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

shaynes said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Bear said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
"services are nearly identical"?

To make matters somewhat worse, there's some accusation that Apple's services are nearly identical to the ones being offered by iCloud Communciations.
Click to expand...

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.
 
shaynes said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

KnightWRX said:
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.
Click to expand...
Filed and registered. Xcerion owned the US Trademark. iCloud Communication had plenty of time to file suit.
 
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.
 
0815 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Of course they didn't. Why would you file a lawsuit if there's no money involved?
 
iCloud Suit said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
KnightWRX said:
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
Click to expand...

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).
Click to expand...
 
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...
 
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.
 
Bear said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
shaynes said:
Of course they didn't. Why would you file a lawsuit if there's no money involved?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Doctor Q said:
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?
Click to expand...

If your business sucks and another one comes along thats better, youre going to look even worse.
 
Can't we admit Apple is arrogant...

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...).
 
mingoglia said:
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
Click to expand...

Troll on, brotha.
 
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