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'?
Exactly! If you want to protect it, trademark it. Did they name their company with an "i" post iPod or pre "ipod" though?
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
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
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
or has my blind fanboi reverence gotten me Stoned?
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?
It's the cloud, dude. You can call whatever number you want and reach them.
Haida Manga
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?
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
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.
Except for iPlayer.
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.
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!
What the OP means that iCloud Communications has not filed for a trademark for either "iCloud Communciations" nor the tradename "iCloud." At least none that can be found.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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.
Apple bought the trademarks from the actual company that owned them. iCloud Communications *never* registered a trademark for either "iCloud" or "iCloud Communuications"
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.
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.
According to business insider, there is no record of iCloud Communications 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.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Get off of iCloud!
That is what this whole gulf war was really about.
"Waste not one watt!" - CZ
Right, because VOIP (them) is identical to syncing devices over the 'net (Apple). Of course it is.
Sheesh!
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
If you sue for trademark infringement, you kinda have to own the trademark..
You do not have to register a trademark in order to hold the rights to it. It certainly does help your court case, but it is not a requirement.
"You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
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,
Did they name their company with an "i" post iPod or pre "ipod" though?
Who cares? Lots of successful products were little "i", big whatever prior to iPods, including something that is a _lot_ like the current iPod touch (software excluded): the iPaq. e-FOO and i-FOO were quite common around the beginning of the Internet (to mark elecrtonic-FOO or Internet-FOO), then it was just a cool letter to prepend words with like "X".
That said, there is an argument to be made that iAnything means Apple.
No there isn't. iPaq. iPlayer. iOS (not the new version), iMail, IHOP, iCloud...
Ok... so... what, you want the word Insightful next to your post or something?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Why is this marked "offtopic"?
I personally found it hilarious. A VOIP company telling you to "call our technical support number" if your VOIP phone isn't working.
Yeah, and there's no requirement to register a copyright. Everything thing produced automatically becomes copyrighted so long as it can be copyright protected. The Berne convention standardised this in most countries.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
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?
But Apple wasn't sued over a trademark, they were sued over the name - how much does a "name lawyer" cost?
IANAL (trademark or name), but if you don't bother to trademark the name of your company, you could probably complain if another company takes on a similar name, but not if a product by a company gets one.
Fandroids hate facts.
IOS has an uppercase I. It's an acronym for "Internetwork Operating System".
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Facetime is VOIP surely? And you can run Skype and various SIP clients on the iPhone.
SCO tried to claim both the copyright and the trademark to Unix. The USPTO denied them on the trademark because their records showed that The Open Group owned the trademark. They tried to register the copyrights to Unix System V code; Novell also did the same thing. That's what Novell v SCO was partially about: who actually owned the copyrights and whether those rights were transferred in the 1995 APA. A court later decided that Novell owned the copyrights.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
My bad. You would certainly think that before you file a lawsuit about it, you would check with your lawyers as to whether you actually registered them.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Trademarks are owned by the people that use them in commerce. Registering for something you aren't using and don't intend to use doesn't grant you the trademark. Additionally, if Coke (tm) hadn't registered the trademark and 100 years later someone else registered the trademark and sued them, the new company would have lost against the original user of the term and the court would likely find that the 100 year old company did, in fact, own the trademark for Coke without ever having registered it.
In fact, most states essentially consider registering a company name as a trademark claim, and enforce distinct naming in corporations for this reason (most may be all, and may be less than most - I've formed a corporation in all of two states and the process was nearly identical, both requiring that I sign something that indicated I have manually searched the list of used names and that mine was unique and not substantially similar to another, and that I also paid some small fee for a bureaucrat to also check). And yes, I realize that states don't really have any say in trademarks, but that doesn't stop them from helping prevent brand confusion. Perhaps the solution is that iCloud will have to be aCloud in Arizona, much like Gmail isn't Gmail in Germany (it was Germany, right?)
