PDA

View Full Version : iCloud Communications Files Suit Against Apple Over 'iCloud' Name




Pages : [1] 2

MacRumors
Jun 10, 2011, 03:34 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/10/icloud-communications-files-suit-against-apple-over-icloud-name/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/06/icloud_communications.jpg


As reported by The Next Web (http://thenextweb.com/industry/2011/06/10/apple-sued-by-icloud-communications-over-icloud-trademark/), a company by the name of iCloud Communications (http://geticloud.com/) has filed suit against Apple, alleging infringement over the company's new iCloud service. Apple of course acquired (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/28/apple-purchases-icloud-com-for-4-5-million/) the iCloud.com domain name from Swedish company Xcerion and undoubtedly assisted that company in rebranding its cloud-based services as CloudMe, but Apple apparently did not engage iCloud Communications in any sort of discussions surrounding the name.Specifically, iCloud Communications is claiming that Apple's heavy promotion of the iCloud product is damaging to its business and has all but removed the branding of the name from itself and placed it onto Apple.

To make matters somewhat worse, there's some accusation that Apple's services are nearly identical to the ones being offered by iCloud Communciations.The suit seeks an injunction barring Apple from using the iCloud name, destruction of all promotional materials and other items bearing reference to Apple's iCloud service, and monetary damages including forfeiture of profits obtained using the iCloud name.

Unlike Xcerion, iCloud Communications does not appear to hold any registered U.S. trademarks related to the iCloud name. Trademarks are not, however, required to be registered, although registration conveys substantial benefits toward protecting those marks.

Article Link: iCloud Communications Files Suit Against Apple Over 'iCloud' Name (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/10/icloud-communications-files-suit-against-apple-over-icloud-name/)



GeekLawyer
Jun 10, 2011, 03:36 PM
Who?

Right now they're getting more attention than they could have paid for. Hopefully they're happy with it because it's all they'll get from this suit.

asdf542
Jun 10, 2011, 03:37 PM
Come at me bro

RoboCop001
Jun 10, 2011, 03:38 PM
They're a VoIP company, why are they called iCloud? lol

Their website sucks. I should redesign it.

This reminds me of that ComWave company here in Canada that complained about the term iPhone.

chrmjenkins
Jun 10, 2011, 03:38 PM
1) Establish company with name iSomeProductYouExpectAppleToRelease.
2) Wait until iSomeProductYouExpectAppleToRelease launches.
3) ???
4) Profit

slicecom
Jun 10, 2011, 03:38 PM
All these companies who, since the success of the iMac, have been putting "i" infront of their names and products are so annoying. Blatant attention grab.

nuckinfutz
Jun 10, 2011, 03:38 PM
Motion to dismiss.

iCloud Communications had ample time to work with CloudMe the former owners of the iCloud domain to prevent confusion.

It doesn't sound like they made a move until a deep pockets company moved in.

This will be interesting.

iAta
Jun 10, 2011, 03:40 PM
1) Establish company with name iSomeProductYouExpectAppleToRelease.
2) Wait until iSomeProductYouExpectAppleToRelease launches.
3) ???
4) Profit

LOL, South Park :D

gleepskip
Jun 10, 2011, 03:40 PM
They do voip crap. There is no overlap in product line.

Apple undoubtedly knew about them when they launched. They just decided they will give them a few bucks to shut them up after the fact.

benthewraith
Jun 10, 2011, 03:40 PM
Who?

Right now they're getting more attention than they could have paid for. Hopefully they're happy with it because it's all they'll get from this suit.

http://geticloud.com/

In other news, Apple buys a small VoIP company. Brings it to its iCloud lineup of applications. Apple's stocks stay just about the same.

spazzcat
Jun 10, 2011, 03:40 PM
If Apple filed for a TM they will have a hard time with their case?

mingoglia
Jun 10, 2011, 03:40 PM
They're a VoIP company, why are they called iCloud? lol

Their website sucks. I should redesign it.

Does their VoIP travel across the Internet or is it only within a local network? Really it doesn't matter in this case. I'm pulling up a nice comfy chair and a big bowl of popcorn. I hope Apple not only loses, but also has to sign over all the domains that relate to this over to them. :D

L-U-R-C-H
Jun 10, 2011, 03:40 PM
Motion to dismiss.

iCloud Communications had ample time to work with CloudMe the former owners of the iCloud domain to prevent confusion.

It doesn't sound like they made a move until a deep pockets company moved in.

This will be interesting.

I couldn't agree more. Haha and your username is hilarious btw :)

Fraaaa
Jun 10, 2011, 03:41 PM
Apple don't want Amazon have AppStore name because it damaging their reputation. Now iCloud Communication don't want Apple to use iCloud because it damage their businness.

iCloud Communication, don't you know that Apple owns the 'i'? :eek:

thejadedmonkey
Jun 10, 2011, 03:41 PM
Who?

Right now they're getting more attention than they could have paid for. Hopefully they're happy with it because it's all they'll get from this suit.

(Theoretically) if iCloud Communications is in the right, they could argue it themselves and Apple's multi-million dollar lawyers would be powerless.

gleepskip
Jun 10, 2011, 03:41 PM
iCloud Communications had ample time to work with CloudMe the former owners of the iCloud domain to prevent confusion.

Very salient point.

Insolence
Jun 10, 2011, 03:42 PM
So first it was some random Zoo in the EU that nobody had ever heard of before whining about how Apple is causing them harm by using the name "Lion" on their OS, and now its some loser company that nobody's ever heard of before whining because Apple is using their company's name on a product?

Did they even ask them if they'd be interested in buying them out? Didn't think so.

Bear
Jun 10, 2011, 03:43 PM
All these companies who, since the success of the iMac, have been putting "i" infront of their names and products are so annoying. Blatant attention grab.You mean like a restaurant named iSpice (http://www.ispicenj.com/)? :D

bully worm
Jun 10, 2011, 03:43 PM
Don't worry, they'll be bought out soon. RIP.

spazzcat
Jun 10, 2011, 03:46 PM
(Theoretically) if iCloud Communications is in the right, they could argue it themselves and Apple's multi-million dollar lawyers would be powerless.

Who ever files for the TM first almost always wins...Until you file I don't think it counts?

GeekLawyer
Jun 10, 2011, 03:47 PM
(Theoretically) if iCloud Communications is in the right, they could argue it themselves and Apple's multi-million dollar lawyers would be powerless.Their case won't have much merit unless they can produce all their efforts to prevent CloudMe's similar infringing use of the name iCloud.

I'll have this nice cool soda while they produce it. I'm sure it's on someone's desk at iCloud Communications.

ten-oak-druid
Jun 10, 2011, 03:48 PM
Apple can win this. But seriously, Apple needs to hire some new people in marketing. icloud? Everyone is calling it the cloud now. Call it something original.

charlituna
Jun 10, 2011, 03:48 PM
Motion to dismiss.

iCloud Communications had ample time to work with CloudMe the former owners of the iCloud domain to prevent confusion.


Yep and it sounds like the overseas company had a US trademark on iCloud as well. So they were the ones with the rights.

Also trademarks are generally tied to the product. It will be tricky to say that VoIP services are the same as a data server system.

mainstreetmark
Jun 10, 2011, 03:48 PM
Who?

Right now they're getting more attention than they could have paid for. Hopefully they're happy with it because it's all they'll get from this suit.

Evidently, a company that's been using "iCloud" for the last 6 years, according to whois, that's who! They are now completely unable to continue. Shoudla seen it coming, yes, but legally protected, also yes. I doubt they're "happy".

BC2009
Jun 10, 2011, 03:49 PM
Unlike Xcerion, iCloud Communications does not appear to hold any registered U.S. trademarks related to the iCloud name. Trademarks are not, however, required to be registered, although registration conveys substantial benefits toward protecting those marks.


It is correct that trademarks need not be registered, but a company must be able to show that they have a history of defending their trademarks through written legal communication to companies they feel infringe on their unregistered trademarks. For example, Apple sending a letter to Amazon regarding "AppStore". Apple does not have a registered trademark for "App Store" but they are still trying to actively defend what they believe to be an unregistered trademark. With trademark law there is a "defend it or lose it" requirement (registered or not).

Motion to dismiss.

iCloud Communications had ample time to work with CloudMe the former owners of the iCloud domain to prevent confusion.

It doesn't sound like they made a move until a deep pockets company moved in.

This will be interesting.

Exactly my point. They should have a history of notices to the CloudMe folks regarding the "iCloud" trademark.

(Theoretically) if iCloud Communications is in the right, they could argue it themselves and Apple's multi-million dollar lawyers would be powerless.

The only way they should win this if there is a history shown of them defending their unregistered trademark from others. But since they coexisted with what is now "CloudMe" for so long, I am guessing that is not likely.

Gregintosh
Jun 10, 2011, 03:49 PM
Since they didn't officially register their trademark they are probably going to be ripped to shreds by Apple's top notch lawyers.

This is pretty much going to be a non-issue.

GorgonPhone
Jun 10, 2011, 03:53 PM
big fish little fish..lol oh well..

charlituna
Jun 10, 2011, 03:53 PM
I For example, Apple sending a letter to Amazon regarding "AppStore". Apple does not have a registered trademark for "App Store" but they are still trying to actively defend what they believe to be an unregistered trademark.

It's worth noting that one reason Apple doesn't have an actual trademark is because of the appeals by Microsoft etc. Until those are over the mark stays in 'unregistered' status. Then they may end up with the trademark, or have it rejected.

And yet, Apple is defending the mark as if it was actually approved. Just as they should. Unlike iCloud Com who very possible didn't ever care until now. But because they didn't register it, they will lose any statutory damages. And because they didn't care when the other company had the mark they may have lost the legal right to care now that Apple bought it.

KnightWRX
Jun 10, 2011, 03:54 PM
iCloud Communications had ample time to work with CloudMe the former owners of the iCloud domain to prevent confusion.

It doesn't sound like they made a move until a deep pockets company moved in.

Hum... Xcerion, the previous owners of icloud.com, were based in Sweden. iCloud Communications is in Arizona.

What claims would an Arizona company have over a Swedish company exactly ? They're not even in the same country. However, Apple is a US based company and falls under the same jurisdiction as iCloud Communications. (Edit, it does seem Xcerion had filed for a US trademark in November 2009 with the USPTO).

It has nothing to do with deep pockets or trying to work with the previous owners of iCloud.

Come on guys, this isn't the first time Apple doesn't check before using an iSomething.

iPhone ring any bell ? http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2007/corp_011007.html

Since they didn't officially register their trademark they are probably going to be ripped to shreds by Apple's top notch lawyers.

This is pretty much going to be a non-issue.

Registering a trademark is not obligatory. Failure to do so does not make the trademark invalid at all. It is completely optional.

Bear
Jun 10, 2011, 03:55 PM
Since they didn't officially register their trademark they are probably going to be ripped to shreds by Apple's top notch lawyers.

This is pretty much going to be a non-issue.On top of that the iCloud trademark is being transferred from what is now called CloudMe to Apple. At least in the countries that they had registered the iCloud trademark. This includes the US.

Prallethrin
Jun 10, 2011, 03:56 PM
Since they didn't register in the US, if they file suit in the US I doubt they will win.

At most, if Apple loses, Apple will have to change the name in whatever country that recognizes that trademark as iCloud Communications'.

It will be like the Gmail incident in Germany, and Burger King in Australia (called Hungry Jacks there).

adwebinc
Jun 10, 2011, 03:56 PM
WTF? It's VOIP and online PBX... "there's some accusation that Apple's services are nearly identical to the ones being offered by iCloud Communciations."

Everyone likes to jump on the coat tails of successful companies. Would be very easy to put a synergistic marketing plan around leveraging Apple's marketing spend and actually INCREASE your business.

Bear
Jun 10, 2011, 03:58 PM
Hum... Xcerion, the previous owners of icloud.com, were based in Sweden. iCloud Communications is in Arizona.

What claims would an Arizona company have over a Swedish company exactly ? They're not even in the same country. However, Apple is a US based company and falls under the same jurisdiction as iCloud Communications.

It has nothing to do with deep pockets or trying to work with the previous owners of iCloud.

Come on guys, this isn't the first time Apple doesn't check before using an iSomething.

iPhone ring any bell ? http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2007/corp_011007.html

Registering a trademark is not obligatory. Failure to do so does not make the trademark invalid at all. It is completely optional.However, Apple bought the iCloud trademark from CloudMe. It's not the same as the Cisco situation was.

To be clear Apple bought the iCloud trademark. The trademark they bought was pretty much described as being for cloud stuff. If anything, Apple could possibly go after iCloud Communication for violating a trademark Apple now owns.

iScott428
Jun 10, 2011, 03:59 PM
Its is very convenient these two stories fell north and south of the other.

iCloud communications being that they serve as a VoiP service should have never filed the suit because the two company functions are unrelated as previously posted. How ever iCloud should be thanking Apple for the name drop as I garruntee there are about a million other companies right now that wished their names were anything close to iCloud, as the amount of google search traffic they are getting alone is soooo much free publicity. Like some one said before create company isomeunreleasedpossiblefutureproductname and wait for a chance to pounce. Doesnt seem they ever had a problem with iCloud.com as previously mentioned too.

