[GMK]

Originally Posted by DallasFlier

At first glance, all looks pretty sneaky and underhanded to me - sure makes me think they already knew about the existing Linksys trademark in the U.S.

Sure they did. It took me 20 seconds on the USPTO site to come up with:

Published for Opposition December 29, 1998
Registration Number 2293011
Registration Date November 16, 1999
Owner (REGISTRANT) INFOGEAR TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 1775 WOODSIDE ROAD REDWOOD CITY CALIFORNIA 94061

(LAST LISTED OWNER) CISCO TECNOLOGY, INC. CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 170 WEST TASMAN SAN JOSE CALIFORNIA 95134

I can't post the search result link but you can start here: United States Patent and Trademark Office Home Page then go to trademark then search.

There's a lot more but this is the grist. There are 9 listings for IPHONE but only one registered.

Well I guess we wait and see. If industry rumors are correct I believe 1st Qtr '07 and some say as early as January for the Apple iPhone?

[GMK]

For all the lively discussion regarding the BlackJack. We didn't spend much time on the Black Pearl by Haier.

Haier's tiny "Black Pearl" - Engadget Mobile

[DallasFlier]

Originally Posted by GMK

Sure they did. It took me 20 seconds on the USPTO site to come up with:

Published for Opposition December 29, 1998
Registration Number 2293011
Registration Date November 16, 1999
Owner (REGISTRANT) INFOGEAR TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 1775 WOODSIDE ROAD REDWOOD CITY CALIFORNIA 94061

(LAST LISTED OWNER) CISCO TECNOLOGY, INC. CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 170 WEST TASMAN SAN JOSE CALIFORNIA 95134

I can't post the search result link but you can start here: United States Patent and Trademark Office Home Page then go to trademark then search.

There's a lot more but this is the grist. There are 9 listings for IPHONE but only one registered.

Well I guess we wait and see. If industry rumors are correct I believe 1st Qtr '07 and some say as early as January for the Apple iPhone?

So its actually been a registered trademark of Cisco or companies that Cisco has subsequently become owner of, since November 16, 1999 - over 7 years now.

So, I have two questions:

1) Who's going to file suit first - Cisco/Linksys or Apple?

2) What's Apple going to end up calling their phone instead? Lets see, "Pod" has nothing inherently to do with music, so why does this need to have anything to do with phones? Hmm, how about... the iBerry!

[DallasFlier]

Originally Posted by GMK

For all the lively discussion regarding the BlackJack. We didn't spend much time on the Black Pearl by Haier.

Haier's tiny "Black Pearl" - Engadget Mobile

I would assume that if RIM wins against Samsung, all it will take is a strongly worded letter to Haier from their legal team. If, on the other hand, RIM loses against Samsung, then they'll simply pretend that they've never heard of Haier.

[patrickh]

I remembered from my IP class way back in my university days that if you don't start using your trademark in your product in a year or so, you lose it. No?

They just can't register millions of marks without having a product for 7 years and all of a sudden start using it to take advantage of the iPxxx name from Apple. So Apple might be able to win in court..

[SanFrancisco]

Originally Posted by patrickh

I remembered from my IP class way back in my university days that if you don't start using your trademark in your product in a year or so, you lose it. No?

They just can't register millions of marks without having a product for 7 years and all of a sudden start using it to take advantage of the iPxxx name from Apple. So Apple might be able to win in court..

It's actually pretty complicated as to what constitutes "use" and "abandonment." But what you say has some accuracy.

If you can't sleep at night, here is some reading to help you catch some zzzzzzzzz.

Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Home Page

Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Home Page

[BMWLotAttendant]

Originally Posted by SanFrancisco

It's actually pretty complicated as to what constitutes "use" and "abandonment." But what you say has some accuracy.

If you can't sleep at night, here is some reading to help you catch some zzzzzzzzz.

Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Home Page

Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Home Page

Thanks for thinking of me.

I was up till 3-4am here last night reading and contemplating when I was going to fall asleep. After reading those Lexis LONG law reviews of trademark terminology, I was feeling the zzzzz's coming.

[GMK]

Originally Posted by patrickh

I remembered from my IP class way back in my university days that if you don't start using your trademark in your product in a year or so, you lose it. No?

They just can't register millions of marks without having a product for 7 years and all of a sudden start using it to take advantage of the iPxxx name from Apple. So Apple might be able to win in court..

In an article I read it said the the original holder (info something) had tried a product named iphone and it failed in market, circa 1998. The name, as IP transfered to the successors in business, eventually Cisco's sub Linksys. So there was some use of the mark. Dunno if this is sufficent to your point but there was some use.

How about Apple resurrecting the Newton name. Catchy, what?

[GMK]

I couldn't resist this

News FLASH: Chinese Electronics Factory Imports 12 Million Sugar Cubes

[GMK]

A more in depth article on the Apple-Cisco-Comwave thing here: » Over xxx8220;iPhone,xxx8221; will Apple enter into international trademark war with Cisco? | Berlindxxx8217;s Testbed | ZDNet.com

It mentions amongst other things an abandonment of the mark by Cisco in Canada and that Comwave has been using the iphone name in Canada and the US for a couple of years. I couldn't find any reference to an iphone on the comwave site but they do have an ephone listed. Due to the nature of their business this may present as more of a problem to Cisco, or vice versa than to Apple.

