Re: iPhone - getting name from Cisco + domain names
"P.Schuman" <pschuman_NO_SPAM_ME@interserv.com> wrote in message
news:7k7ph.32969$Gr2.2651@newssvr21.news.prodigy.n et...
> Wonder what it took to get the name from Cisco ?
> http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...y/16422175.htm
>
> Also, wonder if Cisco will continue to use the name for their VoIP phone ?
> http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satel...ame=US%2FLayou
> t&cid=1118334686843&pagename=Linksys%2FCommon%2FVi sitorWrapper
>
> Now that would be product & marketplace confusion...
>
also - the existing domain names for this new iPhone world. http://www.iphone.com --> private IP phone company website, currently overloaded http://www.iphone.org --> points to the Apple website
hmmmm - how much is Apple willing to pay to get the domain name
--
Registrant:
The Internet Phone Company, LLC
3856 Willowview Court
Santa Rosa, California 95403
United States
Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: IPHONE.COM
Created on: 24-Aug-95
Expires on: 22-Aug-08
Last Updated on: 16-Jul-06
I don't think apple will win this one. Even though they have all these
products that start with i, I don't believe it is possible for them to
trademark i everything before a physical product exists or atleast has been
designed etc.
RobbieB wrote:
> I don't think apple will win this one.
they're not trying to "win" it in court. They have simply negotiated an
agreement with Cisco to allow Apple to use the iPhone trademark.
Personally, I think the i-Product naming convention is a little passe,
it seems so 90s. Apple was definitely not the first to come out with
that naming convention. Although I can't recall specific products, I
remember when iMac first came out, I felt that they had borrowed the
naming convention from somewhere else. Anyways, it's time for Apple to
come up with the next cool naming convention, as I'm sure many
imitators will be naming all kinds of i-products.
In article <1168468142.911517.229080@i56g2000hsf.googlegroups .com>,
"Bucky" <uw_badgers@email.com> wrote:
> RobbieB wrote:
> > I don't think apple will win this one.
>
> they're not trying to "win" it in court. They have simply negotiated an
> agreement with Cisco to allow Apple to use the iPhone trademark.
>
No negotiated agreement
You're right, the latest news is saying that Cisco is suing Apple. I
posted that based on Cisco's statement yesterday that they assumed that
Apple was accepting Cisco's latest offer. I didn't think that Apple
would be insane enough to release a product using another company's
registered trademark dating back to 1996. How can Apple possibly win
this? Although I'm not a fan of the name "iPhone" anyways, so I'd be
glad if they came up with something else.
Bucky wrote:
> Kurt wrote:
>
>>No negotiated agreement
>
>
> You're right, the latest news is saying that Cisco is suing Apple. I
> posted that based on Cisco's statement yesterday that they assumed that
> Apple was accepting Cisco's latest offer. I didn't think that Apple
> would be insane enough to release a product using another company's
> registered trademark dating back to 1996. How can Apple possibly win
> this?
heh, if you read (or listen) to Jobs's biography, this is not out of character!
"Bucky" <uw_badgers@email.com> wrote in message
news:1168500114.598303.207960@o58g2000hsb.googlegr oups.com...
> Kurt wrote:
>> No negotiated agreement
>
> You're right, the latest news is saying that Cisco is suing Apple. I
> posted that based on Cisco's statement yesterday that they assumed that
> Apple was accepting Cisco's latest offer. I didn't think that Apple
> would be insane enough to release a product using another company's
> registered trademark dating back to 1996. How can Apple possibly win
> this? Although I'm not a fan of the name "iPhone" anyways, so I'd be
> glad if they came up with something else.
>
Not so insane...
Cisco's claimed Patent and Trademarks are for IP based phone service that
will deliver voice, data, music, services etc. to independent hanheld
devices using interconnected computer networks (the internet). The Apple
iPhone is a GSM 'Cellular' phone.
With the proper attorney's (which I am sure Apple has) and the rules
regarding what a patent and trademark cover, they actually stand a good
chance of winning this.
"PC Medic" <Not@home.com> wrote in message
news:H9zph.22937$kn7.16449@newsfe23.lga...
>
> Cisco's claimed Patent and Trademarks are for IP based phone service that
> will deliver voice, data, music, services etc. to independent hanheld
> devices using interconnected computer networks (the internet). The Apple
> iPhone is a GSM 'Cellular' phone.
You're kind of skipping over the court settlement of 60 days ago when
Cingular settled for doing the above without paying royalties for the above
>after< first determining who and where you are.
If you knew how much cross licensing and royalties are paid, you'd wonder
when we aren't paying $1 per minute.
PC Medic wrote:
> With the proper attorney's (which I am sure Apple has) and the rules
> regarding what a patent and trademark cover, they actually stand a good
> chance of winning this.