But for those of you that say this is a direct reason why apple should let others use App Store you are sooooo damn wrong its pathetic. VoiP and Apple's could services are completely separete in nature, context and use. While Google, Yahoo, Amazon, MS, Etc are all SELLING APPS (for Smart Phones even!) You could not have found a better niche.

If anything this gives Apple leverage to say that the name iCloud is generic. Or better yet come out with a search engine called Appppppppppple

aristotle
Jun 10, 2011, 04:02 PM
Their website has "Copyright 2009-2010" on the bottom and their testimonials page does not have any names on it:
http://geticloud.com/testimonials.html

Some of them are residential customers?
:rolleyes:

This sounds like a fake fly by night operation.

iNeedToDoHw
Jun 10, 2011, 04:03 PM
so disgusted with these patent, TM issues lately

0815
Jun 10, 2011, 04:03 PM
Don't think that Apple does any damage to their brand and name ... if anything, it is nice 'advertisement' with all the iCloud hype. Apple will build a nice reputation for 'iCloud' and "iCloud Communication" could cash in on that without the fear of being sued for adopting a similar name ...

123MAC
Jun 10, 2011, 04:03 PM
this is so funny, one look at "iCloud communications" website and you can clearly see that they offer no cloud services... LOL ... lame try to extort money from Apple. HAHAHA

Yvan256
Jun 10, 2011, 04:04 PM
They're a VoIP company, why are they called iCloud? lol

Their website sucks. I should redesign it.

This reminds me of that ComWave company here in Canada that complained about the term iPhone.

I don't know if their website sucks but that's the heaviest graphics I've ever seen in the last 10 years. And that includes those graphics-heavy GeoCities websites. :eek:

edit: It's still quite heavy but not as much as I thought. It was slow to load because their server was overloaded. One thing to note, however, is that their website is still made with table tags for the layout.

Bear
Jun 10, 2011, 04:04 PM
Apple couple probably get ownership of the geticloud.com domain name based on owning the iCloud trademark unless iCloud Communication has a registered trademark for "iCloud Communication".

CFreymarc
Jun 10, 2011, 04:04 PM
Who?

Right now they're getting more attention than they could have paid for. Hopefully they're happy with it because it's all they'll get from this suit.

My take it is will go like this.

old iCloud, "It is our name!"
Apple, "We have a marking history of the prefix 'i'"
old iCloud, "You can't trademark a marking history."
Apple, "But that marking history has diluted your own brand and we were not party to it."
old iCloud, "We used this first!"
Apple, "We are finding prior artwork back in the 80s where ..."
old iCloud, "How much you want for the trademark? Better you want to buy us now?"
Apple, "Bend over babe!"

0815
Jun 10, 2011, 04:07 PM
Their website has "Copyright 2009-2010" on the bottom and their testimonials page does not have any names on it:
http://geticloud.com/testimonials.html

Some of them are residential customers?
:rolleyes:

This sounds like a fake fly by night operation.

they registered the domain in 2005 through godaddy.com:

http://who.godaddy.com/whois.aspx?domain=geticloud.com&prog_id=GoDaddy

so it is not a overnight operation. ... still, they should be happy about the free advertisement.

notabadname
Jun 10, 2011, 04:09 PM
And there are two Delta's (the airline and the faucets/plumbing fixtures). As was said, the only reason it has an "i" prefix is due to the copying of Apple. Everyone has an "i"- something it seams now anyway.

wovel
Jun 10, 2011, 04:10 PM
Does their VoIP travel across the Internet or is it only within a local network? Really it doesn't matter in this case. I'm pulling up a nice comfy chair and a big bowl of popcorn. I hope Apple not only loses, but also has to sign over all the domains that relate to this over to them. :D

Except apple bought the domain and presumably the rights to the name from the company that actually had a registered trademark..

0815
Jun 10, 2011, 04:10 PM
If Apple filed for a TM they will have a hard time with their case?

not necessarily ... a trademark helps, but does not make for a sure win

roland.g
Jun 10, 2011, 04:11 PM
Money grab!

TalonFlyer
Jun 10, 2011, 04:13 PM
Never heard of iCloud Communications.

They are just looking for money.

Next.

shaynes
Jun 10, 2011, 04:14 PM
iCloud Communications had ample time to work with CloudMe the former owners of the iCloud domain to prevent confusion.


What ample time? They are supposed to file trademark violations based on rumors they find on the internet? Apple did not officially announce iCloud until this week.

s8film40
Jun 10, 2011, 04:15 PM
It seems to me that Apple instead of worrying about trademarks, should have years ago just patented "A marketing process involving adding a lowercase i to any product name". Then just file patent lawsuits, they seem to work for everyone else.

striderida1
Jun 10, 2011, 04:15 PM
When Apple crushes them in court i will gladly sell them www.icl0ud.com for small fee :)

0815
Jun 10, 2011, 04:16 PM
What ample time? They are supposed to file trademark violations based on rumors they find on the internet? Apple did not officially announce iCloud until this week.

Not against Apple ... against CloudMe - CloudMe used the domain iCloud and registered the TM iCloud ....

but looks like they didn't care until there was lots of money involved.

KnightWRX
Jun 10, 2011, 04:16 PM
However, Apple bought the iCloud trademark from CloudMe. It's not the same as the Cisco situation was.

To be clear Apple bought the iCloud trademark. The trademark they bought was pretty much described as being for cloud stuff. If anything, Apple could possibly go after iCloud Communication for violating a trademark Apple now owns.

Depends who got the iCloud name first in the US. Buying a trademark doesn't make it valid. iCloud Communications was created in 2009, Xcerion filed in 2009 for the iCloud trademark with the USPTO, but in November. If iCloud Communications was created before November, they have a right to the name.

Anonymous Freak
Jun 10, 2011, 04:16 PM
To make matters somewhat worse, there's some accusation that Apple's services are nearly identical to the ones being offered by iCloud Communciations.

WHA?!?!?!

iCloud Communications is a VOIP telephone provider. Apple iCloud has nothing at all to do with VOIP communication. This is a blatantly obvious "different industries". And if iCloud Communications wasn't even savvy enough to register their trademark, well, then they can only protect it for the industry they are engaged in.

Bear
Jun 10, 2011, 04:17 PM
What ample time? They are supposed to file trademark violations based on rumors they find on the internet? Apple did not officially announce iCloud until this week.What Trademark violation? Apple bought the trademark from a Swedish company that is not calling its business CloudMe.

Therefore iCloud Communications should have been going after the original owners of the iCloud trademark if they were worried. Oh wait, they couldn't sue, the other company owned the trademark.

This is just an advertising suit. Nothing more. Apple will win this one.

Depends who got the iCloud name first in the US. Buying a trademark doesn't make it valid. iCloud Communications was created in 2009, Xcerion filed in 2009 for the iCloud trademark with the USPTO, but in November. If iCloud Communications was created before November, they have a right to the name.
Filed and registered. Xcerion owned the US Trademark. iCloud Communication had plenty of time to file suit.

blow45
Jun 10, 2011, 04:17 PM
they should of registered...they didn't too bad for them, end of story.

KnightWRX
Jun 10, 2011, 04:18 PM
they should of registered...they didn't too bad for them, end of story.

Registering is optional. People, drop this argument, it's invalid.

shaynes
Jun 10, 2011, 04:19 PM
the only reason it has an "i" prefix is due to the copying of Apple.
Everyone has an "i"- something it seams now anyway.

Congrats, you managed to contradict yourself in subsequent sentences.

budfoot
Jun 10, 2011, 04:21 PM
Amazon App Store argument... meet the iCloud argument.

Two exactly same arguments, where the entire macrumors population will take opposite stances.

Sheep... we are all.

shaynes
Jun 10, 2011, 04:21 PM
Not against Apple ... against CloudMe - CloudMe used the domain iCloud and registered the TM iCloud ....

but looks like they didn't care until there was lots of money involved.

Of course they didn't. Why would you file a lawsuit if there's no money involved?

jettredmont
Jun 10, 2011, 04:22 PM
The goods and services with which Apple intends to use the “iCloud” mark are identical to or closely related to the goods and services that have been offered by iCloud Communications under the iCloud Marks since its formation in 2005. However, due to the worldwide media coverage given to and generated by Apple’s announcement of its “iCloud” services and the ensuing saturation advertising campaign pursued by Apple, the media and the general public have quickly come to associate the mark “iCloud” with Apple, rather than iCloud Communications.


Wow. It takes some balls to claim that Apple's iCloud service is "identical or closely related to" a crappy VOIP "service" company.

They didn't trademark "iCloud", mistake #1, and they didn't monitor for other registrations of "iCloud" (the service now renamed "CloudMe", registered the US trademark of "iCloud" a few years back, without a peep from "iCloud Communications"), mistake #2. Their trademark infringement claim should go right out the window. This is why you want adults involved in your business venture, so you don't spend time and money building around a "brand name" that you forget to trademark.

0815
Jun 10, 2011, 04:22 PM
in case someone else wants to cash in, these domains are still availible:

geticloud.co $11.99/yrSAVE!
geticloud.info $0.89*/yrSAVE!
geticloud.org $9.99*/yrSAVE!
geticloud.ca $12.99/yr
geticloud.us $4.99/yrSAVE!
geticloud.biz $5.99*/yrSAVE!
geticloud.mobi $6.99*/yrSAVE!
geticloud.me $8.99/yr

superfula
Jun 10, 2011, 04:22 PM
Hum... Xcerion, the previous owners of icloud.com, were based in Sweden. iCloud Communications is in Arizona.

What claims would an Arizona company have over a Swedish company exactly ? They're not even in the same country. However, Apple is a US based company and falls under the same jurisdiction as iCloud Communications. (Edit, it does seem Xcerion had filed for a US trademark in November 2009 with the USPTO).

It has nothing to do with deep pockets or trying to work with the previous owners of iCloud.

Come on guys, this isn't the first time Apple doesn't check before using an iSomething.

iPhone ring any bell ? http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2007/corp_011007.html


None of that matters. BC2009 said it perfectly so I'll just quote him as it seems you missed it.
It is correct that trademarks need not be registered, but a company must be able to show that they have a history of defending their trademarks through written legal communication to companies they feel infringe on their unregistered trademarks. For example, Apple sending a letter to Amazon regarding "AppStore". Apple does not have a registered trademark for "App Store" but they are still trying to actively defend what they believe to be an unregistered trademark. With trademark law there is a "defend it or lose it" requirement (registered or not).

iStudentUK
Jun 10, 2011, 04:22 PM
they should of registered...they didn't too bad for them, end of story.

Thankfully lawyers and judges know a bit more about the law than this. :eek:

Bear
Jun 10, 2011, 04:23 PM
Of course they didn't. Why would you file a lawsuit if there's no money involved?To prevent the dilution of the trademark. Once the trademark is diluted and you didn't even try to prevent the dilution, you can lose the trademark for exclusive use.

0815
Jun 10, 2011, 04:23 PM
Of course they didn't. Why would you file a lawsuit if there's no money involved?

well, they claimed it damages their name :eek:

wikus
Jun 10, 2011, 04:23 PM
Reminds me of Monster Cables.

hayhay
Jun 10, 2011, 04:25 PM
Were their " i " anythings before Apple? Would they have even named thier company iCloud Communications without Apple burning the " i " tag into everyones brain?

I work for Lone Star Communications...maybe I should sue them for having "Communications" in their name...or maybe I should sue the 1,481,932 companies out there that have "Lone Star" in their name.

Weak...

ThisIsNotMe
Jun 10, 2011, 04:27 PM
Its funny hearing all of these i* companies with i* products bitch about Apple releasing i* products when these companies are riding on the coat tails of Apple i* branded products.

shaynes
Jun 10, 2011, 04:27 PM
What Trademark violation? Apple bought the trademark from a Swedish company that is not calling its business CloudMe.

Therefore iCloud Communications should have been going after the original owners of the iCloud trademark if they were worried. Oh wait, they couldn't sue, the other company owned the trademark.

This is just an advertising suit. Nothing more. Apple will win this one.


Filed and registered. Xcerion owned the US Trademark. iCloud Communication had plenty of time to file suit.

Apple bought the trademark, and now iCloud Communication is suing over that trademark being granted. Doubtless that iCloud (now CloudMe) was not a big enough company to cause confusion for iCloud Communications customers, but Apple is. As was pointed out in the main article post and many times in this thread, registering for a trademark is not required to defend against other people using your name and causing confusion.

KnightWRX
Jun 10, 2011, 04:28 PM
None of that matters. BC2009 said it perfectly so I'll just quote him as it seems you missed it.

I doubt the 1 year and a half period that Xcerion had a filing with the USPTO is sufficient to have iCloud Communications' claims thrown out.

Were their " i " anythings before Apple?

iNternet. ;)

Doctor Q
Jun 10, 2011, 04:29 PM
A hypothetical question: What happens if you run a not very great business and an elegant new service starts up with a similar name? It won't "tarnish your reputation" to be associated with a service better than yours, and it might even help your business if customers confuse the two services. Does that weaken your legal arguments?

jettredmont
Jun 10, 2011, 04:31 PM
Of course they didn't. Why would you file a lawsuit if there's no money involved?

