Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Sued Over Use of iCloud Name

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the the-i's-have-it dept.

Cloud 394

tekgoblin writes "iCloud Communications is suing Apple for the use of the iCloud name which they have the rights to. According to the lawsuit: '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.'"

cancel ×

394 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The fools... (5, Funny)

namgge (777284) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419002)

Do they not realise that Apple own the letter 'i'?

Re:The fools... (1)

levis501 (1788878) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419028)

Ha, you beat me to it!

Re:The fools... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36419038)

If I were them, I would cut a deal to piggy back on the Apple brand somehow. I've never even heard of that company before this lawsuit. This is a Good Thing!

Re:The fools... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36419290)

Syriausly? Apple has been around for years!! 5 yrs, at least idk You never herd of them?

Re:The fools... (3, Insightful)

chill (34294) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419056)

That'd be fun. Sesame Street as prior art!

In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36419092)

Apple trademarks /^i[A-Z]([A-Z]+|[a-z]+)$/.

Re:The fools... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36419194)

Well hopefully apple is going to get CRAPPED all over big time at last

Re:The fools... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36419448)

What I don't get is the fact that Apple currently owns the iCloud trademark. iCloud Communications does not have any filed trademark. Maybe I just am not getting it, but if someone is claiming Trademark infringement, don't they actually need to have *a* trademark?

iRaq and iRan are both in violation as well (5, Funny)

aapold (753705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419502)

That is what this whole gulf war was really about.

Re:The fools... (1)

trust_jmh (651322) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419508)

So true. Just ask Nintendo about the Wii, they will confirm it.

Trademark... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36419024)

Then why didn't they apply for a trademark? Why didn't they complain when that Swedish company Apple bought iCloud.com from registered the iCloud trademark in the US?

Re:Trademark... (2)

nattt (568106) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419036)

Exactly! If you want to protect it, trademark it. Did they name their company with an "i" post iPod or pre "ipod" though?

Re:Trademark... (4, Informative)

magarity (164372) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419096)

Then why didn't they apply for a trademark?

Because they're not just 'iCloud' - they're 'iCloud Communications'. They think the name Apple picked is too close to their own name. Kind of like 'Apple Computer' is similar to 'Apple Music' and one might think they are two subsidiaries of the same company, like 'Sony Computer' and 'Sony Music'.

market segment and VOIP (0)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419252)

iCloud communications sells VOIP. apple sells iphones that sync in the icloud. Are these different market segments? If apple makes that argument, like they did initially with apple records then perhaps apple will not be allowed to sell VOIP down the road, or will have to remove all voip or skype apps from the app store.

As far as subsidiary confusion goes that does not work against icloud.

Re:Trademark... (3, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419400)

What the OP means that iCloud Communications has not filed for a trademark [businessinsider.com] for either "iCloud Communciations" nor the tradename "iCloud." At least none that can be found.

Re:Trademark... (4, Informative)

Trillinon (869135) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419122)

Because you don't have to apply for a trademark to have it legally protected. It helps, sure, but it isn't required. If the report is true, and iCloud has been operating under that name since 2005, then Apple is in the wrong.

That said, there is an argument to be made that iAnything means Apple. Legally, it would be impossible to enforce, but culturally, it's very much the case.

Re:Trademark... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36419180)

True, registering a trademark is not required to have it protected. Defending it is however.

They, iCloud Communications, did not defend the trademark when CloudMe registered the mark in the US. What case do they have against Apple then?

Re:Trademark... (2)

deains (1726012) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419288)

Except for iPlayer [bbc.co.uk] .

Re:Trademark... (3, Informative)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419312)

Because you don't have to apply for a trademark to have it legally protected. It helps, sure, but it isn't required. If the report is true, and iCloud has been operating under that name since 2005, then Apple is in the wrong.

