OSNews

As I posted previously: the facts are iCloud Communications never filed for a trademark at the federal level. They didn't even file!

It doesn't cost all that much to file and maintain a trademark's legal registration. As such, this certainly looks like a money grab on the part of iCloud Communications. I expect it'll be an uphill battle for them, and it should be.

IANAL of course, but from what I understand, filing for a trademark is more of a formality to allow others to easily find that you're using the trademark - filing isn't necessary to enforce a claim to a trademark (though it does introduce some good evidence for a claim). I think that may even be part of the reason there's both TM and (R) logos for trademarks.

Dispassionately pointing out facts here seems to be a fruitless exercise when Apple is involved. If one of the site's main contributors openly claims to



it's highly likely that the sites main audience will feel the same way, which is likely the reason why yours, mine and the other posts pointing out those same facts were duly ignored.

From what I read here it would seem that when it comes to Apple and names, due diligence means not only checking official sources like the USPTO database, their logical and legal requirement, but fulfill some sort of ethical requirement by also doing generic web searches using everyone's favorite search engine to make sure there's absolutely nobody out there that was too lazy or cheap or just plain stupid to do what they should have, which was register the silly name themselves.

Again, they don't have to file. If they can prove they were doing business under that trademark before Apple started using the name, they have a valid claim. The U.S. patent and trademark office specifically says you do NOT have to register a trademark to have a valid claim to it.

Edited 2011-06-17 13:00 UTC

Nobody thought of iCloud Communications ... Ever. Apple are well known for iAnything so good luck fighting Apple. Even Cisco settled.

Well then you're smelling someone else in the room. If you know my posts I'm about the practical, common sense approach regardless of the Operating System or computer involved.

If you said iCloud to anyone you knew last year, or the year before I bet they'd peg it as an Apple product anyways. Just do a Google Search for iCloud Communications... you won't even see their website in the top 100 results that's how small their mindshare is. Pretty much any website reporting on the suit comes up before their site does!

I'm just saying this is the same deal as Apple Computers vs Apple Records. I'm sure they'd still be suing Apple if they called it iCloud Storage or iCloud Music. Suing Apple is the new way to get money and publicity.

If iCloud Computing provided the same services I'd totally be against Apple and their name.

Actually, I just did one. After typing "icloud" they were second on the auto-complete list. After typing "icloud com" they came up as the very first result. So I'm not sure where you got your claim that they won't even come up in the top 100.



Uh.. Yeah. You do know how search engine rankings work right? And that recent popular news events can rapidly change rankings? That's to be expected. But before the news reporting broke, none of those links would have existed. The news links no doubt pushed their actual company Web site down in the search engine rankings.



The agreement between Apple Computer and Apple Records allowed Apple Computer to use the name provided that they never got into music business. Which of course, Apple violated when they came out with the iPod and iTunes.




They do have a point that Apple has a history of appropriating the trademarks of other companies.



They both provide IT services. And again, in today's world, a lot of the issue is what will happen to your search ranking if you are a small company, and a large company like Apple with virtually unlimitted marketing money comes along and steals your trademark.