Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iCloud Communications Files Suit Against Apple Over 'iCloud' Name

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

thejadedmonkey said:
GeekLawyer said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Nah court fees are expensive mate...
That and not using a lawyer is disrespectful to the judge, so puts you on the back foot from the start.
 
chaosconan said:
View attachment 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:
Click to expand...
I think they should hire hot geek girls that like and use Apple products like that Justine girl with those silly Youtube videos and Veronica Belmont. Not only are they hot but they are geeks who know all about Apple products.

Apple probably would not go for it because then you would hear a vocal minority demanding male models. Apple doesn't want to get in the middle of controversy so they keep their advertising family friendly which is acceptable to just about everyone.

Maybe they could have booth babes if they started presenting at Vegas tech events.

Anyone here remember Kiki Stockhammer? She was a spokeswoman for Newtek who actually new how to use their software/hardware.
 
gnasher729 said:
They actually ********* up so badly that they put Uzi Nissan into a position where it is impossible for him to ever accept money for the rights to the website from Nissan. Basically, if he ever agreed to sell the name to Nissan Motors, Nissan Motors would have him by the balls and get the name for free. Result: They will never, ever, ever get the name.
Click to expand...

I thought the final ruling reversed all that and that Nissan Computer now had the right to do whatever on their site (e.g. their site contains the link to the information on the lawsuit). Their problem now is that Nissan Motor wants to go after computer trademarks now for the Nissan name, starting the lawsuits all over again on trademarks instead.
 
MagnusVonMagnum said:
I thought the final ruling reversed all that and that Nissan Computer now had the right to do whatever on their site (e.g. their site contains the link to the information on the lawsuit). Their problem now is that Nissan Motor wants to go after computer trademarks now for the Nissan name, starting the lawsuits all over again on trademarks instead.
Click to expand...

I hope the judge who presides over their next lawsuit, slaps a big fine on Nissan motors, and awards Uzi with a huge cash award.
 
henchman said:
I hope the judge who presides over their next lawsuit, slaps a big fine on Nissan motors, and awards Uzi with a huge cash award.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why Datsun wanted to call themselves Nissan in the first place (i.e. a Jewish name for a month). According to Wikipedia, "The name 'Nissan' originated during the 1930s as an abbreviation"[4] used on the Tokyo stock market for Nippon Sangyo." So it's just an abbreviation? Sheesh.
 
I want to know why people think it's apples right to simply own, by default, anything beginning with the letter "I", even if somebody else has been using it.
 
1.) Owner/Stockholder's Dream Multi-Millions, Let play begin!
2.) Grand Opening iCloud Communication
3.) Wait till right time (hit jackpot).
4.) Apple announced (smell money is coming)
5.) Filed Lawsuit
6.) Settlement = Apple buyout company.
7.) Owner/Stockholder take multi-million home (early retire)
8.) FIRED iCloud Communication employees
 
ten-oak-druid said:
1. They should have filed for the trademark.
2. Why did they wait until after Apple's announcement to to this? It was no secret Apple was going to use the (stupid) name of icloud.

Its all publicity of course. Look at the people who now know their company exists. No advertising agency could give them the publicity this lost court case will give them for the price of a court fee. I can't blame them. They will get publicity now and again when they change their name. It will be good for them.
Click to expand...


1. Not legally required to file for it and it is still protected. Plus it cost a far amount of money to do that and often times small companies do not want to jump threw the hoops to do so.

2. Does not change fact that the name and trademark belongs to them. Hell they could of sat on it a little longer knowing that Apple would more or less be forced to buy them off. I am also willing to bet Apple knew of this company before they went after the name iCloud so they should of taken care of it then. All Apple did was cause the value of the trademark iCloud to increase so it is going to cost them more.

End result is Apple is going to pay millions to get the the name and iCloud Communication will changed its name.
 
iApple

s8film40 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think they tried, but could not patent it. I think they were told it is too generic
 
Isnt icloud comm a voip and apples cioud something totally different?

that would be like monster cables suing monster energy drinks for copying their name. They are not really even the same thing are they?
 
The fact that they did not file to trademark the term, the fact that they failed to defend it when it was in use by the previous iCloud domain owner, and the fact that the product is in a different market will make this a difficult case for iCloud Communications to win. In addition, Apple demonstrated good faith by buying the iCloud domain name (if anything, iCloud Communications should be suing the previous holder of the iCloud.com domain for selling something that they didn't allegedly own). I believe iCloud Communications is hoping for a cash settlement to go away.
 
