Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple vs. Apple
I may have missed this in some other post as I have not read through them all, but has no one yet mentioned Apple vs. Apple. Apple computers DID get hit by Apple Records for that name. It was decided that so long as they weren't in the business of making music, so long as they were Apple Computers, all was well.
When they brought out the iPod, Apple Records hit 'em again, and there was a tussle over whether they were infringing on Apple Record's territory. Again, it was settled.
I think that kinda shows the biggest problem of all with iCloud here. Which is that the two are very different things--unlike, by the way, App stores labeled App stores selling Apps. Apple Records had a case, but the resolution came when it was clear that Apple Records could not be confused with Apple Computers. iCloud may have a case, but I don't think it will be resolved in their favor if they can't also prove that what they are selling is identical to what Apple is selling with the name iCloud.
I also find it interesting the way people are taking sides here. Some view iCloud as the "little guy vs. big-mean-Apple!" and others as a small con man trying to bilk deep-pockets Apple out of money. I don't know enough about iCloud to cast aspersions on it or its choice of name--and until we do, I don't think it should be cast as a grifter. Likewise, just because Apple is a big corporation doesn't mean that it should automatically be cast as a villainous Goliath.
I would presume that Apple looked for the iCloud trademark, found it, paid for it, and went ahead. If iCloud didn't put itself on the map by registering that trademark then Apple can't be seen as deliberately trying to crush it. At best, it accidentally stepped on it and iCloud is now protesting that. If iCloud has a case, and I'm sure Apple's very well paid and expert lawyers will find out if it does, then they will settle the issue somehow. If iCloud is bogus, no case and just trying to rip Apple off, then Apple again, has every right to go ahead with a court case.
I may have missed this in some other post as I have not read through them all, but has no one yet mentioned Apple vs. Apple. Apple computers DID get hit by Apple Records for that name. It was decided that so long as they weren't in the business of making music, so long as they were Apple Computers, all was well.
When they brought out the iPod, Apple Records hit 'em again, and there was a tussle over whether they were infringing on Apple Record's territory. Again, it was settled.
I think that kinda shows the biggest problem of all with iCloud here. Which is that the two are very different things--unlike, by the way, App stores labeled App stores selling Apps. Apple Records had a case, but the resolution came when it was clear that Apple Records could not be confused with Apple Computers. iCloud may have a case, but I don't think it will be resolved in their favor if they can't also prove that what they are selling is identical to what Apple is selling with the name iCloud.
I also find it interesting the way people are taking sides here. Some view iCloud as the "little guy vs. big-mean-Apple!" and others as a small con man trying to bilk deep-pockets Apple out of money. I don't know enough about iCloud to cast aspersions on it or its choice of name--and until we do, I don't think it should be cast as a grifter. Likewise, just because Apple is a big corporation doesn't mean that it should automatically be cast as a villainous Goliath.
I would presume that Apple looked for the iCloud trademark, found it, paid for it, and went ahead. If iCloud didn't put itself on the map by registering that trademark then Apple can't be seen as deliberately trying to crush it. At best, it accidentally stepped on it and iCloud is now protesting that. If iCloud has a case, and I'm sure Apple's very well paid and expert lawyers will find out if it does, then they will settle the issue somehow. If iCloud is bogus, no case and just trying to rip Apple off, then Apple again, has every right to go ahead with a court case.
And just to piss you off even more, I hope Apple just writes a big settlement check and helps them rebrand.
Too bad you have nothing of worth Apple could simply take from you, then we could really have a good laugh.
And just to piss you off even more, I hope Apple just writes a big settlement check and helps them rebrand.
Too bad you have nothing of worth Apple could simply take from you, then we could really have a good laugh.
Why would apple giving them money piss me off? I'm not quite sure what you mean by my worth? Why would apple want to take anything from me?
There is a little whiff of troll in your posts now.
Unfortunately for iCloud Communications that extra word on their trading name does and will make all the difference if this goes all the way to court.
The case they can argue I see is Apple is so big and popular that they would almost tern the term into universal which means no matter how it is used Apple use of it hits all trademarks no matter what.
Apple's popularity is going to get them into some trouble in that sense.
No. Not really. It's clear you either don't have legal expertise or you're getting poor legal advice from someone. Either way - it doesn't matter - you're no lawyer.