Apple bought the trademarks for iCloud from Xcerion, which owned them for almost two years. iCloud Communications had lots and lots of time to do something about Xcerion and didn't. Now that Xcerion got 4.5 million dollars for the trademark they want to get in on the deal. It's too late.

Re:Trademark... (2)

NNKK (218503) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419432)

Mere registration does not establish priority, you must actually be using the name in commerce. Objecting to an application is possible, but not required. If iCloud Communications _actually_ used it first (or _possibly_ if they continued to use it when Xcerion did not), iCloud Communications wins. (I have no idea if this is actually the case here, though.)

That said, I expect the lawyers on both sides are currently wrangling over exactly how many zeros will be involved in quietly dropping the case.

Re:Trademark... (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419416)

If you sue for trademark infringement, you kinda have to own the trademark. You can't sue for copyright infringement if you don't own nor registered the copyrights as SCO tried a few years ago.

Re:Trademark... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36419452)

Is this about copyright, or was the SCO issue about trademarks? Please take care to think about what you're thinking about before formulating it into words.

Rotten Apple (-1, Troll)

KlomDark (6370) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419042)

Typical arrogant behavior from the shittiest of computer companies. I disliked them in the 1980s, it's slowly moved to hate, then outright contempt. I thought IBM in the 1970s was bad, but they at least were trying to boost human intelligence, not dumb down the population like Apple is doing.

Re:Rotten Apple (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36419054)

Preach on, brother beavis! How dare Apple buy the name iCloud from the people that owned the name iCloud. If that's not asshole behavior, I don't know what is.

Re:Rotten Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36419412)

This has nothing to do with apple buying the trademark. They are infringing on someone else's trademark, most likely intentionally, to stomp out competition. There are now TWO different iCloud services... one run by Apple (the new one) and one run by iCloud Communications (the old one) but all anyone will hear about is the apple iCloud, effectively putting iCloud Communications out of business.

Re:Rotten Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36419486)

If not for Apple's iCloud, I wouldn't have heard of "iCloud Communications." I guess your point (if there was one) backfired.

Re:Rotten Apple (0, Troll)

pnewhook (788591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419134)

Has it ever occurred to you that Apple, like the rest of us, have never heard of this company and had no idea the name was in use? It's not even the same name. It's different. This lawsuit is ridiculous and hopefully it gets thrown out.

Re:Rotten Apple (1)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419242)

Poor poor Apple, it sure is expensive to hire trademark lawyers to check if something's already taken. How ridiculous, a company going to court to enforce their trademark according to the law. And yes I totally agree with you, "iCloud" is a very different name than "iCloud". Ummm, but just so everybody else is on the same page as us, how exactly is it totally different?

Re:Rotten Apple (0, Troll)

pnewhook (788591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419370)

One is iCloud Communicaitons and is an Arizona company selling Voip. The other is Apple iCloud and sells a data service, not phones.

How could anyone confuse them?

Re:Rotten Apple (1)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419426)

Apple bought the trademarks from the actual company that owned them. iCloud Communications *never* registered a trademark for either "iCloud" or "iCloud Communuications"

Re:Rotten Apple (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419464)

According to business insider, there is no record of iCloud Communications [businessinsider.com] having filed for the trademark for either "iCloud" or "iCloud Communications" trademarks. There are two applications of "iCloud". One belongs to an individual and the other Xcerion for "iCloud.com". Apple has purchased the domain and the trademark from Xcerion. So I would think that, yes, Apple's lawyers did a search.

Re:Rotten Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36419380)

And yet, Apple suing Amazon over the use of "App store" is not ridiculous? Karma's a bitch, ain't it?

Re:Rotten Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36419472)

Because Apple owns the registered trademark for App Store, they are entitled to the exclusive use of the name. Amazon does not so they are entitled to go fuck themselves. That how the law works.

Re:Rotten Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36419156)

Lighten up, Francis.