Edit: I found the iPhone here @ comwave: comwave | iPhone

This is a VOIP phone. It sure seems to be more Linksys than Apple oriented.

Interesting read. Follow the links in the article

[blakeatl]

Rim is always getting sued. Why not turn the tables when an issue does arise?

[SanFrancisco]

Originally Posted by blakeatl

Rim is always getting sued. Why not turn the tables when an issue does arise?

Seems every business in the tech industry is always getting sued.

In fact, when I had a suit against a big tech company it came out that their in-house counsel department contained 300 lawyers. That's a lot of lawyers to have on one's payroll.

Heck, I think Microsoft gets served a new lawsuit every ten minutes. And they are suing someone every ten minutes.

When I was looking for the RIM vs. Samsung complaint, in the one federal court, Samsung had pages of lawsuits.

[Fungineer]

Originally Posted by DallasFlier

I would assume that if RIM wins against Samsung, all it will take is a strongly worded letter to Haier from their legal team. If, on the other hand, RIM loses against Samsung, then they'll simply pretend that they've never heard of Haier.

But the Haier phone isn't a Smartphone and isn't competing against RIM. Nor does it look anything like any (current) BB device. I assume they'll get a pass.

[Galvatron]

No they won't fist what kind os would they run wnmo don't thinksos. And winmo is what keeps the treo crowd happy


As for Rim they could prbabbly use tha sales reps testomny against samsung after all the. Sales rep confused as samsung model witha a rim model it has thword black in it uses a qwerty keyboard simaler to the perla has a trackweels simaler to the perl thaers legal ammo right ther for cross examination.

[GMK]

One of the issues here is whether a cellphone is a cellphone or smartphone or PDA etc., but I'm not really sure how clear that line really is, especially in the cellphone buying public at large. We, by our membership in this forum alone, can be deemed to be more sophisticated than the general public regarding smartphones and we likely have a clearer view of what competes, feature by feature.

I know when I see a new model of a "smart" cellphone I ask the holder if I can take a look at their "cellphone" not at their "smartphone," mainly because I don't know until later in the conversation if they even know what a smartphone is. I would guess that smartphone vs cellphone could certainly be arguable but does that carry more weight than the name when applied to cellphones in general? Could a company call an automobile an Explorer? Ford uses it for their SUV. But is an SUV exclusively an SUV, or a truck or is it a motor vehicle that includes them all?

Even though the Black Pearl is probably small potatoes in the scheme of things I wouldn't think that RIM could overlook it, unless of course it really must be a smartphone.

[CanuckBB]

But the general public can see a difference between a smartphone with a 12 key keypad and a device with a qwerty keyboard.

It seems that some of the trademark litigation hinges on confusion.

If Joe public sees an add for the BB Pearl, then walks in a store and tells the clerk: "I saw this phone that could also do email and stuff, it's called Black-something", if the clerk pulls out a BB Pearl, a Blackjack and a Black Pearl, I'm sure Joe Public would immediately look at the BP and reject it. There could be confusion with the other 2.

[SanFrancisco]

Originally Posted by SanFrancisco

Seems every business in the tech industry is always getting sued.

When I was looking for the RIM vs. Samsung complaint, in the one federal court, Samsung had pages of lawsuits.

Case in point, just out today, Jan 3, 2007. Samsung is always up to something.

WRF intellectual-property management group has sued mobile phone makers Nokia, Samsung Electronics and Matsushita-owned Panasonic for infringing on a patent for wireless Bluetooth technology.
"Defendants have manufactured, used, imported into the United States, sold and offered for sale devices which, or the use of which, infringes at least the '963' patent," Washington Research Foundation said in a complaint filed at the U.S. Western District Court of Washington at Seattle. WRF helps manage investment in and licensing of technology developed by researchers in the state of Washington.

The WRF complaint targeted products containing Bluetooth chips from British chipmaker CSR, which is the world market leader for chips that wirelessly connect electronic gadgets such as cell phones, headsets and laptops.

CSR, which was not immediately available to comment, was not sued by the research group. And CSR rival Broadcom, based in the U.S., has acquired a license to use the radio frequency receiver technology, which was patented in 1999, WRF said.

[SanFrancisco]

Originally Posted by GMK

Even though the Black Pearl is probably small potatoes in the scheme of things I wouldn't think that RIM could overlook it, unless of course it really must be a smartphone.

RIM thinks the Pearl is a smartphone, the below ad appears all over the Net.

[SanFrancisco]

Today in San Francisco Steve Jobs will be announcing Apple's new products. Speculation on the news is that it will be a cell phone. No one is calling it the "iPhone."

If he announces a phone, guess we shall see what they named it.

Originally Posted by DallasFlier

Very interesting development on a related front:

The iPhone Launches...From Linksys

FWIW, here's what at least one industry analyst has to say (article HERE):



So, what says the BBF trademark & IP defense team on this one? Apple has never before been a participant in the phone biz and as noted above, they haven't yet made any official announcements announcing or naming a product - do they have inherent ownership on the lower case letter "i" with regards to any electronic device of any kind?

[SanFrancisco]

Well, it's going to called the iPhone, even those the local news reported that "Cisco has had the iPhone trademark for the past 6 years."