Learn to love Alaska
And the fact that the number is listed as "(insert number)" in the FAQ, rather than actually giving a number to call...
Learn to love Alaska
I'm not sure why everyone keeps pointing out that iCloud Communications has not filed for a trademark.
Trademark law, just like copyright law, does not require you to register in order to be covered.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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.
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'.
The name Apple picked as being "too close" to iCloud Communications' name was already picked by another company, years ago. Apple bought it from the people who actually registered it.
So, why is it only just *now* that iCloud Communications cares? And why is it just *now* that so many Slashdot nerds care? It's certainly not about the law or the principle, as those haven't changed. It's about one and *only* one thing: Apple.
Uhm.. No, your own comment is exactly the reason WHY Apple is being sued... Now you associate iCloud with Apple instead of iCloud Communications, even if you hadn't hear of iCloud Communications before..
I don't know about the GP, but myself, I am using elinks + console-mode. I doubt I'm the only one... albeit there are few.
I do it for more a choice than b/c I don't have GUIs available.
If only I had enough money for this prank, I would open an eyeCenter. Right next to ...
Privacy is terrorism.
You mean there are, like, no public phones in your country?
That said, there is an argument to be made that iAnything means Apple.
No there isn't. iPaq. iPlayer. iOS (not the new version), iMail, IHOP, iCloud...
You do realize that you can get apples baked right into your pancakes?
When suing for trademark violation, a company is asserting that its brand is so valuable that it needs protecting. How valuable can iCloud's name be if they didn't bother to register for a trademark? Remember iCloud isn't a new company; they've been around long enough to register the name. That's the point. According to the USPTO while a trademark does not need to be registered, it should be registered especially if the mark is intended to be used nationwide. Before using the iCloud name, Apple themselves appeared to search for the trademark and register it. Apple also appeared to buy the domain name iCloud.com and perhaps the trademark from Xcerion. At a minimum Apple can argue that iCloud cannot claim a trademark.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Apple dealt with the registered owners of the trademark. If "iCloud Communications" didn't register then obviously Apple did their due diligence. iCloud Communications were either lazy, cheap, or incompetent.
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.
In most cases, to bring suit, the company claiming trademark infringement must have registered the trademark, however a trademark can be inherited too. For instance, if iCloud Communication taught their customers that iCloud was associated with iCloud Communications, then they have a valid trademark. Same thing goes for anything taught to the consumer that utilizes any of your five senses. When a company fails to file for their trademark, it doesn't mean that the next business that comes along can use it willy nilly. It just means that it will be harder for them to file a lawsuit in Federal court. iCloud Communications is using the name in commerce, it is original and distinctive, therefore, they have trademark protections at least in their state of operations. If they are operating out of California, New York, or Texas, then Apple could see a big chunk of revenue go missing in these states, or may have to sell their iCloud service under another name.
I'd never heard of iCloud before this article (Apple or the actual owners).
Only thing I can think of, is when Apple did their search for existing names, when they came across iCloud comms, the figured they figured iCloud comms would respekt dair Authoretair.
Good on iCloud comms.
Except they didn't buy a name from the company who owned it. The company who registered the mark in 2008 should not have been issued the mark, because it was previously used in commerce and in the same field the registering company was registering it for. They purchased a name based on a flawed application, one which is currently being contested.
If "iCloud Communications" didn't register then obviously Apple did their due diligence.
This is flawed logic. Failure to register a trademark does not invalidate protection under trademark law. Apple may or may not have done due diligence, but that has little to do with the actions of iCloud Comm. Even if Apple was not aware of iCloud Comm's claim to the mark, they still don't have the right to use it under the law. Trademark law can be a nasty business, simply because registration of works is not required for protection.
Anyway, Apple has a long and storied history of actively ignoring trademark claims they absolutely knew they were in violation of, so I'm not inclined to give them the benefit of any doubt.
