Cisco to Apple: "Your Underwear Has Skidmarks and Everybody Knows"

This image was lost some time after publication, but you can still view it here.
This image was lost some time after publication, but you can still view it here.

According to the New York Post, Cisco bought a full page NYT ad yesterday, "Signaling it has no plans to give up its claim to the iPhone trademark..."

Advertisement

I'm grown man enough to understand that when a company buys a semi-cryptic NYT full pager, they have no interest in targeting the average consumer directly, but through the media explanation/coverage to follow. Still, Cisco sets up their iPhone product in parallel to Apple's, which will only breed confusion in the marketplace . If anything, this ad certifies Cisco never had earnest interest in selling their repackaged product in the first place.

NYT full pagers are the corporate equivalent to lighting a bag of crap on a doorstep, except without any real crap. Cisco, there has to be a better way.

Oh, and did any New Yorkers see the ad?

Apple "AD" [via textually]

DISCUSSION

bobdenver-old
BobDenver

"it's obvious what the "i" product is associated with."

And therefore, what? No one has the right to own a name with an "i" prefix? That's idiotic. Apple knew the trademark was owned by Cisco. If anything, they knew they were creating a product that would infringe on someone elses copyright.

You don't own the name to a product, you cannot market that product under the copyrighted name. Period. No matter what anyone thinks when they hear the name, "iPhone." Laws of ownership have to based on more than mere assumptions or public perceptions.

"I would speculate more, but I don't know if the ipod was out when Cisco registered the name."

It wasn't, the iPod came out in Q3 of 2001.

I'm pretty sure both companies at this point (especially Apple) are looking at this from a publicity perspective. Cisco, who wants to expand into the small-consumer market has to get it's name in the door. How many Joe-Blows know about Cisco? It's probably a name they've heard, but have no clue what they really offer. For Apple, it gets pictures of their phone all over the news.

If either company were really suffering any type of loss because of this they'd wrap it up quickly. Clearly, they're trying to cause a bigger stir than Rosie and Donald McCombover. But I doubt anyone really cares as much, I know I don't. Even though this post would point to the contrary...

(I'm sorry if this is posted twice, but the Gizmodo login isn't very Opera-friendly, and states that I haven't logged in.)