Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

ManOfSteal · Apr 28, 2005, 04:28 PM

Apple Computer has been slapped with a lawsuit by Tiger Direct Inc. for allegedly infringing its trademark with the new Mac OS X "Tiger'' operating system scheduled for release tomorrow.

Tiger Direct, which sells computers and related products on the Internet, said the software package threatens to dilute its trademarked name, according to Bloomberg, which has obtained a copy of the lawsuit.

The online retailer also accused Apple of deceptive and unfair trade practices in the lawsuit, filed today in federal court in Miami, Florida, Bloomberg said.

"Apple Computer has created and launched a nationwide media blitz led by Steven Jobs, overwhelming the computer world with a sea of Tiger references," Tiger Direct wrote in the lawsuit.

If the court grants Tiger Direct's request for an injunction, Apple's rollout of Tiger could be stopped.

Tiger Direct, which is based in Miami, Florida, has used its family of Tiger trademarks to sell computers and computer related products since 1987, the lawsuit said. The company owns trademarks on the names Tiger, TigerDirect and TigerSoftware.

The retailer said Apple's use of the name "is causing confusion, mistake and deception among the general purchasing public."

Developing...

Link.

E's Lil Theorem · Apr 28, 2005, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by ManOfSteal

...

The retailer said Apple's use of the name "is causing confusion, mistake and deception among the general purchasing public."
...

Pfft, confusion my butt; I've never heard of them

Anyway, my copy is in a FedEx truck headed towards my house so I'm not worried

sideus · Apr 28, 2005, 04:38 PM

Millennium · Apr 28, 2005, 04:40 PM

I've heard of Tiger Direct, but since when is a store "confusingly similar" to a computer operating system?

This is even worse than the makers of OS/9 suing Apple over the version number of Mac OS 9. At least those two were somewhat in the ballpark of each other.

ManOfSteal · Apr 28, 2005, 04:43 PM

I just love how they are bringing this up now, when they could have anytime over the last year or so...

His Dudeness · Apr 28, 2005, 04:43 PM

How the hell can you trademark the name of an animal? Now does this mean that Tiger Direct can sue the San Diego Zoo? I bet the zoo has "Tigers" in there somewhere, and that my friends is a flagrant and direct violation of Tiger Direct's trademark!!!!!

Wiskedjak · Apr 28, 2005, 04:43 PM

And if a computer/software company decided to call itself or it's product "Tiger" after Apple named one of it's OS's "Tiger", I wonder how many people would be talking about an Apple lawsuit?

ManOfSteal · Apr 28, 2005, 04:44 PM

A comment to that story from AI talks about how the Texas Longhorns may sue Microsoft for the use of "Longhorn"...

Fools.

I suppose Apple will never make the "G6" now...seeing that Pontiac beat them to the punch. Oh well!

jasonsRX7 · Apr 28, 2005, 04:47 PM

TigerDirect sells under several different names. I think PC Connection and Global are also TigerDirect aliases. I have a TD catalog right here. There's a TigerDirect store in Raleigh, but I've never been there. They actually sell some decent stuff, and some things are good deals, but they also sell a lot of cheeseball "gamer" PC's in those hideous cases. Some of them they try to pass off as servers. Look out for the Systemax, VisionMan, and Cybertron systems! They should call it the "Cybertron Autobot 4000"

Wiskedjak · Apr 28, 2005, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by His Dudeness

How the hell can you trademark the name of an animal? Now does this mean that Tiger Direct can sue the San Diego Zoo? I bet the zoo has "Tigers" in there somewhere, and that my friends is a flagrant and direct violation of Tiger Direct's trademark!!!!!

The tigers at the San Diego Zoo are not connected to the computer industry. How the hell can you trademark the name of a fruit? Is every apple orchard a flagrant and direct violation of Apple's trademark?

xi_hyperon · Apr 28, 2005, 04:48 PM

I had a cat once named Tiger. That's it!

<looks in yellow pages under "attorney">

Wiskedjak · Apr 28, 2005, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by xi_hyperon

I had a cat once named Tiger. That's it!

<looks in yellow pages under "attorney">

I ate an apple once

His Dudeness · Apr 28, 2005, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

The tigers at the San Diego Zoo are not connected to the computer industry. How the hell can you trademark the name of a fruit? Is every apple orchard a flagrant and direct violation of Apple's trademark?

I don't see the apple orchard owners suing though.

