Cisco slack off on trademarks

[chrisvenus]

Well, as a followup to this mornings post I have been pointed at an apple-side view of things. Not an official apple thing I think but from a follower of the church of apple.

http://www.tuaw.com/2007/01/11/cisco-v-apple-ii-am-followup-on-trademark-lawsuit/

It cites other products using the name (the first of which I can't tell the manufacturer and looks like it could be the cisco one frankly) and the second of which is a pair of headphones which I am not sure really is i the same market space so I don't think applies. However, it does then go on to quote some VOIP hardware providers (hardware being crucial IMO) and similar such things.

Suddenly I am not so sure which way this will go but am interested in finding out. Gah! Maybe this is damn apple advertising! innokenti, you'll protect me. Shoot me if I ever buy anything from apple (with the exception of iPod Nano in whcih case I expect you to just break my legs).

Comments

[elethiomel.livejournal.com]

Of course, if Apple think Cisco's trademark is as 'tenuous' as spokeswoman Ms. Kerris claims, then why would Apple have spent so long in discussion with Cisco? They'd have just gone ahead and marketed and Cisco be damned.

[chrisvenus]

I think we have entered the "pissing contest" stage. :)

[secretrebel.livejournal.com]

Obviously Apple are determined to brand every last bit of Appleware with an initial lowercase i. Since they don't seem to be able to predict what future uses of this they need perhaps they'd better start developing iEverything.

I will need an iFlap for my iCat, so it can access my iGarden from my iHouse or iFlat. This is of course once I've completed my move to iWorld.

[wimble.livejournal.com]

Does your iCat play with an iBall?

[wimble.livejournal.com]

Once Apple have smacked Cisco into touch, are they (Apple) then going to sue the existing headphone manufacturers for breach of Apples (now strongly established) trademark?

[innokenti.livejournal.com]

I will protect you Chris! Raawr!