Re:Rotten Apple (2, Interesting)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419422)

So I guess you're typing your message using Lynx browser running in a terminal? I guess not, so you're guilty of using a dumbed down computer interface. Real men use the command line, using a mouse you're avoiding learning a zillion keyboard shortcuts which requires skill.

Computers used to be reliable, simple to use and required very little technical skills. Microsoft and Intel ruined this with their lousy inferior designs (Amigas, Atari STs and Acorn Archimedes computers were much nicer to use).

So far from dumbing down computers, Apple and others are trying to get us back to where we were before Microsoft and the junk that is the PC architecture ruined computing. The fact that everyone seems to be investigating the use of ARM is a good thing as the ARM series of processors can be traced back to Acorn in the 80s so it is at least a decade newer in concept than x86.

Happened before? (1)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419044)

I could swear I've read this story before...

I'm not an especially strong Apple hater, but haven't there been other stories on slashdot about Apple blatantly rolling over other companies copyrights or trademarks for names and concepts that sound similar to potential Apple products?

Re:Happened before? (5, Informative)

sentientbeing (688713) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419078)

Apple Music. The Beatles label.

Re:Happened before? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36419116)

CISCO. The IP Phone

Re:Happened before? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36419276)

You mean the CISCO iPhone that Apple payed money to the trademark holder in exchange for the rights to use?

Re:Happened before? (1)

frozentier (1542099) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419302)

The Beatles company was Apple Records, a subsidiary of Apple Corps. They never had or were affiliated with a company called Apple Music.

Re:Happened before? (2)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419162)

You did hear this before - the iPhone was a similar situation, with Apple launching and Cisco already owning a product called the iPhone. They settled it amicably (in other words, Apple bought Cisco off).

Re:Happened before? (2)

Arker (91948) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419330)

Did Apple pay them off separately for ios?

That one is particularly annoying, as it has been around for a very long time and well established, and now we have all these technical illiterates that would never be able to configure a router running around gushing about ios. WTF?

Re:Happened before? (1)

NNKK (218503) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419476)

iOS was probably dealt with as part of the same deal. It's also not really that annoying -- only a relatively small portion of even the technically-inclined population has any clue what Cisco IOS is, and context suffices to disambiguate. It's not even a significant search problem -- if "IOS" plus other relevant keywords aren't getting the right thing, throw in "cisco" or a model number and you're pretty sure to get what you're after.

Re:Happened before? (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419496)

Yes.

Before you answer (4, Insightful)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419052)

please also consider what you would have said if Apple had been selling a product for the last 5-6 years, and somebody now came along and bought a website, and claimed that it now owned that trademark.

The analogue is in somebody buying ipad.com (which AFAIK Apple doesn't own). Just because Apple bought icloud.com doesn't give them a trademark, otherwise the trademark system should just be shut down in favor of the domain name system.

Re:Before you answer (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36419214)

AFAIK you don't get a trademark by registering a domain, you get it by registering it as a trademark, which AFAIK is what Apple have done and not iCloud Communications.

Re:Before you answer (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36419260)

iCloud Communications, LLC only organized in May of 2005 [azcc.gov] , so your point of view is totally spot-on.
   

Re:Before you answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36419430)

No, but buying the registered trademark, like Apple did, does give them come iClout.

Re:Before you answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36419474)

However, iCloud Communications didn't register a trademark, and Apple purchased the registered trademark for $4.5 million from Xcerion, a Swedish company. The obvious question for iCloud Communications is "why didn't you register it?" - and the answer is that it was already registered. I guess they could have contacted that company to buy the trademark, as Apple did.

You don't HAVE to register a trademark, but the holder of the registered trademark has the right to sue the holder of an unregistered trademark (or anyone else) using the registered trademark. It's much harder for the unregistered trademark holder to sue the holder of a registered trademark over the mark. I guess that iCloud Communications were thinking that a Swedish company wasn't likely to be bothered by a small company in Arizona.