Because you claim your trademark has value, hence you have an interest in defending it. That's how trademark law works: you don't defend trademark against the first infringer, you lose the rights to that trademark. Doesn't matter if the first infringer is a little Swedish company or has $50 billion sitting in the bank.

wikus
Jun 10, 2011, 04:32 PM
A hypothetical question: What happens if you run a not very great business and an elegant new service starts up with a similar name? It won't "tarnish your reputation" to be associated with a service better than yours, and it might even help your business if customers confuse the two services. Does that weaken your legal arguments?

If your business sucks and another one comes along thats better, youre going to look even worse.

johnvr
Jun 10, 2011, 04:34 PM
I'm not a patent lawyer and have no clue how this suit is going to work out, but I'm surprised by all the comments from people who denigrate this company and think it doesn't deserve to win.

Apple makes some pretty great products, but as a company it's arrogant and secretive. The latter doesn't need much elaboration, as it spawned web sites like these.

The former leads to Apple being sued by smaller companies it decided to ignore and it suing virtually everybody else on the planet who comes close to its product line.

If all companies acted like Apple, the world would be an uglier place (but with more beautiful products...).

Stridder44
Jun 10, 2011, 04:35 PM
Does their VoIP travel across the Internet or is it only within a local network? Really it doesn't matter in this case. I'm pulling up a nice comfy chair and a big bowl of popcorn. I hope Apple not only loses, but also has to sign over all the domains that relate to this over to them. :D

Troll on, brotha.

ravenvii
Jun 10, 2011, 04:39 PM
A hypothetical question: What happens if you run a not very great business and an elegant new service starts up with a similar name? It won't "tarnish your reputation" to be associated with a service better than yours, and it might even help your business if customers confuse the two services. Does that weaken your legal arguments?

"Tarnish the reputation of" basically more closely means "changes the reputation of." The purpose of the trademark law is to avoid customer confusion. Say, a brand of detergent always has a blue swish on its box, while another always has a red swish. A customer who is loyal to the former brand, would quickly go through the store and grab the "blue box."

If another company comes in, with a blue box with the same design (a swish, as the above example) and customers mistake that brand for the other, that leads to customer confusion. That Is Bad™ (hehe).

So if customers are likely to confuse iCloud Communications' brand with Apple's iCloud brand, that's your case there. "Tarnish the reputation" is just a more eloquent way of saying it, thanks to whoever was the clerk that wrote that particular judicial opinion.

Now, if we're talking remedies, then your hypothetical example becomes very important in obvious ways.

(Declaration: IANAL, nor do I play one on TV)

shaynes
Jun 10, 2011, 04:39 PM
Because you claim your trademark has value, hence you have an interest in defending it. That's how trademark law works: you don't defend trademark against the first infringer, you lose the rights to that trademark. Doesn't matter if the first infringer is a little Swedish company or has $50 billion sitting in the bank.

Sorry you don't understand trademark law, but this is just not correct. A small Swedish company does not pose a business risk for a small US based company. A huge multinational corporation does.

inkswamp
Jun 10, 2011, 04:39 PM
This is going to date me a bit but when I was a teenager there was a band around called Mr. Big whose guitarist Paul Gilbert was one of those endless stream of Eddie Van Halen types. He used to do this schtick on stage where he'd used a drill on his guitar strings to get a Van Halen-esque sound. Coincidentally, Eddie Van Halen himself came up with the same idea and was roundly accused of stealing the idea. I always felt there was some unfair irony in that. Gilbert was riding a wave created by Van Halen himself. To turn around and cry foul over something like that just seemed silly.

So, yeah, for a company to get upset over their trademark being trampled by the company that made that style of trademark (the i prefix) so popular in that first place seems odd. That's not to say they don't have a legitimate claim but still... Would they have ever come up with the idea if Apple hadn't first popularized that naming scheme? Curious.

MacLawyer
Jun 10, 2011, 04:41 PM
Wow. I did a Google search for iCloud with a search range of 9/1/08 to 12/1/10, and this company did not even come up!

Have they been hiding in a bunker?

3goldens
Jun 10, 2011, 04:45 PM
it all comes down to the dough, re me!

How much is in it for me me me!

Apple will get this taken care of likity split, no one bullies mr. jobs with silly thgs like law suits. they roll right over them and tie them up in lawyers fees till the next milenium.

should be fun to watch!

Prallethrin
Jun 10, 2011, 04:46 PM
Sorry you don't understand trademark law, but this is just not correct. A small Swedish company does not pose a business risk for a small US based company. A huge multinational corporation does.

Threat doesn't matter here.

When it comes to trademarks, it's "defend it or lose it". They are NOT like patents or copyrights, which you can selectively enforce if you wished.

shaynes
Jun 10, 2011, 04:53 PM
Threat doesn't matter here.

When it comes to trademarks, it's "defend it or lose it". They are NOT like patents or copyrights, which you can selectively enforce if you wished.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unregistered_trademark).

"Unregistered trademark may be protectable only within the geographical area within which it has been used or in geographical areas into which it may be rationally expected to expand"

"An unregistered mark may still receive common law trademark rights. Those rights, for example, may extend to its area of influence—usually delineated by geography."

The trademark is regional. Being a small US based company, they should not be expected (nor have any legal right) to defend their trademark against a small Swedish company.

rjohnstone
Jun 10, 2011, 04:53 PM
Threat doesn't matter here.

When it comes to trademarks, it's "defend it or lose it". They are NOT like patents or copyrights, which you can selectively enforce if you wished.
How wrong you are.
Defend or lose it requires knowledge of the infringement.
Many small companies don't have the resources to monitor every corner of the world looking infringement.

Only once the infringement is known is an entity required to "defend it or lose".

Jeremy1026
Jun 10, 2011, 04:55 PM
Just FYI, if you call iCloud Corporation, and ask them how they will match you music, they get kind of pissed off. You should try it.

Macsterguy
Jun 10, 2011, 04:55 PM
They have a case...

0815
Jun 10, 2011, 04:56 PM
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unregistered_trademark).

"Unregistered trademark may be protectable only within the geographical area within which it has been used or in geographical areas into which it may be rationally expected to expand"

"An unregistered mark may still receive common law trademark rights. Those rights, for example, may extend to its area of influence—usually delineated by geography."

The trademark is regional. Being a small US based company, they should not be expected (nor have any legal right) to defend their trademark against a small Swedish company.

But what if the small Swedish company registeres the Trademark in the US (as they did) - than they should speak up since it happens in the home country of the small US company. They should at least have defended it in the US - but apparently they didn't care at the time.

Kreios
Jun 10, 2011, 04:58 PM
Since there seems to be a lot of misinformation on trademark law, maybe this will help.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm

Macsterguy
Jun 10, 2011, 05:00 PM
That little "6-letter" word is going to be worth a LARGE boat load of money before this is over...

iCrizzo
Jun 10, 2011, 05:01 PM
I have never heard of iCloud Communications, never would have heard of them either if it were not for this story. I bet their website traffic quadrupled x20 today!

jettredmont
Jun 10, 2011, 05:01 PM
I doubt the 1 year and a half period that Xcerion had a filing with the USPTO is sufficient to have iCloud Communications' claims thrown out.


And what legal basis would you have for that opinion?

Leaving a trademark dispute "open" for even a few months has been cause for trademark claims to be lost. I'm not aware of any specific legal requirement here other than "swiftly", but I'd be very hard pressed to argue that taking 18 months to get around to sending a simple cease-and-desist letter comes anywhere near qualifying as a "swift" defense.

No, you don't have to register a trademark to get protection for it (although it is MUCH harder to defend an unregistered trademark in court, and potential damages are significantly reduced).

It really sucks to be a little company. But, the trademark registration system was set up EXACTLY for this reason, and EXACTLY to benefit the smaller local company (doing interstate commerce). It's essentially business malpractice that they didn't take advantage of the cheap and easy registration service, and a judge would find it hard to overlook the past history of nonchalant ignorance of trademark and reckless business practices to force Apple to undergo an expensive rebranding effort.

KnightWRX
Jun 10, 2011, 05:04 PM
And what legal basis would you have for that opinion?

On none. It's simply something I doubt. The legal system doesn't operate on a month by month basis.

And Xcerion registering the trademark in the US doesn't mean they were using it in the US and thus might not have been causing confusion for iCloud Communications' customer base.

There's a lot of ifs here and not a lot of judges appointed to this case.

ghostlines
Jun 10, 2011, 05:04 PM
Motion to dismiss.

iCloud Communications had ample time to work with CloudMe the former owners of the iCloud domain to prevent confusion.

It doesn't sound like they made a move until a deep pockets company moved in.

This will be interesting.

True, I hope this doesn't turn out bad for Apple. But iCloud communications could simply claim that they only now became aware of the other "iCloud" ,because of so much media surrounding Apple's WWDC.

Prallethrin
Jun 10, 2011, 05:05 PM
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unregistered_trademark).

"Unregistered trademark may be protectable only within the geographical area within which it has been used or in geographical areas into which it may be rationally expected to expand"

"An unregistered mark may still receive common law trademark rights. Those rights, for example, may extend to its area of influence—usually delineated by geography."

The trademark is regional. Being a small US based company, they should not be expected (nor have any legal right) to defend their trademark against a small Swedish company.

Interesting. But it still has nothing to do with "threat".

And your article also says,

The unregistered trademark cannot be infringed as the owner cannot bring the infringement proceedings, which is well known as unregistered trademark infringement.[2]

In order to succeed in a passing-off action, a plaintiff must prove that
-It has reputation in its trademark in relation to its goods or services;
-The defendant's actions misrepresent the origin of the defendant's goods or services to customers.
-The applicant has suffered loss as a result of the defendant's actions.

Apple is obviously not trying to misrepresent their services and pass it off as iCloud Com's goods and services.

So...

0815
Jun 10, 2011, 05:08 PM
Just imagine how many new customers they could have gotten with the right advertisement:

"go to geticloud.com to get the best VOIP system powered by iCloud Communication"

Many would have thought this is a nice iCloud feature and signed up and Apple couldn't have done anything since they used those names before them.

Instead, they bring hate to themselves.

kppolich
Jun 10, 2011, 05:08 PM
wouldn't it be cheaper for apple to just buy out/ settle with these people outside of court rather than face lawsuits from every organization/website with i and Cloud in the title?

zin
Jun 10, 2011, 05:09 PM
Some people on here dismiss things far too quickly. The fact of the matter is iCloud Communications was and is a company. I don't think I'd be too happy if the main part of my company name was then used by a multinational corporation and heavily promoted.

People here are claiming they're doing it for the attention. For goodness sake. Anything revolving around Apple is going to fire a media frenzy, so it doesn't matter if some small business in Arizona initiates legal action or a large corporation does; both will receive equally large and unnecessary amounts of traffic.

I think you need to start putting yourself in the position of these plaintiffs; some, not all, do have some credibility in their accusations.

Kwill
Jun 10, 2011, 05:10 PM
Perhaps Apple should have been the one to use CloudMe.

jettredmont
Jun 10, 2011, 05:11 PM
How wrong you are.
Defend or lose it requires knowledge of the infringement.
Many small companies don't have the resources to monitor every corner of the world looking infringement.

Only once the infringement is known is an entity required to "defend it or lose".

Effort to police is always a judgement call, but two major factors here go against iCloud:

1. They did not register their trademark. This is cheap and easy. It would have avoided this entire debacle (Apple would have come across the filing and acted accordingly).

2. The "small Swedish company" has had an open trademark registration for exactly that trademark for well over a year.

If you do not take advantage of the system built to passively protect you from trademark infringement, and you do not actively search for trademark infringement, and the only time you actually act on trademark infringement is when the front page of your newspaper talks about another company who is bringing out a major new product named the same as your trademark ... I don't think that qualifies as policing a trademark by any reasonable stretch of the imagination.

Again, it's a judgement call, and maybe the judge will end up ruling their way, but iCloud hasn't done themselves any favors here.

reden
Jun 10, 2011, 05:16 PM
They're a VoIP company, why are they called iCloud? lol

Their website sucks. I should redesign it.

This reminds me of that ComWave company here in Canada that complained about the term iPhone.

Can I see some of the sites that you have designed?

jettredmont
Jun 10, 2011, 05:17 PM
Some people on here dismiss things far too quickly. The fact of the matter is iCloud Communications was and is a company. I don't think I'd be too happy if the main part of my company name was then used by a multinational corporation and heavily promoted.


Personally, I wouldn't be too happy about that either. But, I'd be really pissed at the penny-wise fool who decided six years ago he'd save the $1,000 attorney fee to trademark my company name, and who "forgot" this year and last to look for trademark registrations using that company name.

I'd be really pissed if, instead of thinking up an original name, that penny-wise fool had also decided to name my company using a hip prefix and a hip term for the Internet, both of which were even at the time being combined in various sundry manners and trademarked left and right.

ghostlines
Jun 10, 2011, 05:17 PM
Just imagine how many new customers they could have gotten with the right advertisement:

"go to geticloud.com to get the best VOIP system powered by iCloud Communication"

Many would have thought this is a nice iCloud feature and signed up and Apple couldn't have done anything since they used those names before them.

Instead, they bring hate to themselves.


Lol yeah!

