Apple sues "ifone' in Mexico, loses. The ifone trademark was filed in 2003!

[Phokus]

http://www.phonearena.com/news/Apple-has-lost-their-legal-claim-to-the-iPhone-name-in-Mexico_id36199

Are you shitting me? This is the most frivolous lawsuit YET by Apple. I think they should be forced to pay damages for concocting this hair brained idea that they would actually win in court.

 

[grkM3]

They should turn around and sue apple for stealing there name now

 

[KB]

They should turn around and sue apple for stealing there name now

They are suing Apple and they are winning. Its fun to see Apple pwnage. At one time Apple gained market share through innovation, now they only hope to gain market share though litigation.

 

[lopri]

The whole regime that governs current IP (copyrights, trademarks, patents) laws in the U.S. need a complete overhaul. This is something our politicians could do in a bipartisan manner.. Since this issue isn't a conservative/progressive thing.

Only if they were more independent from industry lobbies and lawyers, that is.

 

[lopri]

Woops, kind of an off-topic post above. The trial was at a Mexican court.

 

[Bman123]

This is great...

 

[akugami]

The article fails to mention Cisco filed for and owned the iPhone trademark from 1999 onwards which was later "infringed" upon by Apple. Cisco then worked out a deal with Apple where Apple now owns the iPhone trademark. Which makes it puzzling that Apple would lose a case in Mexico over the "iFone" trademark which is too similar to the "iPhone" trademark that Apple owns.

I know the OP doesn't like Apple but this lawsuit is obviously a case where Apple should win given the history of the iPhone trademark and how early Cisco trademarked it.

 

[brian0831]

Was Cisco's original trademark for iPhone applicable in USA only or was it applicable in other areas of the world, including Mexico?

If it was only applicable in the USA or if the trademark was not applicable in Mexico (and that's probably my guess), I don't see how Apple should win this case solely based on the history of iPhone trademark with Cisco

The article fails to mention Cisco filed for and owned the iPhone trademark from 1999 onwards which was later "infringed" upon by Apple. Cisco then worked out a deal with Apple where Apple now owns the iPhone trademark. Which makes it puzzling that Apple would lose a case in Mexico over the "iFone" trademark which is too similar to the "iPhone" trademark that Apple owns.

I know the OP doesn't like Apple but this lawsuit is obviously a case where Apple should win given the history of the iPhone trademark and how early Cisco trademarked it.

 

[akugami]

Was Cisco's original trademark for iPhone applicable in USA only or was it applicable in other areas of the world, including Mexico?

If it was only applicable in the USA or if the trademark was not applicable in Mexico (and that's probably my guess), I don't see how Apple should win this case solely based on the history of iPhone trademark with Cisco

To be honest, I don't know the answer to that question and I wouldn't venture a guess as to how trademarks and patents are handled in the North America region. Whether it is considered one large "whole" or if the USA, Canada, and Mexico are separate entities. Some trade agreements such as NAFTA can affect intellectual property. We probably need a patent lawyer to properly answer your question.

 

[Yongsta]

The article fails to mention Cisco filed for and owned the iPhone trademark from 1999 onwards which was later "infringed" upon by Apple. Cisco then worked out a deal with Apple where Apple now owns the iPhone trademark. Which makes it puzzling that Apple would lose a case in Mexico over the "iFone" trademark which is too similar to the "iPhone" trademark that Apple owns.

I know the OP doesn't like Apple but this lawsuit is obviously a case where Apple should win given the history of the iPhone trademark and how early Cisco trademarked it.

There's a difference between being allowed to use the "iPhone" name and suing a company that had no interest in getting in a legal battle because their company name was similar... and the company was registered a full 4 years before Apple to boot. To me, that's frivolous, unnecessary and greedy.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

The article fails to mention Cisco filed for and owned the iPhone trademark from 1999 onwards which was later "infringed" upon by Apple. Cisco then worked out a deal with Apple where Apple now owns the iPhone trademark. Which makes it puzzling that Apple would lose a case in Mexico over the "iFone" trademark which is too similar to the "iPhone" trademark that Apple owns.

I know the OP doesn't like Apple but this lawsuit is obviously a case where Apple should win given the history of the iPhone trademark and how early Cisco trademarked it.

the logic and fairness of this post cannot be disputed... except by those who post anti-Apple articles all day and provide only 100% biased analysis.

Edit: But this is iFone not iPhone.

 

[jpeyton]

:thumbsup:

Time to crack open the wallet Timmy.

 

[zerogear]

The article fails to mention Cisco filed for and owned the iPhone trademark from 1999 onwards which was later "infringed" upon by Apple. Cisco then worked out a deal with Apple where Apple now owns the iPhone trademark. Which makes it puzzling that Apple would lose a case in Mexico over the "iFone" trademark which is too similar to the "iPhone" trademark that Apple owns.

I know the OP doesn't like Apple but this lawsuit is obviously a case where Apple should win given the history of the iPhone trademark and how early Cisco trademarked it.

Wasn't it iOS and not iPhone?