This Arizona company is in a weak position. Apple could sue them for using a registered trademark without authorization. They are suing Apple, which is a risky thing to do considering that an unregistered trademark holder has much more limited rights to the mark than the registered owner. They had better hope that Apple doesn't decide to play hardball.

Re:Before you answer (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419478)

The analogue is in somebody buying ipad.com (which AFAIK Apple doesn't own). Just because Apple bought icloud.com doesn't give them a trademark, otherwise the trademark system should just be shut down in favor of the domain name system.

True, buying iCloud.com doesn't give Apple a trademark. Buying the iCloud trademark from the proper owner for $4.5 million however gives Apple the trademark.

I love iCloud's FAQ (-1, Offtopic)

e9th (652576) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419062)

From iCloud's FAQ. [geticloud.com]

What happens if one of my desktop devices is not working properly?

You can place a call to iCloud technical support at (insert number) to begin the problem solving process. We will try to correct the situation over the phone. If we cannot solve the problem on the initial call, we will deliver and configure a new device to your location.

I hope I never have to call their Tech Support.

Re:I love iCloud's FAQ (2)

LearnToSpell (694184) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419232)

It's the cloud, dude. You can call whatever number you want and reach them.

Recognized or not... (2, Insightful)

symbolic (11752) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419076)

I hope Apple gets spanked for this. It was their lack of due diligence, and even if Apple was aware of this other company, it chose to engage this "Imma show you whose boss" mentality. Apple decided to play the game, so too damn bad if they lose.

Re:Recognized or not... (-1, Troll)

pnewhook (788591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419174)

I hope Apple gets spanked for this. It was their lack of due diligence, and even if Apple was aware of this other company, it chose to engage this "Imma show you whose boss" mentality. Apple decided to play the game, so too damn bad if they lose

Hey Symbolic - why did you blatantly steal the name of Symbolic Motors from San Diego? I was completely confused by the name similarity and thought you and they were the same entity. I hope they sue you into oblivion for your blatant arrogance and lack of due diligence.

Re:Recognized or not... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36419250)

Hey Pnewhook - why did you blatantly steal the name of Pnewhook Widgets from Springfield? I was completely confused by the name similarity and thought you and they were the same entity. I hope they sue you into oblivion for your blatant arrogance and lack of due diligence.

Re:Recognized or not... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36419366)

Hey Anonymous - why did you blatantly steal the name of Anonymous? I was completely confused by the name similarity and thought you and they were the same entity. I hope they sue you into oblivion for your blatant arrogance and lack of due diligence.

Re:Recognized or not... (2)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419494)

From the offices of:
Dewey, Cheatem and Howe
Attorneys at Law
Specializing in Intellectual Property Law

Dear Mr./Mrs./Ms. Coward,

        It has been brought to our attention that you are referring to yourself by the name "Anonymous Coward". This obvious attempt to associate yourself with the family of Sir Noël Peirce Coward will not be tolerated.
        Under current overbearing intellectual property laws, you a required to cease and desist using this name, and return to referring to yourself as your birth name of "Unnamed idiot wimp". Failure to correct this matter will result in legal action filed against you, in the amount of eleventy billion (111!!.111.1.1>!!1!!1.111eleventy!!11!1!) dollars.

                Yours,
            I. William Cheatem

Re:Recognized or not... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36419482)

Fanboy lol

Re:Recognized or not... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36419512)

the difference: iCloud Communications and Apple now both offer a cloud computing service dubbed 'iCloud', as far as i can tell, symbolic up there doesnt offer motor's of any kind for sale under any name. The argument can be made (very easily, and rightfully so) that a consumer could confuse Apple's iCloud service for iCloud Communication's iCloud service, and lead a consumer to purchase the wrong product as a result, seeing as how Symbolic does not offer motor's for sale, it is unlikely anyone will purchase a motor from him incorrectly thinking he was buying one from Symbolic motor's from San Diego. Apple is also a global company, and they have the responsibility of due diligence on things like this, although in the past they havent either, prefering to just steam-roll over anyone who gets in their way. So yes, i hope they do get sued over this. Maybe next time you'll look into the topic at hand, or just keep trolling as you so obviously enjoy it.

