Slashdot Mirror
Apple Sued Over Use of iCloud Name
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.'"
Do they not realise that Apple own the letter 'i'?
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?
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.
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?
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.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
I hope I never have to call their Tech Support.
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.
Reading fortune's 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
Physicists get Hadrons!
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.)
If you can't convince them, convict them.
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.
Apple trademarks /^i[A-Z]([A-Z]+|[a-z]+)$/.
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?
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.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
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
or has my blind fanboi reverence gotten me Stoned?
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! ;-)
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.
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?
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.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
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.
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.
Apple did the same thing with Cisco over the name "iPhone". Look how that turned out.
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!"
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
using the letter "i" before any name or trademark, too late now...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
After iCloud comes iRain.
So let's claim that name!
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?
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.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Get off of iCloud!
That is what this whole gulf war was really about.
"Waste not one watt!" - CZ
Legality aside, you would think that if they had been using a name legally for 6 years, they have a right to keep using it.
Something is broken if a larger company can buy a trademark of a smaller company and claim ownership and prevent the smaller company from using it.
Of course the legal system is not designed for common courtesy or justice, it's for rent seeking legal professionals.
Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
Con artists. There is work that makes us richer as a society, and work that makes us poorer. Ben Lindquist
Below are some useful phrases that I have learnt on Slashdot over the past year or so that will help you translate Fanboi-speak to English, and vice-versa:
English: iCloud sues Apple over iCloud name usage.
Fanboi-speak: It's iCloud's fault for not registering the name properly.
English: Apple sues iCloud over iCloud name usage.
Fanboi-speak: It's iCloud's fault for not registering the name properly.
English: Steve Jobs kills puppies.
Fanboi-speak: Steve Jobs takes positive steps on problems of dog littering and potential spread of rabies.
English: Steve Ballmer kills puppies.
Fanboi-speak: Steve Ballmer kills puppies due to anger at number of viruses in Windows.
English: iPhone 4 has antenna problems.
Fanboi-speak: iPhone 4 has enhanced "Do Not Call" and privacy features and less viruses than Windows.
English: Android outsells iOS.
Fanboi-speak: Did you count the iPod Touch?
English: The iPad is too expensive.
Fanboi-speak: The iPad is no more expensive than a reasonable laptop computer.
English: The iPad is too locked down.
Fanboi-speak: The iPad is not designed to replace a reasonable laptop computer.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
If only I had enough money for this prank, I would open an eyeCenter. Right next to ...
Privacy is terrorism.
Naivete about trademarks [check] (A trademark need not be registered to be enforceable, just clearly marked)
Apple fanbois saying that apple can do no wrong [check]
Apple anti-fanbois saying apple can do no right [check]
GNUtards expressing blanket anti-IP sentiments [check]
My take:
Apple is clearly not a historical good player, where it comes to the blatant co-opting of trademarks, case in point: OS9 vice MacOS9 (OS9 is a trademark of microware for a TRS-80C operating system, built for the 6809 chipset), the iphone/ios thing (the only reason any settlement at all was proposed was IOS was so entrenched that Apple was guaranteed a court loss), and many other trademarks Apple just steamrolled without checking. I suspect they didn't do due diligence at all, just because it seems that they never have before. I submit that the first "look and feel" lawsuits that Apple started were naught but an extension of this, given that the look and feel that apple was litigating was actually developed by Xerox at PARC, which both Microsoft and Apple liberally ripped off. While I doubt iCloud was much more than a shell company built as a IP landmine, Apple has yet to prove that their due diligence is much more than asking around the offices at Cupertino if anyone's ever heard of a given name. I predict that unless iCloud finds some deep pockets (I heard that there's a few deep pockets around that don't like Apple, some in Redmond), Apple will just keep raising the ante until iCloud's basically forced to settle.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
Doing a search for an iCloud trademark turns up 13 hits, 11 of which are from Apple, none of which are from iCloud Communications. It's a bit harder to claim trademark infringement when you don't have a registered trademark (harder, not impossible). What makes it even harder is Apple bought the icloud.com domain, which existed and did business prior to the announcement and iCloud Communications didn't sue the previous owners for trademark infringement. Failing to defend your trademarks weakens your ownership of it (*), which is a big difference between trademarks and copyrights (a difference many people aren't aware of).