Maybe that's how this party started. "Let's fire up some "iCloud" advertisements to boost sales and ride on Apple's success". But then they soon figured out that Apple may sue them like they do other companies over trademarks.

So why not sue Apple first and in the end settle with them if Apple pays a small fee:D

tbrinkma
Jun 10, 2011, 05:17 PM
What ample time? They are supposed to file trademark violations based on rumors they find on the internet? Apple did not officially announce iCloud until this week.

You know that Swedish company we've been hearing about (in this very thread)? The one with the iCloud offering which is now called CloudMe? The one with the 1-2 year-old U.S. trademark that Apple bought a couple weeks back?

That is where iCloud Communications had the ample time to deal with the trademark conflict.

That's not to say they don't have *some* case, but it's not a *good* one from the little information that's been dug up so far.

Prallethrin
Jun 10, 2011, 05:17 PM
Some people on here dismiss things far too quickly. The fact of the matter is iCloud Communications was and is a company. I don't think I'd be too happy if the main part of my company name was then used by a multinational corporation and heavily promoted.

People here are claiming they're doing it for the attention. For goodness sake. Anything revolving around Apple is going to fire a media frenzy, so it doesn't matter if some small business in Arizona initiates legal action or a large corporation does; both will receive equally large and unnecessary amounts of traffic.

I think you need to start putting yourself in the position of these plaintiffs; some, not all, do have some credibility in their accusations.

It's their own fault for not registering the trademark.

Based on the Wiki article, someone bought to my attention : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unregistered_trade_mark#Infringement_of_Unregistered_Trademark
Now they have to proof Apple is misrepresenting their products as iCloud Com products. Good luck with that.

KnightWRX
Jun 10, 2011, 05:19 PM
The one with the 2-3 year-old U.S. trademark that Apple bought a couple weeks back?

Filing in November 2009 makes that trademark 1 year and 7 months old. Stick to the facts.

doctor-don
Jun 10, 2011, 05:22 PM
What is this iCloud Communications?

Their web site indicates they have been copyrighted between 2009-2010 - not updated with 2011.

The company employs between 11 and 50 people? Don't they know?

It is a small VoIP company headquartered in Phoenix, AZ.

weev
Jun 10, 2011, 05:22 PM
1) Establish company with name iSomeProductYouExpectAppleToRelease.
2) Wait until iSomeProductYouExpectAppleToRelease launches.
3) ???
4) Profit

Spot on. Their site is copyright 2009-2010. 'iCloud' has been floating around for some time.

Maybe they also thought of facebook too.

But apologies to them if they are indeed legit and give them some compo to re-brand. And of course the lawyers new houses.

ten-oak-druid
Jun 10, 2011, 05:23 PM
You know that Swedish company we've been hearing about (in this very thread)? The one with the iCloud offering which is now called CloudMe? The one with the 2-3 year-old U.S. trademark that Apple bought a couple weeks back?

That is where iCloud Communications had the ample time to deal with the trademark conflict.

That's not to say they don't have *some* case, but it's not a *good* one from the little information that's been dug up so far.

They should have registered in that time. How can they think they have a case?

Benguitar
Jun 10, 2011, 05:24 PM
Wasn't there a story on here not too long ago about Apple Copyrighting/Trademarking "iCloud" ?

Oh well, Sucks for you iCloud Communications. Nobody really knows who you are anyway. :p

ThunderSkunk
Jun 10, 2011, 05:25 PM
Hah. Ah well. You don't trademark your name, sooner or later, someone else is going to start a business using the same name. Happens every day.

jettredmont
Jun 10, 2011, 05:27 PM
Sorry you don't understand trademark law, but this is just not correct. A small Swedish company does not pose a business risk for a small US based company. A huge multinational corporation does.

It has nothing to do with the company, that is the point.

Trademark has value, that is why you defend it. If you do not defend it, even if the company infringing on it is small, then you lose the trademark. If a pulp fiction author uses "Styrofoam" to describe a polystyrene foam cup, the owners of that trademark (Dow Chemical) HAVE to send a cease and desist at the earliest knowledge of that infringement. It's a cost of business. They aren't going to get millions in damages from that author, and their lawyers won't write the C&D for free, and frankly their trademark division which scours for infringements doesn't operate for free either, but because the trademark has value, they do it.

And the "small Swedish company" had applied to register that trademark in the US. That is a direct challenge on any unregistered trademarks; the fact that they didn't speak up shows how closely they are "defending" that trademark.

iCloud wan't the level of Styrofoam, and so having a whole Dow Chemical-sized group dedicated to defending it wouldn't be required by the court. But one guy doing a web search every month or so, or even a USPTO registrations search every six months or so? I think that would have been prudent. I'm fairly certain most judges would agree.

OrangeSVTguy
Jun 10, 2011, 05:28 PM
Just call it MiCloud and be done with it lol.

KnightWRX
Jun 10, 2011, 05:28 PM
Oh well, Sucks for you iCloud Communications. Nobody really knows who you are anyway. :p

A lot of smaller businesses are relative unknowns. Just look around your community for many small/medium businesses that others living 100 miles away from you wouldn't even guess existed.

It doesn't give a right to large multi-nationals to walk all over the rights of these small businesses. I wonder why you people keep making this argument ?

chaosconan
Jun 10, 2011, 05:29 PM
Man, why is everyone trying to milk Apple. Even the local city council of Cupertino trying to get free Wi-Fi out of Apple's decision to built the campus in their town. :mad:

gramirez2012
Jun 10, 2011, 05:32 PM
If it's not a registered trademark, then they should have no grounds for a lawsuit. If I went to the media tomorrow and said I trademarked "iPod" 20 years ago but it was never registered, I would be laughed at. "iCloud Communications" shall be laughed at too.

AaronEdwards
Jun 10, 2011, 05:35 PM
What Trademark violation? Apple bought the trademark from a Swedish company that is not calling its business CloudMe.

Therefore iCloud Communications should have been going after the original owners of the iCloud trademark if they were worried. Oh wait, they couldn't sue, the other company owned the trademark.

This is just an advertising suit. Nothing more. Apple will win this one.


Filed and registered. Xcerion owned the US Trademark. iCloud Communication had plenty of time to file suit.

Most smaller companies aren't checking for trademark infringements, obviously when a huge company, like Apple, launches a new services, that's hard to miss.
A huge company, like Apple, actually has people hired to be updated about about any infringements, smaller companies don't have the money to do so.

Furthermore, a huge company, like Apple, using your name would have a bigger impact than a small company, like CloudMe. And a smaller company would gain more from infringing on a name used by a huge company, than a small company.

tbrinkma
Jun 10, 2011, 05:36 PM
Depends who got the iCloud name first in the US. Buying a trademark doesn't make it valid. iCloud Communications was created in 2009, Xcerion filed in 2009 for the iCloud trademark with the USPTO, but in November. If iCloud Communications was created before November, they have a right to the name.

The procedure for disputing a trademark application is well established. Had iCloud Communications been actively policing the use of its trademark, it would have seen the Xcerion application, and filed a dispute before it was granted. Missing a registration in your own country for two years doesn't exactly speak well toward actively policing the use of your mark.

I doubt the 1 year and a half period that Xcerion had a filing with the USPTO is sufficient to have iCloud Communications' claims thrown out.
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unregistered_trademark).

"Unregistered trademark may be protectable only within the geographical area within which it has been used or in geographical areas into which it may be rationally expected to expand"

"An unregistered mark may still receive common law trademark rights. Those rights, for example, may extend to its area of influence—usually delineated by geography."

The trademark is regional. Being a small US based company, they should not be expected (nor have any legal right) to defend their trademark against a small Swedish company.

The small, US-based company, should (by law) be expected to defend their trademark (registered or not) against a small Swedish company that registers the same trademark in the US.

On none. It's simply something I doubt. The legal system doesn't operate on a month by month basis.

Actually, and somewhat ironically, the US legal system *does* often operate on a month-by-month basis. Right up until an actual lawsuit is filed. Then the speed varies from week-to-week all the way up to year-to-year.

Filing in November 2009 makes that trademark 1 year and 7 months old. Stick to the facts.

Yep. My bad. Before I posted I saw the 2009 date, and assumed early to mid 2009. I'll go back and fix it.

A lot of smaller businesses are relative unknowns. Just look around your community for many small/medium businesses that others living 100 miles away from you wouldn't even guess existed.

It doesn't give a right to large multi-nationals to walk all over the rights of these small businesses. I wonder why you people keep making this argument ?

That's not what people are advocating. They're advocating that iCloud Communications should have done Business 101 and registered their trademark at some point. (Or at least done the basic monitoring necessary to see that 'their' mark had been successfully registered in the US by another company.)

This point is especially important in a day and age where the tiny business is capable of offering its goods/services *anywhere in the world* despite being a tiny business.

MagnusVonMagnum
Jun 10, 2011, 05:36 PM
All these companies who, since the success of the iMac, have been putting "i" infront of their names and products are so annoying. Blatant attention grab.

It seems to me that Apple blatantly ripped off the i-bit of "iMac" from the iRobot company (makers of Roomba robotic vacuums) who in turn modified slightly I, Robot from Isaac Asimov. All these bits about 'i' meaning Internet mean squat unless you want to say the 'i' means nothing but a generic term for the Net at which point Apple shouldn't be able to trademark it anywhere (being generic). Come on now. Who's zoomin' who?

jettredmont
Jun 10, 2011, 05:36 PM
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unregistered_trademark).

"Unregistered trademark may be protectable only within the geographical area within which it has been used or in geographical areas into which it may be rationally expected to expand"

"An unregistered mark may still receive common law trademark rights. Those rights, for example, may extend to its area of influence—usually delineated by geography."

The trademark is regional. Being a small US based company, they should not be expected (nor have any legal right) to defend their trademark against a small Swedish company.

Correct. And a US trademark registration filing makes that Swedish company's trademark "region" include the US. The fact that the small US-based company didn't care about a US trademark registration is cause for loss of trademark rights.

Look: iCloud really got unlucky here. Had no one else already applied for iCloud trademarks, Apple would still have come out with an iCloud service, and iCloud Communications could then have pounced, likely wringing quite a bit of money out of Apple to "purchase" a license to their trademark. It wouldn't have been the first such occurrence for Apple (or really for many major companies). Unfortunately, though, a smaller company had already tried using that trademark, and iCloud Communications failed to react. If only they had spent due diligence on the Swedish company's action and sent a cheap cease and desist letter to them, they'd have been the recipient of Apple's pre-launch dough instead of the Swedish company (or, perhaps in addition to).

But, they didn't. They were unlucky, and then they were negligent. You can't help luck, but you definitely shouldn't be rewarded for negligence.

Glideslope
Jun 10, 2011, 05:37 PM
You know that Swedish company we've been hearing about (in this very thread)? The one with the iCloud offering which is now called CloudMe? The one with the 1-2 year-old U.S. trademark that Apple bought a couple weeks back?

That is where iCloud Communications had the ample time to deal with the trademark conflict.

That's not to say they don't have *some* case, but it's not a *good* one from the little information that's been dug up so far.

They have NO case. :apple:

chaosconan
Jun 10, 2011, 05:39 PM
It seems to me that Apple blatantly ripped off the i-bit of "iMac" from the iRobot company (makers of Roomba robotic vacuums) who in turn modified slightly I, Robot from Isaac Asimov. All these bits about 'i' meaning Internet mean squat unless you want to say the 'i' means nothing but a generic term for the Net at which point Apple shouldn't be able to trademark it anywhere (being generic). Come on now. Who's zoomin' who?

The meaning is different.
"i" in iRobot means like you and I, where in iMac the "i" means Internet.
:)

aristotle
Jun 10, 2011, 05:40 PM
A lot of smaller businesses are relative unknowns. Just look around your community for many small/medium businesses that others living 100 miles away from you wouldn't even guess existed.

It doesn't give a right to large multi-nationals to walk all over the rights of these small businesses. I wonder why you people keep making this argument ?
Dear KnightWRX (http://forums.macrumors.com/member.php?u=274156),

I represent KnightWRX Communications LLC situated in Laval, Quebec.

My client demands that you immediately stop using the username as it it threatens the dissolution of my client's trademark.

Signed,
Jean Pierre Le Chiffre Esq
:p

chadley_chad
Jun 10, 2011, 05:40 PM
As much as an Apple fan as I am, if I was this gaff I wouldn't hesitate in suing the ass of Apple ... I mean, its not as if they wouldn't if the show wasn't on the other foot.

Its about time Apple got a taste of their own medicine!

I would insist Apple withdraw ALL uses; or pay me $100m minimum (or provide Cupertino with free wifi!!!!!)

Ker ching!

phpmaven
Jun 10, 2011, 05:42 PM
Yep and it sounds like the overseas company had a US trademark on iCloud as well. So they were the ones with the rights.

Also trademarks are generally tied to the product. It will be tricky to say that VoIP services are the same as a data server system.

That exactly why the used that name. Everybody instantly knows what it's about.

bretm
Jun 10, 2011, 05:43 PM
Apple can win this. But seriously, Apple needs to hire some new people in marketing. icloud? Everyone is calling it the cloud now. Call it something original.