If they are so creative come up with a new name (1)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419378)

Apple could just make up a name and make is stick - how about synchole - marketing would be a snap "just toss all of your digital data in our synchole!"

Re:Recognized or not... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36419386)

I hope Apple gets spanked for this. It was their lack of due diligence, and even if Apple was aware of this other company, it chose to engage this "Imma show you whose boss" mentality. Apple decided to play the game, so too damn bad if they lose.

I don't think you understand how many billions of dollars Apple has lying around.

As Krusty the clown said, "They drove a dump truck full of money up to my house! I'm not made of stone! [wikia.com] "

I'm sure an amicable solution will be decided soon...

Re:Recognized or not... (3, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419498)

Not according to business insider [businessinsider.com] . There are only two applications for the "iCloud" name. One belongs to an individual. The other belonged to Xcerion. Apple bought the domain iCloud.com and the trademark from Xcerion a while ago. iCloud Communications has never filed for any trademarks to "iCloud" or even "iCloud Communications".

But do they have a case ? (5, Informative)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419082)

Reading fortune's [cnn.com] coverage, it seems there was no record of cloud communications having a trademark. Is this another instance of suing someone just because they have cash, I wonder...

And maybe it's just my innate cynicism showing through, but when anyone introduces criticism of anything by saying "I can honestly say...", it leads me to believe they are inherently biased against the thing they're complaining about, and whatever they say ought to be treated appropriately. What they're really saying is "even though I in fact loath the thought of (insert XXX), I would still be criticizing them if I were neutral on the matter". Bias, like truth, will out.

Simon

Re:But do they have a case ? (2)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419176)

Trademarks don't have to be registered, it just helps in some circumstances.

Re:But do they have a case ? (3, Insightful)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419236)

But if you do want to assert the right of a trademark, you have to defend it. Why, in that case, did they not defend their name against he previous owners of the cloud domain ? Again, I think they're just out to make some quick cash at Apple's expense.

Simon

different business (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36419446)

because the previous owner didn't do business "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", maybe?

Re:But do they have a case ? (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419504)

Maybe, like myself, they've never heard of the previous owners of the domain.
It may have only come to their attention when Apple started their eleventy billion dollar marketing campaign on the matter.

Identical or near-identical goods and services? (4, Informative)

Cinder6 (894572) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419084)

Just checked out iCloud Communications' website (http://geticloud.com/)... From the looks of the front page, at least, they're in the VoIP market. How is that related to Apple's iCloud? (I would actually be happy if Apple had to ditch the iCloud name, but it won't happen. It would be nice to see them move away from iWhatever; it was annoying when they introduced the first iMac, and it's annoying now.)

Re:Identical or near-identical goods and services? (1)

msauve (701917) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419132)

" they're in the VoIP market. How is that related to Apple's iCloud?"

They're Internet services. Duh.

May not be intentional on Apples part (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36419086)

I mean they may have thought they had the name after they bought the icloud.com domain from a swedish company, who had also run a cloud service they called icloud, not long ago.

How did they not know? (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419106)

Seriously, how did Apple not know about it? Doing a trademark search is simple - it's almost as easy as Googling it, once you find the search site. Half an hour's work could have thoroughly checked for anyone using that name - did nobody at Apple think to do so?

Re:How did they not know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36419148)

Apple probably went ahead knowing full well they would be sued. It isn't too hard to imagine a scenario where they tried and failed to purchase the iCloud mark and then decided it would be just as good to go ahead, get sued, pay an infringement several years down the road, and also get the courts allowance to continue using the mark in the future. Kind of a forced sale at the end of the day.