 

[Rayb]

The article fails to mention Cisco filed for and owned the iPhone trademark from 1999 onwards which was later "infringed" upon by Apple. Cisco then worked out a deal with Apple where Apple now owns the iPhone trademark. Which makes it puzzling that Apple would lose a case in Mexico over the "iFone" trademark which is too similar to the "iPhone" trademark that Apple owns.

I know the OP doesn't like Apple but this lawsuit is obviously a case where Apple should win given the history of the iPhone trademark and how early Cisco trademarked it.

While that may be the case, don't make assumptions you can back up. The Cisco trademark at the time was very questionable, since they had not used/enforced the trademark until the apple iPhone was a certainty. This was a case of use it or loose it and Cisco managed to protect it by slapping a label on a previous product in 2006.

Cisco acquired the trademark when it purchased Infogear in 2000. Ironically, Infogear was granted the trademark after it was abandoned by its previous owner, a company called "Cidco".

 

[TuxDave]

Wasn't it iOS and not iPhone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linksys_iPhone

This Mexico thing is like Apple vs Proview (China) all over again on iPad. What a mess. I bet it's another one of those "Oh, you bought the iPhone trademark from Cisco to use worldwide..... except Mexico. Pay up!"

Edit: Oh you're partially right. It's iOS too. Cisco made a nice chunk of change from Apple.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/198203/article.html

Apple is taking a conservative approach by licensing the name from Cisco, whose routers and switches are quite different from Apple's products, said Michael Atkins, an intellectual property partner with the Graham & Dunn law firm in Seattle. "I don't know that an operating system for the iPad and the new iPhone would fall within the description of goods that Cisco had explained in its [trademark] registrations," he said. "I think it's more of an effort to avoid a fight down the road."

 

[alkemyst]

iCarumba!

 

[akugami]

There's a difference between being allowed to use the "iPhone" name and suing a company that had no interest in getting in a legal battle because their company name was similar... and the company was registered a full 4 years before Apple to boot. To me, that's frivolous, unnecessary and greedy.

I think you missed the part in my post where I mention that the "iPhone" trademark was registered in 1999 by Cisco who then worked out a deal with Apple where Apple now owns the trademark. Meaning Apple's "iPhone" trademark actually originates in 1999 while the "iFone" trademark wasn't registered until 2003.

Similar products with similar sounding names are infringing products. I can't go around producing TV's with a brand name of SOMY or SAMSONG for instance.

Trademarks are also a case, at least in the USA, where it's a use it and enforce the trademark or you lose it. Trademarks can be diluted and a company can lose the trademark that way.

I won't pretend to know how trademarks are dealt with in Mexico but at least from this side of the border, Apple has a valid case.

Wasn't it iOS and not iPhone?

Actually, Cisco owns/owned both IOS and iPhone trademarks.

 

[Topweasel]

Wasn't it iOS and not iPhone?

Nope it was iPhone. Cicso may have thought they had a plan for it at one point. Shelved it, then under the Linksys name brought out a VOIP phone under the iPhone name when they heard that Apple was developing a phone. Since they left the VOIP phone market almost immediately after that, I think it was meant to strengthen the fact that it was their Trademark and that they had a product under it.

Edit: Read this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linksys_iPhone

Apparently it wasn't a Cisco Trademark to begin with. It was an Infogear, who released a iphone, then was bought by Cisco. The Linksys product was still more to strengthen their rights to the name as a product they released under their umbrella. Instead of just a trademark stuffed in a bin of files from a small company they ate up nearly a decade before.

 

[preslove]

The article fails to mention Cisco filed for and owned the iPhone trademark from 1999 onwards which was later "infringed" upon by Apple. Cisco then worked out a deal with Apple where Apple now owns the iPhone trademark. Which makes it puzzling that Apple would lose a case in Mexico over the "iFone" trademark which is too similar to the "iPhone" trademark that Apple owns.

I know the OP doesn't like Apple but this lawsuit is obviously a case where Apple should win given the history of the iPhone trademark and how early Cisco trademarked it.

The difference is that Cisco's iPhone was a failed product, while iFone is a currently operating company. The fact that Apple sued a small company to force it to change its name is pretty disgusting. This is as bad as anything Monster Cable did.

 

[TuxDave]

The difference is that Cisco's iPhone was a failed product, while iFone is a currently operating company. The fact that Apple sued a small company to force it to change its name is pretty disgusting. This is worse than anything Monster Cable has done, because Monster just sent scary letters to companies without ever actually SUING them.

Uh.... try again. Or do you really want me to Google that for you. There was a ton of lawsuits, and a ton of settlements (and a ton of tossed out cases). It's not just "a scary letter"

 

[preslove]

Uh.... try again. Or do you really want me to Google that for you. There was a ton of lawsuits, and a ton of settlements (and a ton of tossed out cases). It's not just "a scary letter"

oops. I thought it only sent out cease and desist letters.

 

[Yongsta]

I think you missed the part in my post where I mention that the "iPhone" trademark was registered in 1999 by Cisco who then worked out a deal with Apple where Apple now owns the trademark. Meaning Apple's "iPhone" trademark actually originates in 1999 while the "iFone" trademark wasn't registered until 2003.

