02/01/2007, 8:35am, EST
Thursday, February 1st
Cisco gives Apple more time in iPhone suit
Apple and Cisco have both agreed to give Apple more time to respond to Cisco's lawsuit surrounding the iPhone moniker in order to discuss trademark rights and interoperability, the companies said late Wednesday. Networking giant Cisco earlier this month filed a lawsuit against Apple over the iPhone trademark, following unsuccessful negotiations leading up to the iPhone launch at Macworld Expo. On the day of the launch, Cisco seemed confident that an agreement was close, but Apple reportedly refused to capitulate to Cisco's demand for interoperability, resulting in a war of words between the companies and eventually a lawsuit against Apple. During a conference call with analysts earlier this month, Apple Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook called the Cisco lawsuit "silly," and said Cisco's trademark registration was "tenuous at best. If Cisco wants to challenge us," Cook said, "we're confident we'll prevail."
For its part, Cisco seems to have taken the high road, claiming that it simply wanted Apple to respect its intellectual property. The company's CEO John Chambers said that it was looking "for just interoperability, or the ability of the Apple phone to work smoothly with Cisco product." Cisco owns the iPhone tradmark through its Linksys consumer wireless division, which uses the moniker for a line of internet-based phones.
Apple's new device is "deceptively and confusingly similar" to its own line Linksys VOIP-based phones, Cisco claims, while Apple says it is entitled to use the name iPhone because its device operates over a cellular network, unlike Cisco's phones.
Other reports indicate that Apple may also face trademark issues in Canada, where Comwave Telecom has used the iPhone brand since 2004 to sell Internet phone service to its customers and filed documents opposing Apple's motion to take the name.
Filed under: Apple
, 
, 13
, 
, 
, 
, 
Top
subscribe to comments
for this article
No, they're using their rights to the trademark to try and strong-arm Apple into making their cell phone interoperable with theirs. That's not "simply wanting Apple to respect the trademark."
Cisco doesn't have a cell phone to be interoperable with.
True, Professional Courtesy applies more to lawyers than to many other fields, but is still the same regardless. . . . it is "Professional Courtesy"
If the other side needs more time to look into and properly analyze their position, and gives you the courtesy of a phone call and/or letter to request more time, and it doesn't hurt your client in any way, you do it. You may need more time in the next matter you're taking care of.
It would also waste much more time to not agree, as both sides would need to draft more documents to amend the earlier ones later regardless.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with billing. In fact, if anything, it saves both sides money, effort, and irrationality.
In the end I bet it costs a hell of a lot less than advertising to accomplish the same thing.
How so? If it were so clear that Cisco owned the Trademark, Apple would not be challenging Cisco's ownership. Let me lay out a very real possibility here. Cisco lost the trademark because it sat on the trademark for too many years without using it. After-all, one does not own a trademark, merely the right to use it provided conditions are followed. Using it is one of those conditions.
If Apple then registered the trademark in its own name before Cisco started shipping a product, Apple would own the right to the trademark. As it stands right now, the trademark office is considering whether Cisco 1) deceived it in claiming it was using the trademark, and 2) whether it abandoned the trademark.
Apple also has other reasonable arguments. The point is it is not clear Cisco owns the right to use the trademark at Apple's expense. Moreover, Cisco hardly seems to have the higher ground. Cisco traded off Apple's fame by coming up with the name iPhone. Apple started the whole "i" naming convention.
Second, how is a lawyer making more money by delaying a filing? First, it is in the lawyer's best interest for this thing to go to trial. That is where the big bucks are made. It is in Apple's best interest that this thing gets settled quickly. Accordingly, delaying a filing for the parties to talk is a possible win for Apple and Cisco.
Both parties know a trial is risky. Both know a trial will be expensive. Both parties probably actually want to have a working relationship.
Moreover, Apple's own salaried lawyers probably will control the settlement talks.