Perhaps It Is Cisco That Is Silly
Here is the latest in the silly tale of the iPhone trademark, as reported on ZDNet.
It seems Cisco, which had acquired the trademark when it bought Infogear in 2000, let the trademark expire. You have to file a "declaration of use" every six years for a federally registered trademark, showing that in fact you have been using it continuously during that period. Cisco failed to do this when it was due in November of 2005. They did file in May of 2006, just under the wire for the six-month grace period the feds allow. It seems, however, that their filing was disingenuous. The just slapped a label that said iPhone on a box of a voip phone they sell. Worse, they put the label outside the shrink wrap. They did not start actually using the name for a phone product until last December.
So it seems they let the trademark lapse. It seems they abandoned it through disuse. It seems they revived it in order to get something from Apple in return for it. It seems they did that too late. It seems they committed perjury in their federal filing.
I accused Apple and Steve jobs of silliness when an Apple spokesperson called Cisco's trademark claims "silly." I may have been the silly one. Then again, there may be more twists as the facts of this silliness unfold.
Copyright © 2007 Philip Bookman
Technorati: Business Strategy, Apple, Cisco, iPhone.
It seems Cisco, which had acquired the trademark when it bought Infogear in 2000, let the trademark expire. You have to file a "declaration of use" every six years for a federally registered trademark, showing that in fact you have been using it continuously during that period. Cisco failed to do this when it was due in November of 2005. They did file in May of 2006, just under the wire for the six-month grace period the feds allow. It seems, however, that their filing was disingenuous. The just slapped a label that said iPhone on a box of a voip phone they sell. Worse, they put the label outside the shrink wrap. They did not start actually using the name for a phone product until last December.
So it seems they let the trademark lapse. It seems they abandoned it through disuse. It seems they revived it in order to get something from Apple in return for it. It seems they did that too late. It seems they committed perjury in their federal filing.
I accused Apple and Steve jobs of silliness when an Apple spokesperson called Cisco's trademark claims "silly." I may have been the silly one. Then again, there may be more twists as the facts of this silliness unfold.
Copyright © 2007 Philip Bookman
Technorati: Business Strategy, Apple, Cisco, iPhone.
Labels: Apple, Business Strategy, Cisco, iPhone
<< Home