Interesting point. Combined with them being a VoIP company will make a difference.
Especially since Apple bought the US (and other countries?) trademark for iCloud and iCloud.com from the company whose service is now known as CloudMe. And Apple's intended uses of the trademark aligns with the uses listed in the US trademark they bought.
All in all, this is mostly a non-issue for Apple. Except the journalists don't research enough facts before they publish stories.
And none in yours ? Why would you wish harm to come to a small business ?
Maybe a little in mine too
I would like harm to come to them because I believe that it is a BS lawsuit and that an example should be made. Right or wrong, it is only my opinion.
Why is it BS ? Are you a judge on this case ? The plaintiff think their case has merit, let them litigate it and let justice prevail. If they are wrong, they will lose, if they are right, they won't.
Wishing harm to come to pass on them for believing they have a right to their business name is awful. Everyone has a right to protect their IP, including Apple, including all other industry players.
And lose ?
http://www.macnews.com/content/apple-pays-creative-100-million-ipod-related-lawsuit
"Why do some people refuse to live inside reality ?" is a much better question.
Reality is boring.
The news forums tend to do that to people. The only place you wont find trolling is the Developer Boards.
Last edited:
Walking over? No. But if you run a company, especially one you want to grow, there are some basic things you do. Like free searches for the term "iCloud" on the USPTO site. Even if "deciphering" the details might take a lawyer, you can still see if ANYONE has made a grab for it in the US.
Obviously they didn't, or else they would of gone after what is now "CloudMe".
I may be mistaken, but wasn't Nissan known as Nissan outside the US before they ever started the Datsun name? Seem to recall somewhere it was an attempt at a more "domestic" sounding name to improve sales.
Sheesh, IBM is just an abbreviation?
They might not be required to file for it, but it's simple and free to just check to see if there are /any/ TM registrations for a term on the USPTO website.
And they could not of "sat on it a little longer" - it's not a patent or copyright. It's a defend or lose it - and where were they while Xcerion trademarked it more than a year and half ago?
We are not blaming them for existing. We are blaming them for not doing basic upkeep on themselves.
It's like someone suffering from a nut allergy. We don't blame them for the allergy, we blame them for not paying attention to the bold line saying "WARNING : CONTAINS NUTS" right next to the container they reach into for a taste.
What happened in the Nissan case: Some guy named Uzi Nissan running a computer store decided, quite rightfully and legitimately, that it would be nice to have the www.nissan.com domain. He applied for it, he got it, he used it. Perfectly deserved and legitimately. Not one of the domain squatters that buy names they think someone might want to use; he wanted it for himself because that's his family name. Nissan Motors was just asleep and realized years too late that the domain was long gone.
The sensible approach would have been to make Uzi Nissan an offer that is too good to refuse. That's how Apple got trademarks like Macintosh, iPhone, iOS, "Apple" for use in the music business, and so on. It seems that first there was a personality clash between Uzi Nissan and whoever contacted him, so he refused to sell. Then they dragged him into court, where they would have lost if Uzi Nissan had known more about how courts work. He made some mistake which allowed Nissan Motors to prevent him from using the website to promote his business. Which was a rather idiotic thing to do because it didn't help Nissan Motors one bit. I bet if Nissan Motors had signed a cheque at the very start for half of what they ended up paying to their lawyers, they would have got the domain name. That was a case where everyone lost and nobody gained anything.
Well, I think Apple would ask what actions iCloud Communications has taken to get the iCloud.com domain for Xcerion. And what actions iCloud Communications has taken to stop Xcerion from using the "iCloud" name. And what actions iCloud Communications has taken to stop Xcerion from acquiring the "iCloud" trademark. If they didn't take any actions at all, then it would seem that they weren't worried about their trademark, but are just trying to grab some money.
Valid arguments and that would need to be proved or disproved. However - their could easily be an argument stating that Apple's use of iCloud is different than Xcerion's was in terms of damages. You could argue that both Xcerion and iCloud Communications could co-exist without damages to either of their companies business - but Apple taking ownership of iCloud could "kill" the use of the word for either company.
Also - there's a difference between a name and a domain name. Xcerion's COMPANY name is not iCloud. And therein is the difference as well. iClouds's lawsuit will be over name confusion - not domain.
So while your arguments are extremely valid - they might not be relevant based on how the case is presented and/or the actual charges filed.