The iPhone suit is a lot trickier than it first seemed

When we first reported about how Cisco had sued Apple for naming its new mobile phone iPhone, a name Cisco has had in its possession since 2000, it all seemed like a pretty open and shut case. Judging from the statements made back then it seemed Apple didn’t have much to go on against the network giant, but as time passed and people started digging, both journalists and experts, a few thins have surfaced, things that points to that Cisco has practically made a fool of itself and may very well end up losing in court against Apple.

First of all, the ownership of the name iPhone has been questioned. Even if Cisco has had the name in its possession since 2000 it hasn’t used the name during these 6 years, which is a requirement to hinder the brand from expiring. But then you get an extra 6 months to present a product if you pay an extra fee. Cisco managed to present a product within these 6 months with a few days margin.

That is at least what most people thought, but it seems that Cisco may have sent in a fake product. Cisco had simply put an iPhone sticker on a box and claimed it to be an iPhone. There is nothing really that supports that it in fact was an iPhone, but we should perhaps be careful claiming anything as of today.

Except from that Cisco managed to deliver a really stupid statement and claimed that it wasn’t about the money and thus protecting the brand, but that it was in fact interested in cooperating with Apple regarding its new iPhone and AppleTV. This could cost them dearly.

On top of that there have been some arguments that Apple could bring to court and then we’re mainly talking about the fact that practically all of Apple’s products are named something with an i, but Apple shouldn’t rely too much on that fact. Especially as several competitors on Apple’s perhaps most prominent market, the mobile media player market, uses names with an initial i. And then we have the fact that they are too different, which is also far from solid as they are both sold by the same stores and both are indeed phones.

This has turned into quite a circus and the really sad thing about it is that no one will gain from this. The least those who want to get a hold of Apple’s mobile phone.