasn’t bothered to file for the mark – Apple registered the mark in 2002 for “Computer software; on line magazine in area of computers and computer software; none of the foregoing being in respect of Internet telephony and Internet telecommunications” – which is a bit odd seeing what has happened lately

In September 2006 Apple filed a “Madrid” application for – surprise, surprise –

"Handheld and mobile digital electronic devices for the sending and receiving of telephone, calls, faxes, electronic mail, and other digital data MP3 and other digital format audio players; handheld computers, personal digital assistants, electronic organizers, electronic notepads; magnetic data ewers; telephones, mobile phones, computer gaming machines, videophones, cameras; pre recorded computer programs for personal information management database management software, electronic mail and messaging software, paging software, database synchronization software, computer programs far accessing, browsing and searching online databases, computer software and firmware, namely operating system programs, data synchronization programs, and application development tool programs for personal and handheld computers; electronic handheld units for the wireless receipt and/or transmission of data that enable the user to keep track of or manage personal information; software for the redirection of messages, Internet mail, and/or other data to me or more electronic handheld devices from a data store on or associated with a personal computer or a server; and software for the synchronization of data between a remote station or device and a fixed or remote station or device; computer hardware and software for providing integrated telephone communication with computerized global, information networks"

That application was based on a an original application filed (perhaps for secrecy, ‘cos I can’t think of any other reason) in Trinidad and Tobago in March 2006.

For reasons unknown, Dave decided to have a look at what was happening in Europe, and curioser and curioser, Merpel , a search of the OHIM database shows that an as yet unspoken of adversary, Ocean Telecom Services LLC out of Wilmington Delaware, filed on 27/09/06, a quite extensive application for iPhone in class 9.

You might have thought that this application would have run foul of the Apple Trinidad and Tobago filing, but, strangely, the latter doesn’t seem to have hit European shores (or maybe Dave can’t search OHIM properly). Apple does appear on the list as having filed an application for iPhone for computers and computer software back in 2002 but this has been opposed by Aiphone Kabushiki Kaisha.

And just to muddy the European waters further, Cisco appears as the registered proprietor of iPhone registered since 1998 for Computer hardware and software for providing integrated telephone communication with computerized global information networks”, This is probably the same one that Cisco has been rabbitting on about as having acquired with Infogear. But, guess what – this mark is the subject of a cancellation action.

Obviously, there is much more to come on this scene, but if Dave was a betting man, he’d suggest that Apple will end up with the mark but substantially less money."

The IPKat thanks Dave for his diligent digging. The issue is clearly going to be one that will keep quite a few trade mark attorneys busy for a while.

*intel as in short for intelligence, and not the well-known chip company
More iPhone intel* More iPhone intel* Reviewed by David Pearce on Saturday, January 13, 2007 Rating: 5


  1. Apparently Ocean Telecom Services LLC is an Apple shell company (thanks to Joff).

  2. Cisco have started a blog on their TM suit.


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:

Powered by Blogger.