Apple’s iPhone claim in a nutshell
January 12, 2007From the WSJ:
If Cisco didn’t offer iPhone-branded products for a lengthy period — or didn’t try to block other companies from using the name — Apple could argue that Cisco didn’t live up to a legal obligation to defend the trademark …
An Apple spokesman said several companies besides Cisco also use the name iPhone for Internet-based phones, characterizing Cisco’s U.S. trademark protection as “tenuous.” He said Apple is the first to use the name on cellphones.
I think Apple needs to let this one go – the issue is not worth battling with Cisco. This just gives more fodder to naysayers and “pundits” (aka Microsoft shills). IMHO, there has been sufficient buzz with this product that people will associate the term iPhone with something called the Apple PhoneThingamaJig.
I’ve reversed my position on the iPhone controversy, as I have come up with the ideal alternative name: iSsac !
I think Apple should push this issue all the way.
The term “iPod” is not a generic term when it applies to MP3 players because “Pod” is not a term normally assocaited with MP3 players. Thus “iPod” can be trademarked by Apple. However companies can use “iPod” for uses other than MP3 players – such as the use of “iPod” by farmers for boxes of peas. Such farmers can themselves trademark “iPod” for their use.
The term “iPhone” – which is a combination of “i” and “phone” is generic. I think Apple has a strong case that the term cannot be trademarked unless combined with something that differentiates it. Already numerous other companies use the term “iPhone”. Even the press used the term “iPhone” when referring to Apple’s “iPhone” even before Steve announced it as the “iPhone”. I though Apple would call it the “iPod Phone” to catch on the coattails of the iPod.
Since people automatically associate “iPhone” with Apple, given Apple’s years of marketting high-tech products with the i-moniker, it is natural for Apple to use “iPhone” to name its cell-phone. Even if Apple called it’s phone the “iPod Phone”, people will still call it the “iPhone”.
This battle with Cisco also gives the iPhone more press – for a product that doesn’t even exist for 6 months. It will keep the Apple cell phone in people’s minds.
Given iPhone is a generic term people associate with Apple’s cell phone, and the goodwill that Apple has using the i-moniker, I think Cisco has more to lose in the fight with Apple.
Cisco appears to be an interloper, a scrooge company who wants money or extract concessions from Apple to use a name naturally associated with Apple, not Cisco.
Cisco has no chance of generating brand recognition with “iPhone” since it is already in use by other companies, since it is a generic term, since it is automatically associated with the Apple brand.
In the end, I think both companies will be able to use the term “iPhone” as well as other companies can and do.
What can be trademarked is the combination of a differentiating term and “iPhone” – such as the Apple iPhone or the Cisco iPhone.
This brings back Apple’s battle with the company that made the operating system “OS 9″. That company sued Apple for naming Apple’s operating system “Mac OS 9″. Apple won. “OS 9″ is too generic a term to trademark.
Just Google “iPhone” – People use the term is for Apple’s “iPhone”. Of course, there is also iPhone.com – owned by the Internet Telephone Company.