Apple are the evil empire

[chrisvenus]

Just imagine for a second that you are a big company witha globally known brand. You are releasing a new product and you want to keep it in line with your naming of outher products so you decide that iPhone would be a good name. You discover (and have known for some significant number of years) that this name is trademarked by somebody else.

Do you:

a) hold off on an announcement of the product until after the trade mark discussions are complete
b) announce the product but build the lack of name into your PR campaign or something clever like that until you have resolved the trade mark issue.
c) rename the product to something else - you've had several years and a huge marketing department to come up with a new one
d) ignore trade mark law and hope that because you're iPod and iMac and iWhatever were so globally recognised that you can steamroller the trademark holder into giving it up because you're an arrogant [censored] and announce the product with illegal name to a global audience.


I'd personally have put d as my last choice but apparently apple thought it was the best choice out there. Cisco are sueing them. http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/01/update_on_ciscos_iphone_tradem.html

Ahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahaha!

I'm sorry, I just find this very funny. If anybody can find an apple press release on the issue I'd be interested to hear it since I've not really heard an explanation from apple except some quotes of them saying that Cisco's trademark was tenuous at best and people with no clue on trademark law saying that because random people were referring to the iPhone (ie apple fanboys) that Cisco had failed to protect its trademark.

Comments

[chrisvenus]

Why do you say that out of interest?

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

Because trademarks aren't like patents. The idea of a trademark is that you protect your brands from people trying to thieve them. Say what you like abotu Apple, but "i<thing>" for various values of <thing> is clearly one of their brands.

These "Infogear" people from whom Cisco acquired iPhone don't even make mobiles - their iPhone is some kind of VoIP thingy.

In other words, the whole thing is rather stupid and pointless.

As such, it looks like Cisco are just suing on principle for the benefit of their shareholders. The case probably won't even run to completion. Cisco and Apple will just reach some undisclosed settlement.

[chrisvenus]

Say what you like abotu Apple, but "i" for various values of is clearly one of their brands.

Exhibit A - iRiver. An mp3 player (so exactly the same marketplace and a direct rival to iPods) that, to the best of my knowledge, has never had any issues with its name from Apple. They do not have any right to "i" as a name by virtue of this since they haven't made any attempt to protect it as a brand (and I'm not sure how this would work).

Also iPhones are, from what I've seen, capable of plugging into normal phone lines, computers or wireless, as well and given most of these sorts of things make standard telephone calls (not just computer to computer) then I think its not quite as "zero overlap" as you think. I think it is quite reasonable to say that the two telephones are in the same marketplace and thus a trademark infringement has occured. Add to that the fact that you run applications on the cisco iPhone (I'm not sure how much at the moment but the same can be said of apple's one). I'd say that the only real difference is that the apple iPhone seems to be able to connect up via a mobile phone style connection and not via a normal telephone socket.

I won't be surprised if apple end up with the name but I don't think they are just going to get it to save lawyer costs, I think they will end up paying a considerable amount more than that.

[inskauldrak.livejournal.com]

iRiver - hmm, interesting as I would have thought Apple could make a case for 'passing off'. Then again, perhaps they felt that it would generate more publicity for the rival product than ignoring it.

[chrisvenus]

I wouldn't have been surprised if apple had had a go about the naming similarity, however, they didn't which means I don't think they could justifiably have a go at anybody else in the future on these terms.

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

Oh I'm not saying they won't pay for it. I'm quite sure they will. Which is exactly what they want.

What won't happen is for the court to tell them they can't use it.

[chrisvenus]

OK. THat is not the same in my book as them winning the lawsuit. Clearly Cisco are likely to sell because their product has no brand recognition currently, is going to be seen as a poor imitator of the apple iPhone and they are going to get much more money from selling than from keeping. The point is I think if they wanted to hold onto it they could. I don't think they would lose in court, they will just settle out of it. But I guess that's what you're saying too so we all agree. :)

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the only difference is that I don't think they wanted to hold it. I'm guessing it went something like this.

Cisco: We've got your trademark. We've got your trademark.
Apple: Bastards. OK, I guess we buy it off you then.
Cisco: Hurrah ! We'll except $lots.
Apple: Haha. No. Instead we'll pay you $notmuch.
Cisco: Haha. No.
Apple: Fine, we've now released our product anyway !
Cisco: Bastards. OK, I guess we sue you then.
Apple: Except you're obviously not going to win.
Cisco: But even if you win, the court costs will be $lots.
Apple: Fine. How about we pay you $reasonablesum instead ?
Cisco: Hurrah !

[chrisvenus]

I think the difference is not quite that.

Cisco: We've got your trademark. We've got your trademark.
Apple: Bastards. OK, I guess we buy it off you then.
Cisco: Hurrah ! We'll accept $lots.
Apple: Haha. No. Instead we'll pay you $notmuch.
Cisco: Haha. No.
Apple: Fine, we've now released our product anyway !
Cisco: Bastards. OK, I guess we sue you then.
Apple: Except you're obviously not going to win.
Cisco: Dude, we totally are. We're going to win, you're going to have spent lots of money and then have to spend lots more on a rebranding exercise.
Apple: Fine. How about we pay you $reasonablesum instead ?
Cisco: how about you pay us $lots.
Apple: That's daylight robbery.
Cisco: If you don't want it feel free to do the whole rebrand thing.
Apple: Grumble. You win.
Cisco: Hurrah!
Apple: We're still the prettiest.
Cisco (to self): Still not king yet. :(

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

Yup, OK, yours is funnier. ;-)