Comments on: Why would Apple trample on Cisco’s iPhone trademark? http://sextoysinsider.com/uncategorized/why-did-apple-insist-on-calling-it-iphone/ The inside scoop on the world of sex toys from Richard Longhurst, co-founder of LoveHoney.co.uk Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:32:40 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Rich http://sextoysinsider.com/uncategorized/why-did-apple-insist-on-calling-it-iphone/comment-page-1/#comment-1021 Rich Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:20:25 +0000 http://sextoysinsider.com/ibuzz/why-did-apple-insist-on-calling-it-iphone/#comment-1021 Interesting, interesting. In our dealings with trademark lawyers, we've been told that sticking an 'i' in front of a word is not enough to make the resulting phrase non-generic. And Cisco filed for its <a href="http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=eknkrq.2.14" rel="nofollow">iPhone mark in 1996</a>, so it can't be accused of piggybacking on Apple's success. Just because nobody has a Cisco iPhone doesn't make their mark any less valid. :-) I'm sure even Apple owns trademarks for which it doesn't have a product that lots of people have heard of... Interesting, interesting.

In our dealings with trademark lawyers, we’ve been told that sticking an ‘i’ in front of a word is not enough to make the resulting phrase non-generic.

And Cisco filed for its iPhone mark in 1996, so it can’t be accused of piggybacking on Apple’s success.

Just because nobody has a Cisco iPhone doesn’t make their mark any less valid. :-) I’m sure even Apple owns trademarks for which it doesn’t have a product that lots of people have heard of…

]]> By: HealeyIsland http://sextoysinsider.com/uncategorized/why-did-apple-insist-on-calling-it-iphone/comment-page-1/#comment-1001 HealeyIsland Sun, 21 Jan 2007 19:04:55 +0000 http://sextoysinsider.com/ibuzz/why-did-apple-insist-on-calling-it-iphone/#comment-1001 I would suggest that Apple feel they have strong enough intellectual property rights over the "i" prefix on electronic goods to fight and win this case. Steve Jobs described Ciscos hold on the name as tenuous at best. I would ask the question: bearing in mind that the iMac and the iPod, iTunes and iTeeth have been around since Old Testament times, why would Cisco name a product iPhone and then not promote it? Do you know anyone with an iPhone as made by Cisco? I don't. I'd say this is more of a cynical move on Ciscos part rather than one by Apple as I Cringly proposes. I would suggest that Apple feel they have strong enough intellectual property rights over the “i” prefix on electronic goods to fight and win this case. Steve Jobs described Ciscos hold on the name as tenuous at best. I would ask the question: bearing in mind that the iMac and the iPod, iTunes and iTeeth have been around since Old Testament times, why would Cisco name a product iPhone and then not promote it? Do you know anyone with an iPhone as made by Cisco? I don’t. I’d say this is more of a cynical move on Ciscos part rather than one by Apple as I Cringly proposes.

]]>