Re:How did they not know? (4, Insightful)

jklovanc (1603149) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419258)

The only currently registered trademark is this one. http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4007:67i706.2.13 [uspto.gov]

It seems that iCloud Communications did not register the trademark.

Apple has 100 applications in to the USPTO right now for iCloud

Re:How did they not know? (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419308)

sorry, I meant Apple has 11 applications

Re:How did they not know? (1)

hydrofix (1253498) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419314)

You can search trademarks here [uspto.gov] . For the keyword "Icould" I can find a bunch of Apple trademarks, but no iCloud Communications trademark. Interestingly, there is an identical trademark to Apple's iCloud service with USPTO serial number #79056140 (does anyone know how to link USPTO trademarks directly? The TESS system is braindead!), owned by a Swedish company Xcerion AB CORPORATION, Drottninggatan 23, Linköping. From the description of their service:

Computer programs for information management, for creating spreadsheets, tables, graphs and charts ... ... ... for viewing and organizing audio-visual content such as music, video and photos, ... ... ...

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 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, ... , and for integrating and aggregating existing online services.

This trademark was filed in 2008, prior to any of the Apple's 2011 trademarks. I think they might truly have a chance of beating Apple in court, but maybe they are just not bastards, or have an agreement with Apple?

Re:How did they not know? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419510)

Apple bought iCloud.com from Xcerion [pcmag.com] on April 28, 2011 for $4.5 million. I assume they also bought the trademark as well.

Apple bought trademark from Xcerion (1)

guidryp (702488) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419336)

Actually from what I read these guys never actually registered the trademark.

Apple searched and bought the trademark from Xcerion, who actually did register it.

Re:Apple bought trademark from Xcerion (3, Informative)

presidenteloco (659168) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419442)

How trademark law is actually defined is:

If you use a mark in trade, you have the trademark right.

Then there are a bunch of criteria about whether the type of trade is sufficiently similar to cause confusion in the buying public.

So iCloud Rainmakers Inc. would be ok because not a computer or internet related business.

Re:How did they not know? (4, Interesting)

TimHunter (174406) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419342)

Of course they did. Probably some junior intern in the Legal department did the search and reported his findings to his boss. That boss commissioned a legal secretary to find out what iCloud Communications is and draft a memo. Then he gave the memo to his boss. That boss sat in one or meetings with senior legal staff where one of the items on the agenda was iCloud Communications. Based on the memo, and perhaps a phone call or two to iCloud Communications, the senior legal staff figured that paying off (I mean, negotiating a settlement with) iCloud Communications would be cheaper than getting the rights up front and so decided to go ahead and start using the iCloud name.

After all, Steve wanted to use the iCloud name and it was their job to make it happen. Apple can, if necessary, throw a few hundred thousand at iCloud Communications. That's chicken feed in the whole iCloud thing.

Let me be clear: I'm not saying this is evil or anything like that. It's just how things work. Any settlement with iCloud Communications will be just a part (and a negligible part, at that) of the cost of doing iCloud business.

Re:How did they not know? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419516)

Except that iCloud Communications has never applied for the trademark. That makes it hard for them to defend a trademark they don't own. iCloud Communications has never even applied for a trademark for their own name.

iAnything (1)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419110)

Whereas the name iCloud was meant to sound like an Apple product? Anything named in that way is being named to make people connect it with Apple.

I think Apple should be more careful but this is obviously a case where both sides contributed to the problem.

This is nonsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36419126)

What?

from that complaint:

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

but Apple paid for iCloud.com, and this iCloud communications website ( http://geticloud.com ) shows that the company is a VOIP provider.