ManOfSteal · Apr 28, 2005, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by xi_hyperon

Yeah, I just hired one as well...his name is Tony and he is G-R-R-R-R-eat...

[/waiting for Kelloggs to sue now]

Wiskedjak · Apr 28, 2005, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by His Dudeness

I don't see the apple orchard owners suing though.

That's because they aren't related to the computer industry. How many companies in the computer industry do you think could get away with using very common words such as "apple", "panther", "entourage" and "spotlight"?

turtle777 · Apr 28, 2005, 05:01 PM

-t

Wiskedjak · Apr 28, 2005, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by ManOfSteal

[/waiting for Kelloggs to sue now]

Kelloggs is not in the computer industry. But, Kelloggs did sue Esso over their use of a tiger as mascot. Kelloggs won that lawsuit.

ironknee · Apr 28, 2005, 05:03 PM

oy how dumb

Wiskedjak · Apr 28, 2005, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

-t

What would you be saying if Dell named one of it's computers "Panther"?

Skip Breakfast · 05:05 PM

This should be thrown out. Tiger Direct knew about Apple's intended use a long time ago.

BTW, Tiger Direct (NYSE: SYX) is a $2,000,000,000 mail order company. One of the largest in the US, in fact.

stevesnj · Apr 28, 2005, 05:10 PM

Just a publicity stunt on Tiger Directs' part...Tiger OS X has been named this for months and months yet they pick now to file an injunction...plus they sell iPods and PowerMacs pre-loaded with Tiger...seems TigerDirects tears flow green in anger huh? I can't wait till this majically dissapears in a drop of the injunction.

budster101 · Apr 28, 2005, 05:12 PM

I see their sales being diverted once "Tiger" ships...
Oh wait, they don't MAKE software. Won't affect them. Move along.

The bad publicity can only help Apple, and hurt Tigerdefect.. I mean Tigerneglect, errr, Tiger, what was that company name again?

Apple Pro Underwear · Apr 28, 2005, 05:13 PM

i think Apple's wrong

would Apple like it if "Apple" was being used for something computer related by some other company?

nope, so apple should have done their homework

f1000 · Apr 28, 2005, 05:15 PM

Believe it or not, whimsical names such as Apple� and Tiger� are very good trademarks. As long as the phrase "Tiger" isn't used to represent a real living tiger, it can be used as a trademark.

Tiger Direct would have a good case if it used the word "Tiger" alone as a tradename or trademark, but I've never seen them do that. They always call themselves and their service TigerDirect�.

I doubt that Tiger Direct has a strong case against Apple. I did a quick search on the USPTO website and noticed that the company has never registered "Tiger" as a trademark. This doesn't mean that they don't have a case if they can show that Apple's "Tiger" trademark would confuse customers, but I doubt that Tiger Direct can demonstrate this. TigerDirect sells to a PC audience, and this audience is unlikely to go to Apple.com or an Apple retail store and confuse Tiger� with TigerDirect�.

budster101 · Apr 28, 2005, 05:27 PM

How would that confuse their customers?

They do NOT make software or operating systems. They are a DISTRIBUTOR...
It can only HELP them if there ever were a confusion. They suck.

f1000 · Apr 28, 2005, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by budster101

How would that confuse their customers?

They do NOT make software or operating systems. They are a DISTRIBUTOR...
It can only HELP them if there ever were a confusion. They suck.

Indeed, they suck.

If instead of 'Tiger' the word in consideration was 'Sony' or 'IBM', both of which are nonsensical, then Tiger Direct's case would have merit. Imagine if a company created an electronics mail order service called SonyDirect. The real Sony would have a cow.

Tiger, however, is a generic word. This makes Tiger Direct's case weak.

Wiskedjak · 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by budster101

How would that confuse their customers?

They do NOT make software or operating systems. They are a DISTRIBUTOR...
It can only HELP them if there ever were a confusion. They suck.

You mean like people not getting confused over Emacs and eMacs?
http://www.slashnot.com/article.php3...4&section=Home

f1000 · Apr 28, 2005, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

You mean like people not getting confused over Emacs and eMacs?
http://www.slashnot.com/article.php3...4&section=Home

That's satire, Wiskedjak, is it not?

Moreover, Apple owns the trademark for Tiger. Tiger Direct does not.

Tiger Direct cannot claim that Apple is misappropriating the Tiger trademark, since Tiger Direct does not own such a trademark. Tiger Direct can only claim that Apple's trademark is designed to mislead customers...a though case to prove, IMHO.

