Cisco's blogs
In a blog on Jan 10 - headed, UPDATE on Cisco's iPhone Trademark - Cisco SVP and general Counsel Mark Chandler said,
Today’s
announcement from Cisco regarding our suit with Apple over our iPhone
trademark has spurred a lot of interesting questions. Most importantly,
this is not a suit against Apple’s innovation, their modern
design, or their cool phone. It is not a suit about money or royalties.
This is a suit about trademark infringement.
Cisco owns the iPhone trademark. We have since 2000, when we bought a company called Infogear Technology, which had developed a product that combined web access and telephone. Infogear’s registrations for the mark date to 1996, before iMacs and iPods were even glimmers in Apple’s eye. We shipped and/or supported that iPhone product for years. We have been shipping new, updated iPhone products since last spring, and had a formal launch late last year. Apple knows this; they approached us about the iPhone trademark as far back as 2001, and have approached us several times over the past year.
For the last few weeks, we have been in serious discussions with Apple over how the two companies could work together and share the iPhone trademark. We genuinely believed that we were going to be able to reach an agreement and Apple’s communications with us suggested they supported that goal. We negotiated in good faith with every intention to reach a reasonable agreement with Apple by which we would share the iPhone brand.
So, I was surprised and disappointed when Apple decided to go ahead and announce their new product with our trademarked name without reaching an agreement. It was essentially the equivalent of “we’re too busy.” Despite being very close to an agreement, we had no substantive communication from Apple after 8pm Monday, including after their launch, when we made clear we expected closure. What were the issues at the table that kept us from an agreement? Was it money? No. Was it a royalty on every Apple phone? No. Was it an exchange for Cisco products or services? No.
Fundamentally we wanted an open approach. We hoped our products could interoperate in the future. In our view, the network provides the basis to make this happen—it provides the foundation of innovation that allows converged devices to deliver the services that consumers want. Our goal was to take that to the next level by facilitating collaboration with Apple. And we wanted to make sure to differentiate the brands in a way that could work for both companies and not confuse people, since our products combine both web access and voice telephony. That’s it. Openness and clarity.
At MacWorld, Apple discussed the patents pending on their new phone technology. They clearly seem to value intellectual property. If the tables were turned, do you think Apple would allow someone to blatantly infringe on their rights? How would Apple react if someone launched a product called iPod but claimed it was ok to use the name because it used a different video format? Would that be ok? We know the answer – Apple is a very aggressive enforcer of their trademark rights. And that needs to be a two-way street.
This lawsuit is about Cisco's obligation to protect its trademark in the face of a willful violation. Our goal was collaboration. The action we have taken today is about not using people’s property without permission.
Cisco owns the iPhone trademark. We have since 2000, when we bought a company called Infogear Technology, which had developed a product that combined web access and telephone. Infogear’s registrations for the mark date to 1996, before iMacs and iPods were even glimmers in Apple’s eye. We shipped and/or supported that iPhone product for years. We have been shipping new, updated iPhone products since last spring, and had a formal launch late last year. Apple knows this; they approached us about the iPhone trademark as far back as 2001, and have approached us several times over the past year.
For the last few weeks, we have been in serious discussions with Apple over how the two companies could work together and share the iPhone trademark. We genuinely believed that we were going to be able to reach an agreement and Apple’s communications with us suggested they supported that goal. We negotiated in good faith with every intention to reach a reasonable agreement with Apple by which we would share the iPhone brand.
So, I was surprised and disappointed when Apple decided to go ahead and announce their new product with our trademarked name without reaching an agreement. It was essentially the equivalent of “we’re too busy.” Despite being very close to an agreement, we had no substantive communication from Apple after 8pm Monday, including after their launch, when we made clear we expected closure. What were the issues at the table that kept us from an agreement? Was it money? No. Was it a royalty on every Apple phone? No. Was it an exchange for Cisco products or services? No.
Fundamentally we wanted an open approach. We hoped our products could interoperate in the future. In our view, the network provides the basis to make this happen—it provides the foundation of innovation that allows converged devices to deliver the services that consumers want. Our goal was to take that to the next level by facilitating collaboration with Apple. And we wanted to make sure to differentiate the brands in a way that could work for both companies and not confuse people, since our products combine both web access and voice telephony. That’s it. Openness and clarity.