Ditto with iPhone. I mean, everyone is calling it a phone now instead of a cellular based telephonic device.

bretm
Jun 10, 2011, 05:46 PM
The meaning is different.
"i" in iRobot means like you and I, where in iMac the "i" means Internet.
:)

It meant Internet with the first iMac/iBook. After that it started to mean "Apple."

JP7911
Jun 10, 2011, 05:50 PM
At first I thought they may be legitimate, but after going the the website their service is VOIP. Apple iCloud service is storage not VOIP. So how is that identical service.
After that I agree they are looking for money. Apple purchased the name and paid very high fees for it. You can have several business with the same name the long as its not the same business. On the website I saw nothing about stooge or internet services other than Voice over IP. The only similarities is that they both use the internet.

jettredmont
Jun 10, 2011, 05:50 PM
Most smaller companies aren't checking for trademark infringements, obviously when a huge company, like Apple, launches a new services, that's hard to miss.
A huge company, like Apple, actually has people hired to be updated about about any infringements, smaller companies don't have the money to do so.


If you own a company and did not register your company name and product names as trademarks, and you are not checking trademark registrations for overlap, you are taking all that risk onto yourself.

Registering a trademark is cheap and easy ($1,000 cheap). Easily the cheapest thing most companies will do when starting up. There is no reason ever to skip that step. But, it's not required. You can skip the really cheap services of the USPTO, and elect to police your trademark more actively. But if you don't use the USPTO, and you don't police your trademark, you are just asking to lose the rights to your own name.


Furthermore, a huge company, like Apple, using your name would have a bigger impact than a small company, like CloudMe. And a smaller company would gain more from infringing on a name used by a huge company, than a small company.

I will repeat it again: the size of the company infringing on your trademark does not matter. So long as the infringer meets the same requirements as your trademark (interstate commerce in the US), you MUST defend that trademark, or you will lose it. If the infringer is a broke pulp fiction writer or a multinational corporation with billions of dollars in the bank: it does not matter.

theelysium
Jun 10, 2011, 05:51 PM
iCloud Communications is a joke. I was going to use their customer service chat just to mess with them and act like I thought they were Apple cuz their name is SOOO SIMILAR, but they are so inapt that their chat service isn't even active! Like not offline, but not built.

Dang, I wanted to mess with someone....

How does a company that touts communication services not have their own customer service feature active for communication with their customers?

They obviously need the money from Apple.

chaosconan
Jun 10, 2011, 05:52 PM
Microsoft could have been successful with their Zune product if they only had called it xPod instead of Zune :)
Same applies to their failing Windows branded phones. If they want it to be successful they should immediate rename it to xPhone.

Next they should develop xPad to complete against iPad.
And rename Windows Phone 7 to xOS 7 :D

Apple versus Windows
iPod = xPod (Zune)
iPhone = xPhone (Windows Phone)
iPad = xPad (to be continued)

writingdevil
Jun 10, 2011, 05:59 PM
Interesting. But it still has nothing to do with "threat".

Apple is obviously not trying to misrepresent their services and pass it off as iCloud Com's goods and services.

So...
so..it's friday and i think a lot of people have nothing to do and are now relying on wikipedia to prepare a legal argument. kind of like my dog that just won't let go a bone in it's mouth, just keep trying to be right about it.
sounds like, again, one of my pop's drinking buds, who has become dangerously close to being an unauthorized-unlicensed lawyer based on things he researches on his "new" computer. (me thinks he should have stayed at being an expert in all things alcohol)

rjohnstone
Jun 10, 2011, 06:00 PM
Effort to police is always a judgement call, but two major factors here go against iCloud:

1. They did not register their trademark. This is cheap and easy. It would have avoided this entire debacle (Apple would have come across the filing and acted accordingly).

2. The "small Swedish company" has had an open trademark registration for exactly that trademark for well over a year.

If you do not take advantage of the system built to passively protect you from trademark infringement, and you do not actively search for trademark infringement, and the only time you actually act on trademark infringement is when the front page of your newspaper talks about another company who is bringing out a major new product named the same as your trademark ... I don't think that qualifies as policing a trademark by any reasonable stretch of the imagination.

Again, it's a judgement call, and maybe the judge will end up ruling their way, but iCloud hasn't done themselves any favors here.
Ever file for a trademark?
It's neither cheap (for a small company) or easy.
Been through the process twice myself. No thanks.

I will agree to a limited extent that an annual search of the USPTO filings would be in order, but again, you need to also take into consideration the scope of such searches and the basic understanding of how they work.

My wife's company does global searches in TESS and then vets any potential infringing filing.
Some companies simply lack the resources or even the knowledge on how to do this.

mainstreetmark
Jun 10, 2011, 06:00 PM
I hate the whole term "Cloud" in the first place. It sucks we have to put up with it for a decade.

"My e-mail is in the Cloud!" Your e-mail was *aways* in the Cloud - since the 1990's (or even 1980's)

Tonewheel
Jun 10, 2011, 06:01 PM
This isn't complicated.

If Apple went through the registered trademark process for the trade name "iCloud", there would have been an opportunity for any company to review the filing and file a formal objection against Apple's trademark application...usually a six month period. This is part of the formal trademark process.

Additionally, iCloud Communications not having trademarked their name, will have to prove they have promoted the name commercially, and a judge would have to be convinced they will be harmed by Apple using the mark (loss of business revenue, etc.)

My prediction is that Apple will prevail, with a settlement made to the plaintiff.

KnightWRX
Jun 10, 2011, 06:06 PM
My prediction is that Apple will prevail, with a settlement made to the plaintiff.

If they prevail, why pay a settlement to the plaintiff ? Does not compute.

michaelcyee
Jun 10, 2011, 06:09 PM
If they prevail, why pay a settlement to the plaintiff ? Does not compute.

It's far easier and less costly to settle than it is to go through a trial or something, even if you win the first round you'll have to stick around for the appeal, and the court system is notoriously overburdened with too much stuff to do. It's just way easier to settle.

Tonewheel
Jun 10, 2011, 06:11 PM
If they prevail, why pay a settlement to the plaintiff ? Does not compute.

It means that a judgement will not be rendered against Apple, as they will settle this out of court.

ViviUO
Jun 10, 2011, 06:11 PM
SUVs/pickups, guns, and lawsuits seems like all this country is good at these days. :mad::D

chaosconan
Jun 10, 2011, 06:12 PM
I hate the whole term "Cloud" in the first place. It sucks we have to put up with it for a decade.

"My e-mail is in the Cloud!" Your e-mail was *aways* in the Cloud - since the 1990's (or even 1980's)

Whoever came up with the computer term Cloud should have called it cyberspace, wait, that term already exists!

Not sure why they created a new term "Cloud" when the correct term should have been "cyberspace" which means virtual space, virtual world, or virtual universe.

Tonewheel
Jun 10, 2011, 06:18 PM
Whoever came up with the computer term Cloud should have called it cyberspace, wait, that term already exists!

Not sure why they created a new term "Cloud" when the correct term should have been "cyberspace" which means virtual space, virtual world, or virtual universe.

Because the term Remote Server would have been too difficult.

writingdevil
Jun 10, 2011, 06:25 PM
[QUOTE=johnvr;12732383]I'm not a patent lawyer and have no clue how this suit is going to work out,....Apple being sued by smaller companies it decided to ignore and it suing virtually everybody else on the planet who comes close to its product line. "

at least in this post there's honesty about a lack of legal knowledge...which undercuts the rest of the post. have you actually researched how many people are going after apple (and not just trolls like lodys)?

you might check out how many lawsuits apple has instigated. there are times, for legal reasons, the most efficient way to protect your assets is to be proactive about them being copied. if you don't defend a trademark for example, you may lose exclusivity.

somehow it seems some people want a warm fuzzy business world (not an ugly one), but in my experience, warm fuzzy isn't what drives businesses in any city on the planet. i am first in line for world peace and respect for human rights on any corner of the globe, but tying this to a business taking responsible actions (as noted by being the best in one case, top tier in another, for managing a business, ie.forbes, fortune, harvard biz school, etc, etc) seems like a quest to change how business operates and has operated since it first began. for more info on ethics, ask mr. murdoch, a native of a fine country simply using his clout to squash and rule.:

chaosconan
Jun 10, 2011, 06:26 PM
Is Apple going to call their new campus iCampus? If they do that would be so COOL :)

I bet they could make a lot of money if they open up the campus to visitors.
Provide a tour guide at iCampus every month. The tour guide will consist of the original garage where Steve built the first apple computer, showcase all the computers and devices that apple built, including the ones that didn't make the product line. Also include all the prototypes that were on the drawing board and much more...

http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/06/ShowImage.aspx_.jpeg

MagnusVonMagnum
Jun 10, 2011, 06:30 PM
The meaning is different.
"i" in iRobot means like you and I, where in iMac the "i" means Internet.
:)

So they say... :rolleyes: (funny how well it works from iRobot which sounds very SyFy already if you know what I mean based on Asimov's spelling) But OK, does that mean if I create my own iCloud and say the 'i' stands for 'idiotic' or an iPhone where it means "identity", does that mean they don't have a case against me? A trademark is a trademark. If 'i' stands for something, it doesn't sound as if it's part of the actual tradmark. After all, is it Internet Cloud or is it iCloud? And isn't iCloud grammatically incorrect either way? ;)

Is Apple going to call their new campus iCampus? If they do that would be so COOL :)

See, if Apple would just use the logical extensino of 'a' instead, that campus could be called the giant aRing (or the less "PC" *****). :D

writingdevil
Jun 10, 2011, 06:31 PM
Ever file for a trademark?
It's neither cheap (for a small company) or easy...but again, you need to also take into consideration the scope of such searches and the basic understanding of how they work.

Some companies simply lack the resources or even the knowledge on how to do this.

so being small and not having the knowledge on how to research aspects of business required to run a business, means the "rules" don't apply to me? i'm probably much younger than you but my first entrrepreneurial effort was like a college course in biz matters. i had NO idea that a one man operation had all these forms to file, licenses to get, permits to obtain, releases to get from multiple sources, legal traps if certain steps were not taken. a misstep on any one would cost dearly. one did, but it wasn't a killer. at that time i so wanted a "rules don't apply to you, bud, you're just a little fish in the pond."

chaosconan
Jun 10, 2011, 06:35 PM
Amazon is trying to get into outer space with their ship called Blue Origin (really bad name) and failing bad at it.

http://kenpresley.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/blue_originpic9.jpg

Apple's next big project should be the iSpaceShip and succeed where all others failed.
iSpaceShip, It Just works!!!

apolloa
Jun 10, 2011, 06:36 PM
Hmmmmm:

Since 1985, iCloud Communications has been a local and long distance telephone provider. In this new era of broadband technology, iCloud has launched the most comprehensive, flexible and cost-efficient broadband telephone service available today. The iCloud package provides both business and residential customers with Fortune 500 technology and functionality ~ all at a significant cost savings over traditional phone companies.

http://geticloud.com/why_icloud.html

If I built up a company over 26 years and another IT business just decided to use MY company name without asking me I'd be pretty pissed off too...

I'm sorry but Apple cannot simply just bully it's way to calling it's products and service i-whatever regardless if someone is already using said name.

Popeye206
Jun 10, 2011, 06:41 PM
Hmmmmm:

Since 1985, iCloud Communications has been a local and long distance telephone provider. In this new era of broadband technology, iCloud has launched the most comprehensive, flexible and cost-efficient broadband telephone service available today. The iCloud package provides both business and residential customers with Fortune 500 technology and functionality ~ all at a significant cost savings over traditional phone companies.

http://geticloud.com/why_icloud.html

If I built up a company over 26 years and another IT business just decided to use MY company name without asking me I'd be pretty pissed off too...

I'm sorry but Apple cannot simply just bully it's way to calling it's products and service i-whatever regardless if someone is already using said name.

Sorry... not to play armchair lawyer, but from what I know of trademarks, names have become so hard to come by that it is allowed for two companies to use the same name as long as it's a different industry. Or, unless they register the name to protect it more.

I'd say it's up in the air (or cloud) as to what will happen.

But to claim damage (like they are) is silly. It's free publicity. And they didn't see this coming??? If they are so close in service (as they claim) don't you think with a name like iCloud (or "i" anything) you'd keep an eye on Apple. Of course you would. And of course... if you really cared you would have said something before launch.... but if you want to profit, you wait.

Amazon is trying to get into outer space with their ship called Blue Origin (really bad name) and failing bad at it.

Image (http://kenpresley.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/blue_originpic9.jpg)

Apple's next big project should be the iSpaceShip and succeed where all others failed.
iSpaceShip, It Just works!!!

iSpaceship is the new HQ.... shhhhh.... don't tell anyone! :p

ten-oak-druid
Jun 10, 2011, 06:43 PM
So why now? Apple made it no secret that they were branding their upcoming cloud service as icloud. It seems to me that this company could have approached Apple before the official announcement. It seems the only benefit of waiting is that the news is more dramatic after the official announcement and that equals greater publicity.

shaynes
Jun 10, 2011, 06:44 PM
It meant Internet with the first iMac/iBook. After that it started to mean "Apple."

Except for when it means iGoogle or iPlayer (BBC), or any of the other products that came before or after the iBook (the first time I believe Apple used the convention).

Apple is simply the most successful company who uses it, but that doesn't not give them an exclusive right to it.