I was taught that you could potentially use someone's trademark if the
products are so different that there would not be any confusion, like
if Nike sold sneakers called iPhone, then there would definitely be no
confusion. But "how different" is subjective. Personally, I feel that
both are communications-related devices, so they are too similar. I
guess we'll find out (in a few years).
If Apple really does win, then Cisco should start naming their products
iPod and iMac based on the same logic.
> I was taught that you could potentially use someone's trademark if the
> products are so different that there would not be any confusion, like
> if Nike sold sneakers called iPhone, then there would definitely be no
> confusion. But "how different" is subjective. Personally, I feel that
> both are communications-related devices, so they are too similar. I
> guess we'll find out (in a few years).
Yes, that's the overwhelming opinion in the legal community. You can
have similar names for totally dissimilar products. An IP phone, and and
a cellular phone with WiFi, are too similar.
> If Apple really does win, then Cisco should start naming their products
> iPod and iMac based on the same logic.
Yes, that's what some lawyers were also saying. If Apple tries to win
this battle, the repercussions will be that other companies will start
using Apple's trademarks.
I'm sure that there will be a settlement on this very soon.
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 08:36:59 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
>Bucky wrote:
>
>> I was taught that you could potentially use someone's trademark if the
>> products are so different that there would not be any confusion, like
>> if Nike sold sneakers called iPhone, then there would definitely be no
>> confusion. But "how different" is subjective. Personally, I feel that
>> both are communications-related devices, so they are too similar. I
>> guess we'll find out (in a few years).
>
>Yes, that's the overwhelming opinion in the legal community. You can
>have similar names for totally dissimilar products. An IP phone, and and
>a cellular phone with WiFi, are too similar.
>
>> If Apple really does win, then Cisco should start naming their products
>> iPod and iMac based on the same logic.
>
>Yes, that's what some lawyers were also saying. If Apple tries to win
>this battle, the repercussions will be that other companies will start
>using Apple's trademarks.
>
>I'm sure that there will be a settlement on this very soon.
Nonsense. Cisco went for three plus years with no iPhone product, and
if a company doesnt use a Trademark, it loses its' right to it.
On the other hand three other companies are already selling other
products called iphone, and Cisco never came after them.
karlkrand...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Nonsense. Cisco went for three plus years with no iPhone product, and
> if a company doesnt use a Trademark, it loses its' right to it.
> On the other hand three other companies are already selling other
> products called iphone, and Cisco never came after them.
well, like they say, there's 3 sides to every story. I guess it will be
an interesting court case.
so the other 3 companies could win a suit against Apple then?
On 13 Jan 2007 00:59:39 -0800, "Bucky" <uw_badgers@email.com> wrote:
>karlkrand...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>> Nonsense. Cisco went for three plus years with no iPhone product, and
>> if a company doesnt use a Trademark, it loses its' right to it.
>> On the other hand three other companies are already selling other
>> products called iphone, and Cisco never came after them.
>
>well, like they say, there's 3 sides to every story. I guess it will be
>an interesting court case.
>
>so the other 3 companies could win a suit against Apple then?
On 10 Jan 2007 14:29:03 -0800, "Bucky" <uw_badgers@email.com> wrote:
: RobbieB wrote:
: > I don't think apple will win this one.
:
: they're not trying to "win" it in court. They have simply negotiated an
: agreement with Cisco to allow Apple to use the iPhone trademark.
:
: Personally, I think the i-Product naming convention is a little passe,
: it seems so 90s. Apple was definitely not the first to come out with
: that naming convention. Although I can't recall specific products, I
: remember when iMac first came out, I felt that they had borrowed the
: naming convention from somewhere else. Anyways, it's time for Apple to
: come up with the next cool naming convention, as I'm sure many
: imitators will be naming all kinds of i-products.
When they come out with the Macintosh, we all thought they were going to name
the rest of their products after apples. They could revert to that notion and
call the phone "Winesap" or "Granny Smith" or whatever.
What I was taught was that a non-registered trademark TM is still
valid. Of course, if it's registered (R), then even easier to prove
infringement, but still possible without registration.
Robert Coe wrote:
> When they come out with the Macintosh, we all thought they were going to name
> the rest of their products after apples. They could revert to that notion and
> call the phone "Winesap" or "Granny Smith" or whatever.
"Bucky" <uw_badgers@email.com> wrote in message
news:1168761459.153822.46140@51g2000cwl.googlegrou ps.com...
> karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>> None of them applied for a Trademark.
>
> What I was taught was that a non-registered trademark TM is still
> valid. Of course, if it's registered (R), then even easier to prove
> infringement, but still possible without registration.
>
You are correct. A trademark need not be registered to be valid, but the
holder must still excercise 'reasonable' efforts to protect the trademark or
it could be considered abandoned.
iPhone - getting name from Cisco 
Linear Mode
