During the second day of MacWorld, Apple announced it’s highly anticipated new multi-media device, named the iPhone.The name seems real original, real Apple-esque, right?

Well, the name is actually what might bring the entire project down before it even takes off. The problem is that the name “iPhone” is in fact not that new and that Apple may not be the rightful trademark owner.

A mere day after the official announcement of the iPhone, Apple’s lawyers already had their hands full with a lawsuit from Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco not only owns the trademark, but also has their own product called the iPhone as well.

The very first mention of an “iPhone” can be traced back to a trademark filed by Infogear Technology on March 20th, 1996. The trademark has been officially owned by Infogear since 1999, one year before the company was to be bought out by Cisco Systems. After the acquisition completed in 2000, everything that was formerly Infogear was then to be Cisco, including the iPhone trademark.

The trademark not only existed on paper, but also in practice; the name has been used twice since its filling. In 1997, Infogear launched a desktop phone called the iPhone. Incidentally this device also had a touchscreen and the ability to browse the web. And, late last year, Linksys, a division of Cisco Systems, launched a VoIP (Voice over IP) phone using the iPhone name once again.

There is some speculation that Cisco may have released their VoIP phone under the “iPhone” name so as to not loose the rights to the trademark as soon as Apple introduced theirs. The fact that Apple was going to release a product named the iPhone wasn’t as much of a surprise to Cisco as it was to the general public, since Apple had already been in contact with Cisco’s legal department regarding the trademark since 2001, and they have “approached [Cisco] several times over the past year,” according to Mark Chandler from Cisco.

Over the years, the two companies have negotiated over the trademark issue several times, and Cisco, according to Chandler, was confident that the two companies would be able to work out their differences, and maybe even partner up. Chandler also noted that the negotiations felt like they were drawing to a close, when Apple decided to announce the name for their new mobile device: the iPhone. After the announcement, Cisco gave Apple the chance to return to the negotiation tables immediately, but no response was heard, so a lawsuit was filed.

Contrary to popular belief, trademarks can in fact be lost and need to be actively protected in order to remain valid. According to Harvard law school:

“The rights to a trademark can be lost through abandonment, improper licensing or assignment, or genericity. A trademark is abandoned when its use is discontinued with an intent not to resume its use. Such intent can be inferred from the circumstances. Moreover, non-use for three consecutive years is prima facie evidence of abandonment. The basic idea is that trademark law only protects marks that are being used, and parties are not entitled to warehouse potentially useful marks”

The iPhone trademark that Cisco owns has been dormant for roughly six years, before they re-instituted it with the 2006 release of their VoIP phone. This was clearly before Apple recent announcement at MacWorld. It should be interesting to find out if, and when, Apple filed their patent for the “iPhone” name. If they did so before the release of Cisco’s phone, then they might very well have a decent chance at winning the lawsuit, as they should be able to prove that the trademark had been abandoned by Cisco Systems.

However, if this is not the case, Apple might lose and will most likely have to change the name of the product as well as pay damages to Cisco Systems.

• Please note that I am not a lawyer, and have no legal experience; therefore, don’t quote me on the legal proceedings to come.