NinjaHERO
Jun 10, 2011, 06:45 PM
Wow, the legal fun never stops. The lawyers just keep winning. :D

Rot'nApple
Jun 10, 2011, 06:46 PM
One. Never heard of them. Doubt there will be THAT much confusion.

Two. Although iCloud was the name of a Swedish company, these folks I bet never file suit against them for any miscommunication or am I mistaken?

Three. iCloud Communications should attack this at another angle. If Apple doesn't want Amazon or others to use the "app store" in their name, then Apple Inc. should be understanding of iCloud Communications situation and C&D with the iCloud stuff. If Apple can be very specific with regard to app store promotions and the use of the word free and you can't use Mryiad Pro font et.. al. iCloud Communications should have a case I would think.

Four. Apple can whip out its checkbook and assist iCloud Communications to become CloudMe Communications! :cool: Or Cloudy Communications! :D Or Overcast Communications!!! :eek:

chaosconan
Jun 10, 2011, 06:47 PM
iSpaceship is the new HQ.... shhhhh.... don't tell anyone! :p

Hmmm. Could it be! Could it be that Steve Job is an Alien from outer space, and he started this company called Apple to make money to build this huge SpaceShip which he so calls it a Campus to fool us all. Once the construction is complete, he's going to take off in it and leave us behind :confused: and only take with him his loyal followers. :eek:

Yamcha
Jun 10, 2011, 06:47 PM
Well the company has been around since 1985, which as far as I know was before the time Apple was putting I's before most of their products..

I don't know how this could harm the company, I think it would draw more attention to it right? perhaps the wrong type of attention though..

apolloa
Jun 10, 2011, 06:51 PM
Sorry... not to play armchair lawyer, but from what I know of trademarks, names have become so hard to come by that it is allowed for two companies to use the same name as long as it's a different industry. Or, unless they register the name to protect it more.

I'd say it's up in the air (or cloud) as to what will happen.

But to claim damage (like they are) is silly. It's free publicity. And they didn't see this coming??? If they are so close in service (as they claim) don't you think with a name like iCloud (or "i" anything) you'd keep an eye on Apple. Of course you would. And of course... if you really cared you would have said something before launch.... but if you want to profit, you wait.

How do we NOT know that they have started legal proceedings when the iCloud Apple service was first brought to their attention? I'm pretty sure it takes a very long time to do anything legally about this hence why it's only just being reported..
And Apple do NOT have a right to every iNAME on existence just when it feels like it!!

And flip this around, Apple also has no right to the 'App Store' term but I bet you defend them trying to stop Amazon using the term eh? One rule for Apple, another for everyone else?

0815
Jun 10, 2011, 06:53 PM
Hmmmmm:

Since 1985, iCloud Communications has been a local and long distance telephone provider. In this new era of broadband technology, iCloud has launched the most comprehensive, flexible and cost-efficient broadband telephone service available today. The iCloud package provides both business and residential customers with Fortune 500 technology and functionality ~ all at a significant cost savings over traditional phone companies.

http://geticloud.com/why_icloud.html

If I built up a company over 26 years and another IT business just decided to use MY company name without asking me I'd be pretty pissed off too ... the name was trademarked (in the US) by some other company and Apple just bought the right to use it from them.

I'm sorry but Apple cannot simply just bully it's way to calling it's products and service i-whatever regardless if someone is already using said name.

Interesting, 26 year old tech company with superior technology (or whatever Fortune 500 technology means) ... but still failed at basic business setup like protecting the own name ... There is/was no legal trace of any other company having the 'right' to that name. Appel bought the name from the legal owner, end of story.

lilo777
Jun 10, 2011, 06:57 PM
First it was iPhone, then iOS and now iCloud. Apple is just an unethical company.

chaosconan
Jun 10, 2011, 06:57 PM
Well the company has been around since 1985, which as far as I know was before the time Apple was putting I's before most of their products..

I don't know how this could harm the company, I think it would draw more attention to it right? perhaps the wrong type of attention though..

Thats true. IBM has there "e" as in eServer and eBusiness.
Microsoft has their "x" as in ActiveX, DirectX and XBox.
So, why can't Apple have their "i"s. It's only fair!!!

We still have 23 letters left in the alphabet system that other companies can choose from!!!

0815
Jun 10, 2011, 07:01 PM
First it was iPhone, then iOS and now iCloud. Apple is just an unethical company.

yes - very unethical to give the legal owner of a name a boatload of cash for the right to use the name. Really bad.

lilo777
Jun 10, 2011, 07:02 PM
yes - very unethical to give the legal owner of a name a boatload of cash for the right to use the name. Really bad.

Are you suggesting that Apple should pay to iCloud Communications?

0815
Jun 10, 2011, 07:08 PM
Are you suggesting that Apple should pay to iCloud Communications?

No - they are not the legal owners of the name .... PART of their name was trademarked (in the US and other countries) by some other company. "iCloud Communications" failed to trademark their name and any parts of their name. They had 26 years to do it, but didn't.

TheAppleDragon
Jun 10, 2011, 07:13 PM
Dear iCloud Communications,

It was announced days in advance that Apple's iCloud is real, you should have sued then. Now you're begging for attention.

Please shut up and join the crowd. I can't think of one unheard-of company that sued Apple that managed to get much *worthwhile* attention from it.

Thanks,

TAD~

0815
Jun 10, 2011, 07:15 PM
Dear iCloud Communications,

It was announced days in advance that Apple's iCloud is real, you should have sued then. Now you're begging for attention.

Please shut up and join the crowd. I can't think of one unheard-of company that sued Apple that managed to get much attention from it.

Thanks,

TAD~

preparing legal documents takes time (as Apple shows in many occasions) ... so that they sued a couple of days/weeks after initial rumors does not matter. But they should have protected their name 26 years ago when they started their telefon provider business (or at least once it was sure they stay in business). No it's to late.

chaosconan
Jun 10, 2011, 07:19 PM
preparing legal documents takes time (as Apple shows in many occasions) ... so that they sued a couple of days/weeks after initial rumors does not matter. But they should have protected their name 26 years ago when they started their telefon provider business (or at least once it was sure they stay in business). No it's to late.

How come they didn't sue Xcerion when they used iCoud? Is it because Xcerion didn't apply for the trademark?

lilo777
Jun 10, 2011, 07:22 PM
Apple started their life in business by hijacking well established name of a British company. How many trademarks have they bought since then? It seems like they are impotent to come up with something new.

farleysmaster
Jun 10, 2011, 07:23 PM
preparing legal documents takes time (as Apple shows in many occasions) ... so that they sued a couple of days/weeks after initial rumors does not matter. But they should have protected their name 26 years ago when they started their telefon provider business (or at least once it was sure they stay in business). No it's to late.

I think it's fairly unlikely they used the iCloud name 26 years ago, just because they've been trading for 26 years...

0815
Jun 10, 2011, 07:27 PM
How come they didn't sue Xcerion when they used iCoud? Is it because Xcerion didn't apply for the trademark?

As I said: they don't have any right on the name because they didn't trademark it. The big difference now is that they hope to get some kind of money in an out of court settlement to make them shut up.

I think it's fairly unlikely they used the iCloud name 26 years ago, just because they've been trading for 26 years...

Agreed - but whenever they started using that name for their business they should have protected it as every other good business does. I couldn't find any information yet to when they started using that name ...

chaosconan
Jun 10, 2011, 07:31 PM
Apple started their life in business by hijacking well established name of a British company. How many trademarks have they bought since then? It seems like they are impotent to come up with something new.

It's not hijacking. The british company is called "Apple Records" or it's parent "Apple Corps", totally different from "Apple Inc".

And their apple is green

http://www.schomakers.com/AppleRecords/AppleRecordsLogo.jpg

where apple's apple is colored

http://edibleapple.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/apple_rainbow_logo.jpeg

Dr McKay
Jun 10, 2011, 07:31 PM
Im seeing a lot of horrible opinions on here.

Basically that Apple should have ownership of everything starting with "i".
When will Steve Jobs sue the Prime Minister of iTaly? Or iCeland? Or iReland?

Apple should just be given the claim to iCloud because

A. They're Apple
B. They'll do something better with it (I dont care if they do, this isnt how this works)


"Apple should just buy".... As usual.


So why now? Apple made it no secret that they were branding their upcoming cloud service as icloud. It seems to me that this company could have approached Apple before the official announcement. It seems the only benefit of waiting is that the news is more dramatic after the official announcement and that equals greater publicity.

Only someone who hangs around on Tech sites would have known about iCloud before it was released. Hell, these people might not have found out about it until after WWDC when all the news sites started reporting it.

chaosconan
Jun 10, 2011, 07:40 PM
They should rewrite the trademark rules!

The new trademark rule should consist of a LOGO + TEXT instead of what we have right now which is just a text.
So, if you have the same TEXT but differing LOGO you are not violating any trademark. Problem solved, simple as that!!!

sboultbee
Jun 10, 2011, 07:41 PM
Agreed - but whenever they started using that name for their business they should have protected it as every other good business does. I couldn't find any information yet to when they started using that name ...

According to the State of Arizona, iCloud Communications, LLC wasn't formed until 2005. They must have been operating under a different business structure with a different name from 1985 - 2005 if their website is accurate.

http://starpas.azcc.gov/scripts/cgiip.exe/WService=wsbroker1/names-detail.p?name-id=L11997082&type=L.L.C.

Tonewheel
Jun 10, 2011, 07:43 PM
Good stuff! Loving these unknowing legal opinions based upon _____________ .

chaosconan
Jun 10, 2011, 07:45 PM
If I start a company called Dark Apple and have the following as my LOGO would that be violating any trademark?

http://www.wallpapers4iphone.info/images/wallpapers/iphone-wallpapers-dark-apple.jpg

lilo777
Jun 10, 2011, 07:47 PM
It's not hijacking. The british company is called "Apple Records" or it's parent "Apple Corps", totally different from "Apple Inc".

And their apple is green

Image (http://www.schomakers.com/AppleRecords/AppleRecordsLogo.jpg)

where apple's apple is colored

Image (http://edibleapple.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/apple_rainbow_logo.jpeg)

So different indeed. And that is why Apple sued Australian grocery store for having "identical" logo:

http://media.bestofmicro.com/,D-F-225987-3.jpg

BTW, is Apple still a tech company or a law firm?

wovel
Jun 10, 2011, 07:49 PM
Some people on here dismiss things far too quickly. The fact of the matter is iCloud Communications was and is a company. I don't think I'd be too happy if the main part of my company name was then used by a multinational corporation and heavily promoted.

People here are claiming they're doing it for the attention. For goodness sake. Anything revolving around Apple is going to fire a media frenzy, so it doesn't matter if some small business in Arizona initiates legal action or a large corporation does; both will receive equally large and unnecessary amounts of traffic.

I think you need to start putting yourself in the position of these plaintiffs; some, not all, do have some credibility in their accusations.

They did not care when a small (apparently also multi-national) corporation used their name. Apple also registered 12 more service marks for the name on June 1st. I wonder if they will even bother to try and oppose, or if they prefer to limit their shakedown to the courts. Apple purchased the right to the name from a company with a properly registered (and totally unopposed) mark. iCloud Communication has no chance of forcing Apple not to use the name.

Any fool with google can search from 2008-2010 and see Xcerion actively used the iCloud named and it was quite widely publicized in the US. iCloud Communications stole a name from a product they thought was dead and ignored their TM. They are totally unaware how big of a mistake they are making.

Apple even registered a SM in iCloud Communications core business. They better figure out how to deal with this appropriately before they lose their company name.





----- Original Mark Below -----
Word Mark ICLOUD
Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Computer programs for information management, for creating spreadsheets, tables, graphs and charts and for organizing and analyzing data, for word processing, for creation and display of presentations including text and graphics, for electronic mail and instant messaging services, for calendar and meeting scheduling, for desktop publishing, for project management, for business planning, for direct mail and business financial management, for online document collaboration, storage and editing services, for viewing and organizing audio-visual content such as music, video and photos, for creating and administrating online communities and groups, for creating and maintaining personal blogs, for online sharing of any digital content, for developing and testing new computer software, and for working as an operating system for integrating and aggregating online software applications and data to run in a single user interface on one computer; computer software for use as operating systems for embedded processors for application virtual machines, process virtual machines, and platform-independent machines; software for creating a virtual machine environment, performing process virtualization, interpreting semantic application code, and abstracting network resources
IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: Providing temporary use of on-line non-downloadable software for information management, for creating spreadsheets, tables, graphs and charts and for organizing and analyzing data, for word processing, for creation and display of presentations including text and graphics, for electronic mail and instant messaging services, calendar and meeting scheduling, for desktop publishing, for project management, business planning, for direct mail and business financial management, for online document collaboration, storage and editing services, for viewing and organizing audio-visual content such as music, video and photos, for creating and administrating online communities and groups, for creating and maintaining personal blogs, for online sharing of any digital content, for developing and testing new computer software, and for integrating and aggregating existing online services

Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Trademark Search Facility Classification Code LETS-1 I A single letter, multiples of a single letter or in combination with a design
SHAPES-MISC Miscellaneous shaped designs
Serial Number 79056140
Filing Date May 29, 2008
Current Filing Basis 66A
Original Filing Basis 66A
Published for Opposition November 17, 2009
Registration Number 3744821
International Registration Number 0970388
Registration Date February 2, 2010
Owner (REGISTRANT) Xcerion AB CORPORATION SWEDEN Drottninggatan 23, Box 569; SE-581 07 Linköping SWEDEN
Attorney of Record Lisa G. Widup
Priority Date November 29, 2007
Type of Mark TRADEMARK. SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

0815
Jun 10, 2011, 07:49 PM
If I start a company called Dark Apple and have the following as my LOGO would that be violating any trademark?