At MacWorld, Apple discussed the patents pending on their new phone technology. They clearly seem to value intellectual property. If the tables were turned, do you think Apple would allow someone to blatantly infringe on their rights? How would Apple react if someone launched a product called iPod but claimed it was ok to use the name because it used a different video format? Would that be ok? We know the answer – Apple is a very aggressive enforcer of their trademark rights. And that needs to be a two-way street.
This lawsuit is about Cisco's obligation to protect its trademark in the face of a willful violation. Our goal was collaboration. The action we have taken today is about not using people’s property without permission.
Then, on January 12, 2007, top Cisco PR man John Earnhardt wrote a commentary headed, More Answers on Cisco iPhone Trademark Issue,
First, a very brief recap.
Our property (the iPhone trademark) is being used
without our permission. We filed suit to stop this. It is as simple as
that.
Now, to clarify some questions that are out there:
1) Has Cisco maintained its rights to the iPhone trademark? Cisco has used its iPhone trademark in all ways necessary to maintain it and keep it valid. We are not a litigious company, but we will act when our property is used without our permission.
2) Cisco has been saying that this dispute with Apple wasn’t over money but over the desire to be more interoperable with Apple. What does that mean? Let's be clear...this issue is about infringement on Cisco's trademark. On interoperability, in general, we were asking for the two companies to work together to make our products and technologies more interoperable. Cisco has been a longtime proponent of interoperability within the high-tech industry for the benefit of the companies involved and, more importantly, the end-users of those products and technologies. Interoperability is important because, as we've said, we see the potential for convergence of the home phone, cell phone, work phone, and the PC as limitless and we see the network as the foundation for innovation that allows converged devices to deliver the services consumers want.
3) Did Apple ever approach Cisco to let you know of its intention of using your trademark and did you try to resolve the issues before filing the lawsuit? Apple approached Cisco many times over the past five years to acquire rights to use the iPhone trademark, acknowledging Cisco’s rights to the trademark. We had extensive discussions with them up until monday night at 8:00 p.m. with the goal of reaching an agreement.
4) What is the Cisco iPhone? The iPhone family is a class of device that marries the familiarity of the telephone with compelling Internet services, access to personal content, and integration with the home to create complete solutions for the communication needs of consumers. More info at www.linksys.com/iPhone.
Lastly, aren’t you and Apple really offering different products targeted at different markets? Today’s iPhone is not tomorrow’s iPhone. The potential for convergence of the home phone, cell phone, work phone and PC is limitless. In our view, the network provides the foundation for innovation that allows converged devices to deliver the services consumers want.
Hope that clears some of the questions out there. Thanks for posting your comments and questions.
Now, to clarify some questions that are out there:
1) Has Cisco maintained its rights to the iPhone trademark? Cisco has used its iPhone trademark in all ways necessary to maintain it and keep it valid. We are not a litigious company, but we will act when our property is used without our permission.
2) Cisco has been saying that this dispute with Apple wasn’t over money but over the desire to be more interoperable with Apple. What does that mean? Let's be clear...this issue is about infringement on Cisco's trademark. On interoperability, in general, we were asking for the two companies to work together to make our products and technologies more interoperable. Cisco has been a longtime proponent of interoperability within the high-tech industry for the benefit of the companies involved and, more importantly, the end-users of those products and technologies. Interoperability is important because, as we've said, we see the potential for convergence of the home phone, cell phone, work phone, and the PC as limitless and we see the network as the foundation for innovation that allows converged devices to deliver the services consumers want.
3) Did Apple ever approach Cisco to let you know of its intention of using your trademark and did you try to resolve the issues before filing the lawsuit? Apple approached Cisco many times over the past five years to acquire rights to use the iPhone trademark, acknowledging Cisco’s rights to the trademark. We had extensive discussions with them up until monday night at 8:00 p.m. with the goal of reaching an agreement.
4) What is the Cisco iPhone? The iPhone family is a class of device that marries the familiarity of the telephone with compelling Internet services, access to personal content, and integration with the home to create complete solutions for the communication needs of consumers. More info at www.linksys.com/iPhone.
Lastly, aren’t you and Apple really offering different products targeted at different markets? Today’s iPhone is not tomorrow’s iPhone. The potential for convergence of the home phone, cell phone, work phone and PC is limitless. In our view, the network provides the foundation for innovation that allows converged devices to deliver the services consumers want.
Hope that clears some of the questions out there. Thanks for posting your comments and questions.
