Cisco asks Apple to respond to "iPhone" suit today

Cisco asks Apple to respond to "iPhone" suit today

Summary: Cisco Systems has given Apple until today to respond to a trademark lawsuit filed in January over their use of the word "iPhone" as the name for a new mobile phone planned for release in June. According to the San Jose Mercury News' Sarah Jane Tribble federal court documents reveal that the San Jose company has asked Apple to respond to their suit by today.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Apple
12

The San Jose Mercury News' Sarah Jane Tribble writes that Federal court documents reveal that Cisco Systems has given Apple until today to respond to a trademark lawsuit filed in January over their use of the word "iPhone." She writes

The companies sparred in early January when Steve Jobs introduced Apple's iPhone -- the sleek gadget that combines a cell phone and a video and music player -- without the permission of network-equipment maker Cisco, which owns the trademark. Cisco responded with a statement saying the two companies had been in intensive talks for several weeks and Apple was expected to sign an agreement any minute.

But Apple never did. So Cisco sued.

There is always the possibility that Apple will request an extension, but we'll have to wait and see. Technically Apple has until at least the close of business (5:00pm PST) or later today to meet the Thursday deadline.

Stay tuned. 

 

Topic: Apple

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

12 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Typical Apple

    They complain, sue, whine, and attack Vista every time anyone dares make an icon that looks remotely like something they originally stole from Xerox but they have absolutely no regard whatsoever for the IP rights of others.

    The only thing more pathetic than Apple Inc. is anyone who supports Apple.
    NonZealot
    • how can you steal something you pay for..

      money was exchanged and permission was given... so how is that stealing? that a little thing called commerce from where i'm from. stealing is taking without permission or payment... HELLO!!! ANYONE HOME!!

      you need to get a clue.. and stop spreading your typical BS.. isn't it time for you pills now?
      doctorSpoc
      • Pay for???

        Where do you see that Apple paid for anything? If they had, this whole story would be a non-issue. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that Apple was iin negotiations with Cisco over Apple licensing the iPhone trademark, and the main thing that Cisco wanted was inter-operability. Well, Apple didn't want their hardware to work with anyone else's, which is what stalled talks. Macworld was starting, Steve Jobs wanted to introduce the iPhone (lawsuit pending) and so he just went ahead and did what he wanted, never mind the legalities. Does this sound like a pretty fair re-cap of the events to date? I personally don't care about the ?iPhone one way or the other, but I do care about the high-handed approach that Jobs appears to countenance.
        justanitguy
        • He's responding to WinZealot's claim

          WinZealot's claim [i]They complain, sue, whine, and attack Vista every time anyone
          dares make an icon that looks remotely like something they originally [b]stole
          from Xerox[/b] but they have absolutely no regard whatsoever for the IP rights of
          others. [/i]

          Note the bold part. WinZealot refuses to acknowledge that Apple Inc? licensed the
          concept of the GUI from Xerox. Payment was in the form of Apple Computer Inc?
          stock. Microsoft then stole the idea (as well as the IP) from Apple Computer Inc?
          thus windows version 1 was born. It's his agenda to make Apple look worse than
          Microsoft in this area. Even though history says the opposite.
          Rick_K
          • Then, on the issue of history

            Woever built the 2nd car stole the idea. Whoever built the second airplane stole the idea. whoever created the 2nd vaccuum cleaner stole the idea.

            The list goes on forever throughout history. Heaven forbid the ancestors of the caveman who invented the wheel decide to sue us all...
            John Zern
          • WinZealot!

            Sweet!
            Reverend MacFellow
        • The beauty is...

          there is no infringement until the product is actually sold (in the June time-frame). If Cisco were smart they would reach a licensing agreement before Apple comes up with the ultimately cool name for their new product.
          nomorems
          • Are you sure?

            http://www.apple.com/iphone/

            The above page doesn't already infringe?
            NonZealot
    • You really haven't researched this issue, have you?

      That's ok. We know Anti-Apple speak is a good laxative for some folks...
      BitTwiddler
    • Cisco has little IP rights, they blew it long ago.

      Cisco has failed to defend its iPhone trademark time and time again.
      Cisco acquired the iPhone trademark when it bought Infogear in 2000. Since then, other companies, such as Teledex and Orate Telecommunications Services, have shipped products--products that directly compete with the Cisco/Infogear line of phones--bearing the iPhone moniker, and they did nothing.

      This is name squatting pure and simple. Even Cisco is not really interested in maintaining the trademark. They have just been waiting for Apple to release the iPhone so they could settle and get some easy cash.

      Apple could settle and get this over quickly, or they could draw it out in court where they would likely win anyway. Either way, it's a virtual non-issue.
      Tigertank
  • Typical 90 words or less 'article' from ZDNet bloggers.

    If you don't have anything informative to share why bother? Yeesh!
    nomorems
  • Cisco Extends Deadline for Apple Response

    Statement on extension posted on Cisco's blog here: http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/02/update_on_cisco_apple_discussi.html
    JohnEarnhardt