But Apple wasn't sued over a trademark, they were sued over the name
Most trademarks are nothing more than names. Just because something is not a design mark does not make it ineligible for protection as a word mark.
You realize that Apple actually *did* to the due diligence here and paid $4.5M for the trademark from the actual owner, right?
I think you are somewhat mistaken. As I recall Apple bought the icloud.com domain from Xcerion for $4.5 million. No one had filed a trademark. Apple did register for a trademark. You are correct, however, in saying that it seems more than a little fishy to file against Apple for buying a domain that had been in active use for a cloud computing service for years. I mean if this company really was offering cloud computing services and considered iCloud to be their trademark, why did they never file suit against Xcerion? Did they seriously never look at the domain? This seems a lot more like some VOIP reseller deciding they might be able to get some cash in a settlement by claiming a trademark, even though they picked the name years after Xcerion started a service with that exact name.
Then they are lazy, cheap, and incompetent. They are, however, likely the "owner" of the trademark, despite never having registered it.
Learn to love Alaska
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.
Well, as for the reason they care now as opposed to before is because that other company wasn't really doing much with it, since apparently most people had never heard of them, and I doubt it was very similar to the company's niche. Now that Apple is doing things with it, and it's getting tons of publicity, it's finally possible that it will actually damage their business.
As for why /. nerds care, yeah, Apple. I feel that iCloud should have registered ages ago as a simple precautionary measure, though I bear no particular investment in either side's victory, being neither a user of Apple products nor a citizen of the US. I'm mostly interested in seeing what the inevitable ruling/settlement shakes out as.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
Cool, I must have had an honorary CS degree when I was using my Apple ][ and Amiga 1000.
Then you give MS credit for x86 architecture, which is hardware. Interesting.
Far as I know, OS X is way cheaper than Windows.
Don't know what the 'locked down features' are that you are talking about.
And then you go back to IBM.
Might want to streamline your arguments a little better, next time. You run all over the place with little direction, mixing your arguments into each other.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
The reason iCloud Communications (there's no entity involved named 'iCloud') cares now is they see $$. Xcerion has had the registered trademark and the domain name for years. If iCloud Communications really cared, one must wonder why they never did anything before? You'd think that if the name was so important to them, they would have wanted the domain, so it's not like they didn't know of the existence of this other company.
And *had* they done that, and won, *they* would have received the many millions Xcerion got from Apple. It wasn't until Apple entered the picture, it seems, that iCloud Communications decided their (unregistered) trademark was worth defending.
You're either very cynical, or not remembering that trademarks only apply to situations where there's a reasonable amount of overlap in business. If iCloud Communications either felt the business was dissimilar enough, or was unaware of the previous existence of Xcerion's use, then they aren't in any instance at fault for not pursuing it. Since the business scope is different between Xcerion and Apple, that changes the equation, and I reiterate, they may now feel the scope Apple brings will harm their business.
As for the domain issue, they have icloudcommunications.com, and it redirects to geticloud.com. Obviously they have a web presence, so is it unreasonable to assume they simply didn't think/want to register just "icloud.com" for whatever reason? Assuming everyone's scumsucking and out to screw over everyone else is a good way to become like that yourself, so again, I'm going to assume both parties are simply doing the best they can for their business, until someone proves otherwise.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
Does no one remember that Cisco owned the trademark for iPhone and Apple stole it without paying for it first?
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.
Well no, they're not really in the wrong in any real sense. Yes, you do not have to register a trademark in order to have legal rights that you can defend. But if you don't register, you can't really expect other companies to know about your trademark either. So although Apple could possibly be on the losing end of a legal action, they're not "in the wrong" because you cannot argue that they should have magically known about the use of this mark by some obscure little dumbfucks too stupid to register their use of the mark--especially since there was another company who did register a trademark, and Apple found that and bought the mark from them. Really, this is a huge deal, there was another company using the mark who registered it, and iCloud communications did nothing about that. That right there probably sinks any legal claim they otherwise would have had.
iCloud Communications is a VOIP company. Apple's iCloud is not a VOIP system. It is, in fact, quite similar to the Xcerion iCloud service, which is now at cloudme.com. Feel free to look into it yourself.