Image (http://www.wallpapers4iphone.info/images/wallpapers/iphone-wallpapers-dark-apple.jpg)

The name is probably fine ... the logo might be an issue since it is to close to the trademarked Apple Inc. logo.

Apple OC
Jun 10, 2011, 07:53 PM
who owns iLawyer ?

chaosconan
Jun 10, 2011, 07:53 PM
So different indeed. And that is why Apple sued Australian grocery store for having "identical" logo:

Image (http://media.bestofmicro.com/,D-F-225987-3.jpg)

BTW, is Apple still a tech company or a law firm?

Is that the logo they sued for or thats the logo they changed because of the sue?

0815
Jun 10, 2011, 07:54 PM
who owns iLawyer ?

That is the Apple Legal Department

chaosconan
Jun 10, 2011, 07:57 PM
The name is probably fine ... the logo might be an issue since it is to close to the trademarked Apple Inc. logo.

But isn't Apple's logo the COLORED APPLE? Are you saying the color or the patterns inside the apple does not matter, but its the shape of the apple that matters?

0815
Jun 10, 2011, 07:58 PM
But isn't Apple's logo the COLORED APPLE? Are you saying the color or the patterns inside the apple does not matter, but its the shape of the apple that matters?

Don't worry - they have also protected they modern version - a company can protect more than just one logo (but the shape alone might be good enough for legal protection)

wovel
Jun 10, 2011, 08:00 PM
Search for iCloud from 1/1/2008 to 12/31/2010 and you will found countless references to Xcerion's iCloud. This includes Crunchbase, Lifehacker, PCWorld, Youtube, CNet, and Geek.com articles. (And literally thousands more). It is much more likely the only reason Xcerion did not sue iCloud communications is because they never heard of them, not the other way around.


Xcerion created both iPhone and Android apps using the name. (The link for the App even goes to icloud.com, which Apple now owns).

This suit is bogus. iCloud communications is silly.

munkees
Jun 10, 2011, 08:01 PM
after viewing the icloud communications website, I think they should go hide under a rock, I cannot see how they are a very profitable company, the site is so poorly done.

My guess they think they have a case now the name has money, shame they did not go after the original iCloud.com name, surely this will work against them.

wovel
Jun 10, 2011, 08:04 PM
after viewing the icloud communications website, I think they should go hide under a rock, I cannot see how they are a very profitable company, the site is so poorly done.

My guess they think they have a case now the name has money, shame they did not go after the original iCloud.com name, surely this will work against them.

They couldn't. iCloud.Com was a widely publicized service protected by a properly registered trademark. (See my previous post). This whole thing is absurd.

chaosconan
Jun 10, 2011, 08:14 PM
Apple versus the World :D Who's going to win?

If Apple win's then they can rename it to iWorld, and make the planet Apple's iEarth. :D

wovel
Jun 10, 2011, 08:18 PM
preparing legal documents takes time (as Apple shows in many occasions) ... so that they sued a couple of days/weeks after initial rumors does not matter. But they should have protected their name 26 years ago when they started their telefon provider business (or at least once it was sure they stay in business). No it's to late.

They could have sued in 2007 or 2008 or 2009 or 2010 when doing a simple google search on their name would have popped up articles in major tech publications about the company that legally registered the Trademark...

chaosconan
Jun 10, 2011, 08:23 PM
Why didn't Apple just buy out Xcerion and merge their CloudMe with MobileMe to make one product called iCloud.

Cloudme interface somewhat looks like Windows 7, but after buying them, update the interface so that it looks like OS X Lion.

Steelers7510
Jun 10, 2011, 08:24 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_8 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E401 Safari/6533.18.5)

I don't see anyway that apple is going to lose this fight.

Bubba Satori
Jun 10, 2011, 08:26 PM
Blasphemers ! They must be punished. They are not worthy.

AppleScruff1
Jun 10, 2011, 08:29 PM
Apple copies again. How pathetic.

chaosconan
Jun 10, 2011, 08:30 PM
289056

How come apple does not have any booth girls? I've never seen any pretty girls on their events.

For the next event they should have something like this lined up along the stage while Steve presents iPad 3 :) and each girl holding an iPad 3 in their hand!!! :D

That would be so awesome :rolleyes:

AppleScruff1
Jun 10, 2011, 08:32 PM
289056

How come apple does not have any booth girls? I've never seen any pretty girls on their events.

For the next event they should have something like this lined up along the stage while Steve presents iPad 3 :) and each girl holding an iPad 3 in their hand!!! :D

That would be so awesome :rolleyes:

Because Apple followers don't like girls, they love Steve.

chaosconan
Jun 10, 2011, 08:37 PM
Because Apple followers don't like girls, they love Steve.

Thats fine. Have all the girls wear short tops that say "we love you steve"

AppleScruff1
Jun 10, 2011, 08:38 PM
Thats fine. Have all the girls wear short tops that say "we love you steve"

But they'd rather have Steve wear a short black turtleneck.

SlamJam12
Jun 10, 2011, 08:43 PM
Meanwhile Soundcloud.com should sue Apple for using their logo that is very similar. The only difference is the color and the iCloud logo is a complete cloud.

http://www.djtechmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/soundcloud.jpg

wovel
Jun 10, 2011, 08:49 PM
Why didn't Apple just buy out Xcerion and merge their CloudMe with MobileMe to make one product called iCloud.

Cloudme interface somewhat looks like Windows 7, but after buying them, update the interface so that it looks like OS X Lion.

Apple bought the rights to the iCloud name from Xcerion (the company that actively used the name nationally and internationally). They also acquired the domain name from them.

chaosconan
Jun 10, 2011, 08:58 PM
Meanwhile Soundcloud.com should sue Apple for using their logo that is very similar. The only difference is the color and the iCloud logo is a complete cloud.

Image (http://www.djtechmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/soundcloud.jpg)

What are you talking about. iCloud logo is nothing new. It comes from MobileMe Logo.

kiljoy616
Jun 10, 2011, 09:01 PM
http://geticloud.com/

In other news, Apple buys a small VoIP company. Brings it to its iCloud lineup of applications. Apple's stocks stay just about the same.

In other news, Apple buys small VoIP company, shuts it down and stock holder of said company the whole 10 of them rejoicing to finally see money.:D

kiljoy616
Jun 10, 2011, 09:03 PM
Apple bought the rights to the iCloud name from Xcerion (the company that actively used the name nationally and internationally). They also acquired the domain name from them.

And let us not forget they are a real company with real cloud computing products. :cool:

http://xcerion.com/

kiljoy616
Jun 10, 2011, 09:08 PM
289056

How come apple does not have any booth girls? I've never seen any pretty girls on their events.

For the next event they should have something like this lined up along the stage while Steve presents iPad 3 :) and each girl holding an iPad 3 in their hand!!! :D

That would be so awesome :rolleyes:

Because they have real products "that just work" I had to say it. If you put hot girls in place of products then no one really cares about the product I know I would not. Girls rock, but Apple products last longer in my hands.

I can imagine putting lots of very hot girls holding iphones in their hands making preaty posses and looking like they are talking to each other... :p sorry I just lost my self what exactly was I talking about, oh never mind be back in a while. :rolleyes:

jive turkey
Jun 10, 2011, 09:13 PM
Apple can win this. But seriously, Apple needs to hire some new people in marketing. icloud? Everyone is calling it the cloud now. Call it something original.

I disagree to an extent. Everyone is calling it "the cloud" because that is what it is. The technology/method is called cloud. Apple likes to name their products in a way that tells you what they do so you don't have to guess which app does what. iPhoto deals with photos, iTunes deals with tunes, the iPhone is a phone, iMovie lets you make movies, etc. Calling this anything but iCloud would be inconsistent. It is a boring name perhaps, but it is exactly how Apple wants to brand things.

AidenShaw
Jun 10, 2011, 09:17 PM
How come apple does not have any booth girls? I've never seen any pretty girls on their events.

Because Apple followers don't like girls, they love Steve.

If you put hot girls in place of products then no one really cares about the product I know I would not.

Just look at Apple's old logo (this being Pride Month), and think about why Apple doesn't have female booth babes.

chaosconan
Jun 10, 2011, 09:32 PM
First apple release web app development kit for iPhone.

iSO SDK for Web Apps

Then they release native app development kit for iPhone.

iOS SDK for Native Apps

What is their plan for 2012?
Once iCloud is fully operational, they will be releasing the web app development kit for iCloud and open it up to developers to write web applications that can be purchased in iTunes and executed in iCloud just like iCal, Address, Mail, Gallery and so forth.

They will have two types of web applications.
1. The first is client side web apps that stop after you logout of the cloud like Mail and iCal.
2. The second type will be server side web apps that run in the background even after you sign-out and they will charge you for hosting these types of applications in iCloud server farms. MONEY TO BE MADE!!!

In both cases you will have to use apple's API's that will allow you to write these applications through Xcode quickly and not follow any open source specifications for the web.

iOS SDK for iCloud

AidenShaw
Jun 10, 2011, 09:39 PM
What is their plan for 2012?

Building data centers in Europe and Asia to mirror the North Carolina site?

Why would people even consider a service with the *huge* single point of failure of only having one data center?

Sardonick007
Jun 10, 2011, 09:41 PM
Yea, that's life in the SUenited States of America now. Why didn't they go after icloud.com when it wasn't affiliated with Apple? Because their opportunistic bastards. Smart ones, but still.

toddybody
Jun 10, 2011, 09:47 PM
Crazy idea...let's allow attorneys to figure this out. I love how Joe blow MR member has a very contemplative and wikipedia supported legal opinion.

chaosconan
Jun 10, 2011, 09:50 PM
First apple release web app development kit for iPhone.

iSO SDK for Web Apps

Then they release native app development kit for iPhone.

iOS SDK for Native Apps

What is their plan for 2012?
Once iCloud is fully operational, they will be releasing the web app development kit for iCloud and open it up to developers to write web applications that can be purchased in iTunes and executed in iCloud just like iCal, Address, Mail, Gallery and so forth.

They will have two types of web applications.
1. The first is client side web apps that stop after you logout of the cloud like Mail and iCal.
2. The second type will be server side web apps that run in the background even after you sign-out and they will charge you for hosting these types of applications in iCloud server farms. MONEY TO BE MADE!!!

In both cases you will have to use apple's API's that will allow you to write these applications through Xcode quickly and not follow any open source specifications for the web.

iOS SDK for iCloud

Continuing my idea!!!

Use XCode to create two types of iCloud applications. Client Web App and Server Web App. Once the developer finishes writing the application they then can register with iTunes Store. After Apple approves, make it available in the App Store for iCloud.

If the end user buys a server type application provide costs associated with hosting the server type application (monthly charge while the server is running, cpu, memory, and storage needs). You can make the cost of hosting variable. As the application uses more storage you can increase the monthly cost. Or have them be able to buy fix storage sizes for the server app. So, you charge them based on the application usage (CPU, Memory, and Storage)

dernhelm
Jun 10, 2011, 09:50 PM
To make matters somewhat worse, there's some accusation that Apple's services are nearly identical to the ones being offered by iCloud Communciations.


Puleeze, How does VOIP have anything to do with what Apple is offering?

AppleScruff1
Jun 10, 2011, 09:59 PM
Just look at Apple's old logo (this being Pride Month), and think about why Apple doesn't have female booth babes.

Good point. :D They should have stayed with the rainbow.

AppleCat
Jun 10, 2011, 10:10 PM
A company that boasts 25 years in the IT but who have only been on the Internet since 2005. There are no mentions of them anywhere on the Internet except on their own website, which has no info of actual, real substance on neither them nor their products or services, but only phone numbers to call. Go figure.

I hope Apple don't settle this out of court by paying or buying up, because it appears to be the exact purpose for which this company was set up.

koruki
Jun 10, 2011, 10:21 PM
They are applying for some ****-payout

Stevamundo
Jun 10, 2011, 10:46 PM
I sue you, you sue me. You sue me because I farted. BLAH!

I know, I'll sue Mr. Jobs because we have the same first name. OK Mr. Jobs be prepared to be sued your pants off by STEVE Harper, buddy! :rolleyes:

Doesn't these rich companies INCLUDING APPLE have better things to do?

42streetsdown
Jun 10, 2011, 11:09 PM
i don't understand why people use the 'i' in front their products. Apple has done it for a long time and it's profitable for them. But other companies use it and it's just cheesy. hell apple uses it and it's cheesy, but they get away with it cuz they already have that brand recognition

hayhay
Jun 10, 2011, 11:29 PM
I doubt the 1 year and a half period that Xcerion had a filing with the USPTO is sufficient to have iCloud Communications' claims thrown out.



iNternet. ;)

iGnorant

hayhay
Jun 10, 2011, 11:32 PM
What are you talking about. iCloud logo is nothing new. It comes from MobileMe Logo.