Rodimus Prime said:
1. Not legally required to file for it and it is still protected. Plus it cost a far amount of money to do that and often times small companies do not want to jump threw the hoops to do so.

2. Does not change fact that the name and trademark belongs to them. Hell they could of sat on it a little longer knowing that Apple would more or less be forced to buy them off. I am also willing to bet Apple knew of this company before they went after the name iCloud so they should of taken care of it then. All Apple did was cause the value of the trademark iCloud to increase so it is going to cost them more.

End result is Apple is going to pay millions to get the the name and iCloud Communication will changed its name.
Click to expand...

I still stand by what I wrote. And this is for publicity more than an actual lawsuit. And I hope they get the publicity they are seeking. They don't actually have a case.
 
MacinDoc said:
The fact that they did not file to trademark the term, the fact that they failed to defend it when it was in use by the previous iCloud domain owner, and the fact that the product is in a different market will make this a difficult case for iCloud Communications to win.
Click to expand...

You missed one… the fact that Apple's legal team is probably bigger than iCloud Communications' entire operation.

I believe iCloud Communications is hoping for a cash settlement to go away.
Click to expand...

Bingo. It's not about stopping Apple from using the name. It's about cashing in on it.
 
Psychj0e said:
How is this bull, the company is six years old & doesn't want the branding it's built up to be wiped out by Apple. Anybody that thinks that is acceptable must be living in a fantasy land.
Click to expand...

How has Apple wiped out its branding? This is likely the most publicity iCloud Communications ever had, or will ever get again. Even if some consumers did start associating their product with Apple, that association would only benefit them one would think — so I can't see they stand to lose anything at all. They saw a commercial opportunity and they're milking it, that's all — firstly for publicity, and secondly for a cash settlement from Apple.

As others have said, it's commonplace for different companies to share the same name when the products or services are unrelated, and these two products seem pretty unrelated to me. Surely, in the year 2011, we're well past the point of lumping all 'Internet services' together.
 
This is ridiculous, Apple is always quick to defend itself, but the moment Apple infringes against someone else, everyone seems to think it's the small company's fault for even existing...
 
ten-oak-druid said:
I still stand by what I wrote. And this is for publicity more than an actual lawsuit. And I hope they get the publicity they are seeking. They don't actually have a case.
Click to expand...

If you mean Apple doesn't have a case. You are correct. If you're talking about iCloud Communications. You're wrong. Clearly have little to no legal experience or education and should never give advice :)

I don't doubt there's a publicity angle. Any company would be foolish NOT to take advantage of the situation. But that's irrelevant to the case. The fact is - they've been doing business as iCloud for over 5 years. Long before Apple created iCloud - or more specifically - named their service and documented it.

And since Apple is so litigious at the drop of a hat - they should expect others to throw suits at them as well. Turnabout is fair play.
 
chaosconan said:
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:
Click to expand...
Ah, well, that milking is parr for the course. If it makes you feel any better, I'm pretty sure they milk everyone from lowly homeowner to powerful multi-national company. A relative of mine wanted to do some home improvements and couldn't get the go-ahead from the city until he promised to also pay for a handicapped "dip" in the sidewalk on the corner where his home was located.

I can pretty well promise you that in the case of the city making demands it's likely that Apple is getting the same treatment as everyone else, just on a slightly larger scale. Cities shouldn't blackmail for approval of things (or allow themselves to be bribed into approving, come to that), but they almost always do.
 
samcraig said:
The fact is - they've been doing business as iCloud for over 5 years.
Click to expand...

If you are going to claim something is a fact the least you could do is get it right. They have not been doing business as icloud for over 5 years. They have been doing business as iCloud Communications for over 5 years. That is a very important difference. I hope apple cripple this company.
 
M7ck said:
If you are going to claim something is a fact the least you could do is get it right. They have not been doing business as icloud for over 5 years. They have been doing business as iCloud Communications for over 5 years. That is a very important difference. I hope apple cripple this company.
Click to expand...

Oh please. You're going to call the posting police on that one. I was shortening the name for brevity.

You hope Apple cripples the company? Nice. Very nice. At the very least - I hope it's a wash with NO winners or losers. But to wish that a company gets crippled just because they choice a name of someone you "love" so much is pretty obnoxious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back