Obviously they have a web presence, so is it unreasonable to assume they simply didn't think/want to register just "icloud.com" for whatever reason?
If iCloud is an important mark for them, it's not reasonable to assume they didn't think about that domain. That doesn't mean they didn't, we all do things that don't make sense from time to time. But it does raise the question as to why they didn't.
To keep a trademark, you actually have to actively defend it. iCloud Communications has had a lot of time to defend it, and didn't. *Maybe* they didn't know about icloud.com, but it's somewhat strange they wouldn't have looked into it if it was so important to them.
On the other hand, seeing the many millions of dollars Xcerion got for a domain name and a trademark that they seem to think they have some rights to has gotta sting.
Only part of yrademark law is that you aren't allowed to trademark something that is the generic term for that item. For instance, you cannot make a cola flavoured softdrink, and trademark the name "Cola". You can't trademark the word "Windows" in the field of glass panes that fill holes in your walls. THAT'S what the contention is with "App Store" - that it is the generic term for a place to buy "Apps", and that "App" is a generic term that describes the collection of products sold. Amazon would never argue "We were using it first, therefore it is ours to use."
So again to review: 1) Trademarks are only valid within a given limited field. 2) Whoever uses the trademark first, is the person who owns it. They do NOT have to register a trademark. Many trademarks are not registered. These are designated "TM" as opposed to (R). 3) Generic terms cannot be trademarked.
(Of course IANAL, and everything I learned about trademark law was from some highschool classes years ago, and the internet.)
Not identical. Yours matches "iCaL". His doesn't.
Apple Music
iPhone
iCloud
I think Apple's marketing crew in charge of branding needs to do some more up front research.
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.
This is assuming the iCloud Communications were aware that Xcerion had registered the "iCloud" trademark and were using it. It's not actually as obvious as one might imagine. I mean, Apple apparently managed to overlook a whole company named iCloud...
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
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'.
Apple vs Apple was brought to court because Apple (the music company) was worried that adding sound and speakers to the computers meant that Apple (the computer company) was encroaching upon their business sector. If Apple (the computer company) had never gotten anywhere near music, Apple (the music company) would have never had a shot in hell to raise a stink, because trademarks are separated by markets. Thus, there is nothing wrong with having a company named "Apple" if you're a hardware store, or fruit store, or such. You just can't use the mark "Apple" in markets where someone has already been operating: music and computers the two most well known.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
Why not just cut to the chase? /^i.*/i
I'm surprised Apple has not sued over interstate numbering, e.g. I-57... clearly mark dilution. (J/K) :)
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?
Wow, that was prophetic of me, wasn't it? Cool.
I saw their shitty attitude towards programmers and freedom back in the Apple ][ days. It's only getting worse as the days go by. Stevie has some kind of anti-christ complex going on in his head. Probably the anger that he isn't long for this world. Only time I ever thought he was cool was in the NeXT days. These days, he's just a smug skeleton.
One of the most profitable companies in existence... First off, nothing compared to Standard Oil back in the day, not a chance. Also, the day Steve kicks the bucket begins the stock slide to zero. It won't happen right away, but it will slowly begin to dwindle until it gets delisted from the stock exchange. Apple definitely gets the dumb consumer perspective, but they don't get the business world. I was just in a meeting this week discussing which mobile platforms we will port our (true business, not consumer-oriented at all) applications to, and it was decided early on in the meeting that we will not support the iPhone/Pad because of the rights-assuming language in Apple's business contracts for the app store. Android, Windows Phone 7 are definites, Blackberry is a possible, and iPhone/Pad is a definite hell no. Apple didn't get it in the XServe days, and they are too arrogant to ever get it.