That means it has didly squat in common with apples use of iCloud.
No one is going to be confused, a small business isn;t going to say - hey lets switch to a cheap VOIP solution
and then go "What? why do we have some kind of syncing solution with apple devices?"
besides, there is no independent signup with apples iCloud - they aren't looking for random customer signup,
it is just an additional service provided when you by you iPod/iPhone/iPad/iMac/Mac

The Beatles record label says get off my cloud... (1)

phonewebcam (446772) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419130)

or has my blind fanboi reverence gotten me Stoned?

iCloud made new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36419186)

Come on iCloud Communications. They are totally different. Steve took your old iCloud name and made it new. He made a new shiny aluminium logo. It's new...stop kidding yourself. If it's got Apple on it it's new even if it was old. Brilliant! ;-)

USPTO (3, Informative)

jklovanc (1603149) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419216)

I guess iCloud Communications should be introduced to the USPTO. I did a quick search on the trademark iCloud and came up with 12 filed by Apple and one owned by Xcerion AB CORPORATION SWEDEN (registered in 2010). If you want to protect a trademark then register it.

Re:USPTO (2, Informative)

frozentier (1542099) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419320)

I guess iCloud Communications should be introduced to the USPTO. I did a quick search on the trademark iCloud and came up with 12 filed by Apple and one owned by Xcerion AB CORPORATION SWEDEN (registered in 2010). If you want to protect a trademark then register it.

You don't have to trademark it, you just have to prove you used it first. It's the same thing with copyrights.

Re:USPTO (4, Insightful)

topham (32406) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419346)

Failure to file for a trademark will doom you in court 9 times out of 10, particularly if it can be shown your trademark already overlapped in the market in question. Which in this case it seems to have overlapped with multiple players. oops.

This isn't about a local company using a name for 30 years and having a national, or multination company move in.

Re:USPTO (1)

dcollins (135727) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419372)

Possibly you mean "you don't have to register the trademark".

Re:USPTO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36419456)

Apple bought rights for that name from Xcerion for a substantial sum of money, so nothing fishy here.

Maybe not trademarked by iCloud Communcations (1)

lionsburg (2259464) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419228)

uspto.gov says there are 13 icloud registration marks, 11 of which are owned by Apple. The remaining two marks are owned by a Swedish company "Xcerion" and a person "Douglas Dane Baker". No queries returned ANY owned marks by iCloud Communications. Can anyone else confirm this?

Re:Maybe not trademarked by iCloud Communcations (1)

pixline (2028580) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419270)

They don't have a TRADEmark, just some mark. I read it also on macrumors.com but I can't find the article now..

That's the (awesome) point: they sue Apple because they have a name and a logo! I think if your business is so tightly connected with your name, you should *at least* bother to trademark it, not just have someone design you a logo (unless you're used to it in USA, I hope not)

Re:Maybe not trademarked by iCloud Communcations (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36419272)

You don't need to register a trademark to "own" it. It's just a better proof, but usually something like a business creation document is enough to tell that it's a name that you use to do business with.

Other names Apple cannot use: (4, Funny)

Ghiora (1004216) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419266)

Rainbow Cloud (RCloud) Jessy Jackson will sue them. Singing Cloud (SCloud ) Music Cloud (MCloud . ) McLoud public schools will sue them FCloud (FriendCloud) GCloud No Cloud (NCloud) I hereby copyright all permutations on non used [a-zA-Z0-9]*Cloud.

Re:Other names Apple cannot use: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36419358)

i think dennis weaver has a case..

This Again (1)

sudonim2 (2073156) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419374)

Apple did the same thing with Cisco over the name "iPhone". Look how that turned out.

Apple should have patented (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419388)

using the letter "i" before any name or trademark, too late now...

Re:Apple should have patented (1)

hipp5 (1635263) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419436)

IIRC they tried. Or at least there was a point where they were suing anyone who used iObjectname. (Again, IIRC) Apple lost.

And off we go... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36419394)

After iCloud comes iRain.

So let's claim that name!

Why didn't they buy icloud.com then? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419462)

Currently that domain redirects to apple. If this company was serious about their name I don't know why they didn't spend the extra $100 (or less depending on registrar) to register the .com domain.

Hey! You! (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 3 years ago | (#36419470)

Get off of iCloud!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?