Similar products with similar sounding names are infringing products. I can't go around producing TV's with a brand name of SOMY or SAMSONG for instance.

Trademarks are also a case, at least in the USA, where it's a use it and enforce the trademark or you lose it. Trademarks can be diluted and a company can lose the trademark that way.

I won't pretend to know how trademarks are dealt with in Mexico but at least from this side of the border, Apple has a valid case.



Actually, Cisco owns/owned both IOS and iPhone trademarks.

I'm not questioning that, I'm questioning whey Apple would file a lawsuit in the first place. If Cisco registered "iPhone" in 1999, Apple infringed on this by registering for the iPhone in 2007. Apple didn't feel they should pay anything but ultimately settled with Cisco. iFone was registered in 2003, a pretty harmless small company in Mexico and Cisco didn't find them a threat to file anything against them yet Apple decides to do so. You don't find any hypocrisy nor greed in all this?

Apple might as well go after this company as well: http://www.ifoneinc.com/contact.php

 

[Rayb]

Trademarks are also a case, at least in the USA, where it's a use it and enforce the trademark or you lose it. Trademarks can be diluted and a company can lose the trademark that way.

I won't pretend to know how trademarks are dealt with in Mexico but at least from this side of the border, Apple has a valid case.

How do you figure that? Clearly the trademark was in question when the party responsible "Cisco" didn't defend or enforce it back in 2003 willfully diluting it.

Registration of a trademark is not the crucial issue. Trademark rights come from use. Registration only recognizes the rights you have obtained from use. Cisco (and its predecessor Infogear) clearly have first use. The question is whether they abandoned these rights when they stopped selling the product line.

A case can be made for abandonment since there wasn't a product to be had with that name at the time. Apple hasn't got an argument here because they acquired the rights to the trademark 'till (2007) much later.

 

[akugami]

The difference is that Cisco's iPhone was a failed product, while iFone is a currently operating company. The fact that Apple sued a small company to force it to change its name is pretty disgusting. This is as bad as anything Monster Cable did.

A failed product does not invalidate your trademark as long as you are using it.

Apple is following the requirements of enforcing a trademark. It's a "use it or lose it" type of deal. Other companies have had their trademarks genericized due to lack of enforcement. You might find it disgusting but it's part of business.

Trademarks like Thermos and Aspirin are actually trademarks that became generic names and no longer enforceable (in the USA) as valid trademarks. So you can't entirely blame Apple for protecting their trademarks. They must do so in order to keep the trademark valid.

I'm not questioning that, I'm questioning whey Apple would file a lawsuit in the first place. If Cisco registered "iPhone" in 1999, Apple infringed on this by registering for the iPhone in 2007. Apple didn't feel they should pay anything but ultimately settled with Cisco. iFone was registered in 2003, a pretty harmless small company in Mexico and Cisco didn't find them a threat to file anything against them yet Apple decides to do so. You don't find any hypocrisy nor greed in all this?

Apple might as well go after this company as well: http://www.ifoneinc.com/contact.php

Apple was always going to buy the iPhone trademark. Apple knew they were infringing Cisco's trademark when they used the iPhone name. Apple always intended to buy the name and it was just a matter of money. In Apple's eyes, they didn't care if they infringed the iPhone trademark because they intended to own the trademark. It was just a matter of the right price between Cisco and Apple.

As for greed, or hypocrisy, I don't find it so. The reason is because of how the US trademark laws work. It's a "use it or lose it" deal. Apple now owns the iPhone trademark. If they don't enforce it, they can and will lose the iPhone trademark. For Cisco, they weren't really using the iPhone name and actually almost lost the trademark due to lack of products using that name. Cisco likely didn't know about "iFone" or didn't care.

How do you figure that? Clearly the trademark was in question when the party responsible "Cisco" didn't defend or enforce it back in 2003 willfully diluting it.

A case can be made for abandonment since there wasn't a product to be had with that name at the time. Apple hasn't got an argument here because they acquired the rights to the trademark 'till (2007) much later.

I think the points you bring up probably needs a patent lawyer to answer.

Apple acquired Cisco's iPhone trademark. Does that make it a "new" trademark or is it a continuation of the trademark from 1999? If the first, then Apple has no case. If the latter, then Apple does have a valid case.

As for dilution, Apple is pretty much obligated to enforce the trademark or it's a guarantee that they will lose it.

 

[preslove]

A failed product does not invalidate your trademark as long as you are using it.

Apple is following the requirements of enforcing a trademark. It's a "use it or lose it" type of deal. Other companies have had their trademarks genericized due to lack of enforcement. You might find it disgusting but it's part of business.

Trademarks like Thermos and Aspirin are actually trademarks that became generic names and no longer enforceable (in the USA) as valid trademarks. So you can't entirely blame Apple for protecting their trademarks. They must do so in order to keep the trademark valid.

IFONE PREDATES THE IPHONE!

I know all about trademarks. The fact that you can't wrap your brain around the above fact tells us all we need to know about your dumb agenda.