Yeah because MobileMe has been around for so long...oh wait

hayhay
Jun 10, 2011, 11:36 PM
iDont give an *****...just trademarked both of those so don't even think about it

wovel
Jun 10, 2011, 11:53 PM
Yeah because MobileMe has been around for so long...oh wait

About as long as Soundcloud...

lilo777
Jun 11, 2011, 12:05 AM
Is that the logo they sued for or thats the logo they changed because of the sue?

That's the logo for which Apple sued them.

AppleScruff1
Jun 11, 2011, 12:32 AM
Apple suing over a logo is actually funny considering they copied theirs from the Beatles.

bobob
Jun 11, 2011, 12:57 AM
Apple suing over a logo is actually funny considering they copied theirs from the Beatles.
Copied?
http://www.everythingenglish.com/catalog/beatlesapplest.jpghttp://edibleapple.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/apple_rainbow_logo.jpeg

diogenis
Jun 11, 2011, 01:02 AM
It's about time for Apple to finally abandon the i..younameit naming of all their products. They can use something else maybe an idea would be to simply use their apple icon instead of the stupid i and so, no more suits. And the apple icon is an now extremely recognizable logo.
cloud or
icloud? which one is better?

Mr. Gates
Jun 11, 2011, 01:14 AM
Patent Wars are the next big thing !

Next it will be "I'm gonna tell Mom" !

AppleScruff1
Jun 11, 2011, 01:27 AM
Copied?
http://www.everythingenglish.com/catalog/beatlesapplest.jpghttp://edibleapple.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/apple_rainbow_logo.jpeg

Since Apple has had to pay the Beatles a couple of time for settlement of the matter, I think copying was a fair statement.

Stiss
Jun 11, 2011, 01:52 AM
Brb.

Going to set up iCar.

Rajani Isa
Jun 11, 2011, 02:04 AM
It has nothing to do with the company, that is the point.

Trademark has value, that is why you defend it. If you do not defend it, even if the company infringing on it is small, then you lose the trademark. If a pulp fiction author uses "Styrofoam" to describe a polystyrene foam cup, the owners of that trademark (Dow Chemical) HAVE to send a cease and desist at the earliest knowledge of that infringement. It's a cost of business. They aren't going to get millions in damages from that author, and their lawyers won't write the C&D for free, and frankly their trademark division which scours for infringements doesn't operate for free either, but because the trademark has value, they do it.


Bad example. Unless the pulp fiction author was using "Styrofoam" as a selling point of the book. Otherwise it falls under fair use (See trademark issues with "Captain Marvel" for example - both DC and Marvel have a character named that, but only one is allowed to have a comic book named that due to trademark laws)

No - they are not the legal owners of the name .... PART of their name was trademarked (in the US and other countries) by some other company. "iCloud Communications" failed to trademark their name and any parts of their name. They had 26 years to do it, but didn't.
26 years? from what I understand (from others' digging), they've been operating under that name for only a few years.

And yeah, their website...
How come they didn't sue Xcerion when they used iCoud? Is it because Xcerion didn't apply for the trademark?
Xcerion did apply - that's why (in part) Apple bought the TM from them.
It's not hijacking. The british company is called "Apple Records" or it's parent "Apple Corps", totally different from "Apple Inc".
If you ever need to waste time... here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer

Apple vs. Apple Corp has had a long invovled history, and not just (if it even really involved) their logos.

Thats fine. Have all the girls wear short tops that say "we love you steve"

Shouldn't they wear jeans and black turtlenecks, with glasses?

Just look at Apple's old logo (this being Pride Month), and think about why Apple doesn't have female booth babes.
That's horribly sexist.
Yea, that's life in the SUenited States of America now. Why didn't they go after icloud.com when it wasn't affiliated with Apple? Because their opportunistic bastards. Smart ones, but still.

Smart ones? No, smart ones would of kept up on the use of "iCloud" and objected to it's registration in the US by another company.

cocacolakid
Jun 11, 2011, 03:31 AM
Apple can win this. But seriously, Apple needs to hire some new people in marketing. icloud? Everyone is calling it the cloud now. Call it something original.

How about Gobblestack?

Bonte
Jun 11, 2011, 03:38 AM
....
What is their plan for 2012?
Once iCloud is fully operational, they will be releasing the web app development kit for iCloud and open it up to developers to write web applications that can be purchased in iTunes and executed in iCloud just like iCal, Address, Mail, Gallery and so forth.

In Windows Weekly a dev said that there are API-hooks for developers, maybe not from the start but that is indeed the next step Apple is planning.

robecq
Jun 11, 2011, 03:54 AM
iCloud Communication, don't you know that Apple owns the 'i'? :eek:

Actually Intel own the 'i'. It was a long time ago for some, but I seem to remember intel tried to trademark i386 i486. ;)

jettredmont
Jun 11, 2011, 04:16 AM
Ever file for a trademark?
It's neither cheap (for a small company) or easy.
Been through the process twice myself. No thanks.

I will agree to a limited extent that an annual search of the USPTO filings would be in order, but again, you need to also take into consideration the scope of such searches and the basic understanding of how they work.

My wife's company does global searches in TESS and then vets any potential infringing filing.
Some companies simply lack the resources or even the knowledge on how to do this.

I suppose "cheap" and "easy" are indeed relative terms. Yes, I have filed for trademarks, and it was, in my opinion, cheap and easy ("easy" because most of the work was done by a law firm, "cheap" because most of said work is boilerplate documentation and prior registration searches which don't exactly need the "big guns" of any law firm to accomplish).

To put some hard numbers in place, lawyer fees tend to be in the $1000-2000 range for a good lawyer (you might get by with a bit cheaper if you've been through the process and know what to expect and are willing to do more of the legwork yourself), and the trademark itself is around $300/class. It would be rare to spend $5,000 on trademarking your company name.

Certainly compared with the cost of a single lawsuit as plaintiff trying to prove that you really should own the trademark, when you can not hope to get any damages out of the defendant because you didn't register your trademark trademark applications are cheap and easy.

Compared with the cost of procuring office space and server farm space, and bringing on your first employee, trademarking your company name is freaking dirt cheap. And easy :)

This is just business 101. It's what you have to do in the US (and I'm assuming the rest of the world as well), unless your company name is a direct derivative of your own name, and especially if your company/product name is somewhat "generic".

Jelite
Jun 11, 2011, 04:17 AM
Apple will give them a big bag of money then we'll never hear of them again.

cliveren13
Jun 11, 2011, 04:30 AM
Once again appple is right everyone is wrong no apple is wrong why should i change my name so u a bigger company can use it apple tells you to jump u say how high right off a cliff

sangv
Jun 11, 2011, 04:32 AM
The only thing they want is money from apple that's all...
It's been habit now to get the name previously and have lawsuit against the big companies if they had got the services of their name ...

Popeye206
Jun 11, 2011, 04:47 AM
I think Apple knew what they were doing. How could they not have found these guys when they did their trademark work?

I think it's simple. iCloud Communications is the trademark for a company with a VOIP service. iCloud is a product for sharing and storing. I think they will deem them different enough.

Also... I would bet iCloud Communications also knew what they were doing. With a name like that, how could you not figure someday Apple would be knocking on your iDoor. :D

wackymacky
Jun 11, 2011, 05:18 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

Still discussing this 6 years on!

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=60671

glossywhite
Jun 11, 2011, 05:54 AM
Who do we think's gonna win this law suit? The fruit!

Psychj0e
Jun 11, 2011, 06:18 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

This thread must have posts from some of the most vile and vulgar people on the internet.

I own or work with every hardware product Apple produce, but I really cannot fathom how people can take Apples side on this one - this is a huge multinational company stomping all over some guys livelihood.

What is wrong with you people?

usptact
Jun 11, 2011, 06:42 AM
Don't know what at Apple they were thinking, but surely they should've known that such a name already exists! Now what?

farleysmaster
Jun 11, 2011, 06:49 AM
Building data centers in Europe and Asia to mirror the North Carolina site?

Why would people even consider a service with the *huge* single point of failure of only having one data center?

Wasn't there a story about them renting 3rd party racks, somewhere? I'm guessing (hoping) they learned some lessons from Mobile Me.

gnasher729
Jun 11, 2011, 06:55 AM
I think it's simple. iCloud Communications is the trademark for a company with a VOIP service. iCloud is a product for sharing and storing. I think they will deem them different enough.

Except iCloud Communications doesn't seem to have a trademark. Which means anyone could apply for a trademark, and then it would be this companies job to try to stop them. They didn't do that. And 18 months later the trademark, unopposed so far, was sold to Apple. To late to complain then, I think.


I own or work with every hardware product Apple produce, but I really cannot fathom how people can take Apples side on this one - this is a huge multinational company stomping all over some guys livelihood.

Some guy who didn't do his homework. Some guy who couldn't be bothered protecting his name (anyway, you don't even have to get a trademark, just applying would have given them some protection because then their name would have been on the record). And they let someone get a trademark and use it for eighteen months, and they only realised what was going on when Apple bought the trademark from its rightful owner. The other little guy who _did_ his homework was rewarded with 4.5 million dollars.

powers74
Jun 11, 2011, 07:20 AM
Nice logo...

Giuly
Jun 11, 2011, 07:52 AM
I offer them $5 if they rename to iVoIP. :rolleyes:

"Services nearly identical to Apple's cloud service" = iChat AV (minus the V), FaceTime (minus the face) and the calling capabilities of the iPhone?

bobob
Jun 11, 2011, 08:05 AM
Since Apple has had to pay the Beatles a couple of time for settlement of the matter, I think copying was a fair statement.

We are discussing names, not logos.

MagnusVonMagnum
Jun 11, 2011, 08:50 AM
It's about time for Apple to finally abandon the i..younameit naming of all their products. They can use something else maybe an idea would be to simply use their apple icon instead of the stupid i and so, no more suits. And the apple icon is an now extremely recognizable logo.
cloud or
icloud? which one is better?

Why on earth does it have to have the word "cloud" in it period, 'i' or no 'i'? Why not mist or rain or limbo? Hell, go with cotton candy (good with candy Apples and what not for goodness sake, but cloud? Ugh.

Cloud reminds me of toilet paper every time and personally I don't think Apple should want people to think of a bear with toilet paper sticking to its butt (because the bear doesn't know to use a wet wipe) when they think of Apple. Sticky toffee pudding stuck on a bear's bottom with toilet paper dangling off. Welcome to the Charmin Cloud! :eek:

bobajoul
Jun 11, 2011, 09:08 AM
Just another legal troll.

KnightWRX
Jun 11, 2011, 09:29 AM
Just another legal troll.

Seeing how these guys are a real company with a real product and have been around for a while, I don't see how you can seriously say something like this with a straight face, unless you have no idea what it means and are just repeating things you read on the Internet.

silentnite
Jun 11, 2011, 09:44 AM
Oh! these little people never learn. Enjoy your 5 minutes of fame that's about all you'll get. On to the next one

Sidlines
Jun 11, 2011, 10:16 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

This isn't going anywhere. The company was incorporated on 5/12/2011 in AZ. I wish MR had bothered looking that fact up with the AZ Secretary of State and included it in the article.

AppleScruff1
Jun 11, 2011, 10:20 AM
We are discussing names, not logos.

And my reply was to a post about logos, wasn't it?

KnightWRX
Jun 11, 2011, 10:28 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

This isn't going anywhere. The company was incorporated on 5/12/2011 in AZ. I wish MR had bothered looking that fact up with the AZ Secretary of State and included it in the article.

The domain was registered in 2005 (geticloud.com) though :

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: GETICLOUD.COM
Created on: 03-Mar-05
Expires on: 03-Mar-13
Last Updated on: 17-May-10

realeric
Jun 11, 2011, 10:34 AM
iCloud communication will lose both money and their name. "If you don't use it, you will lose it."

Here is an example: www.nissan.com

Cheese
Jun 11, 2011, 10:36 AM
For now, Apple owns the letter i. (Specifically the lower case version). If "someone" owned a toilet paper company and had a product called iPoop, they should think about changing the name. Apple could begin talks with Toto about a fully interactive bidet that has free wifi, and even the capability to order and pay for lunch whilst one is on the throne! (NOT an actual rumor... but if it happens, ya heard it here first!) It is really about consumers getting confused with the overlap of an identifier. If there is enough confusion, people simply won't take more than a microsecond to make a judgement call about an identifier label before they file it away. Thats the most basic of all marketing. If something sounds familiar, the average consumer will take nearly 1.5 microseconds to see if it is what they know already, and perhaps in that split of a microsecond, they will actually examine the product to see if they want or need it. We consumers are doomed once this actually begins working for 50% of companies and their products. Until then we are moving towards Apples' iCloud, knocking on the sky...

BTW, the legal troll company doesn't deserve a dime or a nanosecond of attention. They don't have to go away, because in the mind of the majority of consumers, they never existed.

KnightWRX
Jun 11, 2011, 10:37 AM
iCloud communication will lose both money and their name. "If you don't use it, you will lose it."

Here is an example: www.nissan.com

Read the details, very very different case.