Sorry, but not having a registered trademark and failing to defend the mark as it was previously used for a near-identical business endeavour dramatically weakens their case.
* This is why, regardless of what you may think of the validity of the claim, companies sometimes sue for trademark infringement - they either have to defend their trademark or risk losing it entirely.
Seriously - it's what? $300? If you can't scrape up say, 1-2K$ to protect your name, logo etc, you've got a hobby, not a business.
Does no one remember that Cisco owned the trademark for iPhone and Apple stole it without paying for it first?
Apple you probably knew iCloud was a company. You just didn't think you would get caught lol. Just because most of your products have "i" 's in front of them for example "imac,ipod,ibook," Doesn't mean you have copy rights over "i" XD. Check out My website @ http://elitetechforce.net/ I am putting up more linux and open source articles in the future.
It doesn't matter if Apple is the first to file for the trademark. Trade marks are granted in two ways, first to file or first to use. By making use of it for years they have a pretty good precedent, now how it stands up to the geographic conditions is something the courts may need to sort out.
[url]http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm[/url] (harvard law)
[quote]
4. How do you acquire rights in a trademark?
Assuming that a trademark qualifies for protection, rights to a trademark can be acquired in one of two ways: (1) by being the first to use the mark in commerce; or (2) by being the first to register the mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO"). 15 U.S.C. 1127(a). Remember, however, that descriptive marks qualify for protection (and can be registered) only after they have acquired secondary meaning. Thus, for descriptive marks, there may be a period after the initial use of the mark in commerce and before it acquires secondary meaning, during which it is not entitled to trademark protection. Once it has achieved secondary meaning, trademark protection kicks in.
The use of a mark generally means the actual sale of a product to the public with the mark attached. Thus, if I am the first to sell "Lucky" brand bubble-gum to the public, I have acquired priority to use that mark in connection with the sale of bubble-gum (assuming that the mark otherwise qualifies for trademark protection). This priority is limited, however, to the geographic area in which I sell the bubble gum, along with any areas I would be expected to expand into or any areas where the reputation of the mark has been established. So, for example, if I sell pizza in Boston under the name "Broadway Pizza," I will probably be able to prevent late-comers from opening up a "Broadway Pizza" within my geographic market. But I will not be able to prevent someone else from opening a "Broadway Pizza" in Los Angeles.
The other way to acquire priority is to register the mark with the PTO with a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce. Unlike use of a mark in commerce, registration of a mark with the PTO gives a party the right to use the mark nationwide, even if actual sales are limited to only a limited area. This right is limited, however, to the extent that the mark is already being used by others within a specific geographic area. If that is the case, then the prior user of the mark retains the right to use that mark within that geographic area; the party registering the mark gets the right to use it everywhere else. So, for example, if I register the mark "Broadway" in connection with the sale of pizza, the existing "Broadway Pizza" in Boston retains the right to use the name in Boston, but I get the right to use it everywhere else.[/quote]
Apple Music
iPhone
iCloud
I think Apple's marketing crew in charge of branding needs to do some more up front research.
After 6 years, of not registering their name..now they think they can get a bit out of the big juicy Apple, eh? What I don't like about this is that it makes Apple look bad, and then after a bit of digging (no more than reading /. comments here, actually)..you find out it's another 'cry wolf' case.
There are real incidences of Apple overstepping their bounds.. but all the ones I read here are sensationalist cases of the other parties being in the wrong .. such as developers 'getting ripped off' and then you find out Apple only rejected their app because they violated the app guidelines, and anyways Apple were already developing it.. etc etc.. ..If it ever comes to a case where Apple is clearly in the wrong.. /. readers will miss it, and not even bother to dig deep.
Cry Wolf, anyone?