iCloud Communications Files Suit Against Apple Over 'iCloud' Name

[ghostlines]

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

 

[tbrinkma]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[ThunderSkunk]

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]

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]

Just call it MiCloud and be done with it lol.

 

[KnightWRX]

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

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]

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.

 

[gramirez2012]

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]

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]

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.

"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]

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]

From Wikipedia.

"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]

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.

 

[chaosconan]

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]

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,

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

 

[chadley_chad]

Sue the b*****ds

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]

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]

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]

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."