Apple Sued Over Use of iCloud Name 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.'"
The fools... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The fools... (Score:4, Insightful)
That'd be fun. Sesame Street as prior art!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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?
Taking over a name with force != right (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple bought the actual iCloud trademark from the company that actually registered it, years ago.
The application date for the trademark in question is May 29th, 2008. Unless they were using it prior to 2005, they are still in the wrong. Registration of a trademark is not necessary to protect it legally, though it does help. iCloud Communications can have the trademark invalidated based on a claim of previous use in commerce. Apple's purchase of a trademark that was registered later doesn't necessarily prote
Re: (Score:3)
That's rather presumptuous.
In no way is what I said inappropriate. Trademarks are first-come first-serve. If iCloud used it first, and is in a market where there is a good chance of confusion (software, and software), they have a case. Saying that is not, in any way, presumptuous. It is a simple fact, which is more than adequately qualified for what we know is not known (who knew what, when they knew it, and the date each company first used the mark). Nobody knows who was aware of what at any given time cur
Re:The fools... (Score:4, Interesting)
Just so you know, you do not have to file in order to receive a trademark.
Re: (Score:2)
No, iCloud Communications can dispute the trademark by showing they were using the term first. I think they have up to 8 years to dispute. Look at the "Lennon" trademark fiasco a few years ago. Some unknown singer whose first name was Lennon tried to trademark the name and Yoko Ono had to snatch it from her at the last minute after seeing how she had manipulated the system. Yoko had not filed for a trademark previously but was able to take it since the Lennon name had been around longer than the singer...
Re: (Score:3)
No.
Like copyright, you don't need to register a trademark, it just makes it a lot easier to defend in court if you do.
iRaq and iRan are both in violation as well (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I heard iRan is already renamed to Persia .
Re: (Score:3)
In all seriousness is this why Americans always pronounce the 'I' in Iran and Iraq as 'eye' rather than 'e'? Not Apple trademark claims, but their love of sticking and 'i' in front of random words and pronouncing it as if it were completely separate.
I remember when the Wii came out and a lot of people seemed to think it was pronounced 'why'. Why is it only the letter 'I', why not Aye-merica or Jay-pan? Or am I expecting too much in the way of rules from what seemes to have been a natural change in American
Re: (Score:2)
Do they not realise that Apple own the letter 'i'?
They do? Someone had better tell the BBC [bbc.co.uk] the bad news...
Re: (Score:2)
Easy, society has shortened words in this fashion for generations*. You could call it a portmanteau but with only the first letter taken.
You can easily claim that iplayer is short for 'internet player'. Email is electronic and mail. Blog is web and log.
I don't know the name of the process of a single-letter portemantaeu. *I can't think of any before the internet age but then I've not been alive that long and it's most likely we've forgotten the affixes through time. That is the beauty of the birth of two ne
Re: (Score:2)
*I can't think of any before the internet age but then I've not been alive that long and it's most likely we've forgotten the affixes through time. That is the beauty of the birth of two new words.
ACME. -tron. -ism. All being born way, WAY before Internet came to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Grasshopper always wrong in argument with chicken.
-- Book of Chao
Re:The fools... (Score:4, Informative)
The courts already declared years ago that nobody can own a letter or even a prefix. The only reason why McDonalds gets away with suing people over the Mc prefix is because nobody that has tried to use the Mc prefix so far has enough money to outlast the McLawyers long enough for the final verdict to get in.
Well, perhaps nobody in the USA were willing to take the court fight all the way, but here in Denmark someone actually defended himself all the way to the supreme court and won.
Quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_legal_cases [wikipedia.org] :
"McAllan (Denmark)
In 1996, McDonald's lost a legal battle at the Danish Supreme Court to force Allan Pedersen, a hotdog vendor, to drop his shop name McAllan.[10] Pedersen had previously visited Scotland on whisky-tasting tours. He named his business after his favorite brand of whisky, MacAllan's, after contacting the distillery to see if they would object. They did not, but McDonald's did. However, the court ruled customers could tell the difference between a one-man vendor and a multi-national chain and ordered McDonald's to pay 40,000 kroner ($6,900) in court costs. The verdict cannot be appealed."
Happened before? (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
You're probably thinking of the iPhone, as there was a VoIP device that went under that very name at the time the iPhone was announced.
Before you answer (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Before you answer (Score:4, Informative)
That's how you get a registered trademark. You get an unregistered trademark by simply using it in commerce.
Re: (Score:3)
Recognized or not... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
If they are so creative come up with a new name (Score:2)
Re:Recognized or not... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Recognized or not... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
It is hard to believe that you actually think Apple didn't perform due diligence on such a huge product announcement.
Re: (Score:3)
don't be silly. Symbolic is a pre-existing word, actually often used in computer science. iCloud isn't. And Symbolic does not seem to be operating in the same market, if any, as Symbolic Motors.
Re: (Score:3)
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 re
But do they have a case ? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
Trademarks don't have to be registered, it just helps in some circumstances.
Re:But do they have a case ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Simon
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Simon
Re: (Score:2)
Why, in that case, did they not defend their name against he previous owners of the cloud domain ?
I have the same exact situation with my own company. I own the .net analogue of my company's name, and someone owns the .com. They've owned the .com for several years, and have a 10-year registration according to GoDaddy. The site currently doesn't do anything - it doesn't resolve at all.
The best thing to do in this case is not to approach the person, but establish yourself and make the name worth something. Then, the cybersquatter will attempt to monetize the name and hopefully do something which can b
Re: (Score:2)
Sheesh!
Simon
Identical or near-identical goods and services? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
They're Internet services. Duh.
Re:Identical or near-identical goods and services? (Score:4, Informative)
From the looks of the front page, at least, they're in the VoIP market. How is that related to Apple's iCloud?
Because if you click on the link in the upper right-hand corner labeled "Data Center Web Site" you discover they offer a whole lot more than VoIP. From within that area:
"Founded in 1985, iCloud Communications is an established business run by a seasoned management team. We've built a distinguished track record in network technologies and infrastructure operations. Our data center solutions provide a range of colocation, hosting and technical support services to telephony service provider and small-to-mid-sized enterprise customers."
Re:Identical or near-identical goods and services? (Score:4, Funny)
"Founded in 1985, iCloud Communications is an established business run by a seasoned management team."
I'm interested in these seasoned managers, is the purpose of the seasoning to mask bitterness and un-palatability?
How did they not know? (Score:2)
Re:How did they not know? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
sorry, I meant Apple has 11 applications
Re: (Score:2)
Apple bought trademark from Xcerion (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
iAnything (Score:2)
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.
USPTO (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly you mean "you don't have to register the trademark".
Other names Apple cannot use: (Score:4, Funny)
Apple should have patented (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why didn't they buy icloud.com then? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey! You! (Score:2)
Get off of iCloud!
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:My First English to Fanboi-speak Phrasebook (Score:4, Insightful)
Android is an operating system. iOS is an operating system. What's the problem of comparing the number of devices that are sold with each operating system installed?
In a capitalist society, a product that is "too expensive" if it doesn't sell. The iPad sells well. By definition, it isn't too expensive.
Re: (Score:3)
Expected topics ITT (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Expected topics ITT (Score:4, Informative)
OS9 vice MacOS9 (OS9 is a trademark of microware for a TRS-80C operating system, built for the 6809 chipset),
You didn't mention that Apple won that case in court as separate trademarks can exist for unrelated applications of the same mark.
I suspect they didn't do due diligence at all, just because it seems that they never have before.
On April 28, 2011, Apple bought the iCloud.com domain from Xcerion. That company was the only company to hold the "iCloud" trademark at the time. There were older trademarks containing compound words like "iCloudFusion" and "iCloudWalkers.com" It is assumed that Apple purchased the trademark at the same time. Apple later registered 11 of their own marks. iCloud Communications did not register for any marks for "iCloud" including their own company's name "iCloud Communications, Inc." It is clear to me that Apple did the due diligence.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly! If you want to protect it, trademark it. Did they name their company with an "i" post iPod or pre "ipod" though?
Re: (Score:2)
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".
Re:Trademark... (Score:5, Informative)
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'.
Re:Trademark... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Facetime is VOIP surely? And you can run Skype and various SIP clients on the iPhone.
Re:Trademark... (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Trademark... (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Ok... so... what, you want the word Insightful next to your post or something?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple bought the trademarks from the actual company that owned them. iCloud Communications *never* registered a trademark for either "iCloud" or "iCloud Communuications"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)