Wiskedjak · Apr 28, 2005, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by f1000

That's satire, Wiskedjak, is it not?

Yes, it is satire. The point being that Apple sues over almost anything.

Wiskedjak · Apr 28, 2005, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by His Dudeness

How the hell can you trademark the name of an animal?

Apparently, it is possible ...

Originally Posted by f1000

Moreover, Apple owns the trademark for Tiger. Tiger Direct does not.

(of course, you won't be complaining about Apple owning the trademark for "Tiger", will you?)

bradoesch · Apr 28, 2005, 05:55 PM

I'm a very frequent shopper at tigerdirect.ca, and I've never noticed the connection. I've even been calling it Tiger lately and never associated the two.

BTW there's loads of cheap stuff at Tiger. Just watch out for the crap that jasonsRX7 warned about. Buy their super cheap name brand stuff.

f1000 · Apr 28, 2005, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

(of course, you won't be complaining about Apple owning the trademark for "Tiger", will you?)

I'm not following you. If Apple adhered to U.S. laws and legally trademarked the word Tiger for one of its products, then what's the problem? The USPTO is FULL of common words used as trademarks. Even names are used as trademarks. Ever heard of DuPont, Ford, or Dell?

Hugi · Apr 28, 2005, 06:01 PM

What scares me is that their tactics might work

I can't believe I did business with those people in the past - won't happen again though. Make sure you let them know how you feel about extortion like that...

analogika · Apr 28, 2005, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

The tigers at the San Diego Zoo are not connected to the computer industry. How the hell can you trademark the name of a fruit? Is every apple orchard a flagrant and direct violation of Apple's trademark?

Actually, Apple was, IIRC, in violation, several times.

Remember?

gururafiki · Apr 28, 2005, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by Apple Pro Underwear

i think Apple's wrong

would Apple like it if "Apple" was being used for something computer related by some other company?

nope, so apple should have done their homework

Apple = Apple�
Tiger does not = TigerDirect�

Two totally different names. Nobody would be stupid enough to use the name Apple as it is obviously already taken. But Tiger is not taken. TigerDirect is taken, but not Tiger. I don't see how Apple is wrong here.

Person Man · Apr 28, 2005, 06:18 PM

What "Bloomberg" are they talking about. I went to Bloomberg.com and couldn't find this story. In fact, I haven't been able to find this story outside MacNN/AppleInsider or MacMinute...

Is this real? I want to see a secondary source (i.e. OUTSIDE of the Macintosh Sites)

demograph68 · Apr 28, 2005, 06:23 PM

What would happen if every word in the dictionary became copyright to some business or organization?

Xeo · Apr 28, 2005, 06:25 PM

Apple's trademark for Tiger was filed almost two years ago and published for opposition on August 17, 2004.

PUBLICATION FOR OPPOSITION

If the examining attorney raises no objections to registration, or if the applicant overcomes all objections, the examining attorney will approve the mark for publication in the Official Gazette, a weekly publication of the USPTO.

The USPTO will send a NOTICE OF PUBLICATION to the applicant stating the date of publication. Any party who believes it may be damaged by registration of the mark has thirty (30) days from the publication date to file either an opposition to registration or a request to extend the time to oppose. An opposition is similar to a proceeding in a federal court, but is held before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, a USPTO administrative tribunal. If no opposition is filed or if the opposition is unsuccessful, the application enters the next stage of the registration process. A Certificate of Registration will issue for applications based on use, or a Notice of Allowance will issue for intent-to-use applications.

So I guess TigerDirect would have had to get the ball rolling within 30 days of August 17th. If they did, they might have grounds to sue. If they didn't, they don't really have a leg to stand on.

Besides, as others have mentioned, TigerDirect never registered just "Tiger."

Apple Pro Underwear · Apr 28, 2005, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by gururafiki

Apple = Apple�
Tiger does not = TigerDirect�

Two totally different names. Nobody would be stupid enough to use the name Apple as it is obviously already taken. But Tiger is not taken. TigerDirect is taken, but not Tiger. I don't see how Apple is wrong here.

In the article in the first post it says they registered "tiger".

if that is a fact, then it's somewhat computer related. regular customers of Tiger Direct may get confused or atleast may dilute their Trademark.

analogika · Apr 28, 2005, 06:31 PM

dp

nm.

f1000 · Apr 28, 2005, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by analogika

What's with the pic of a fat Russian lady bending over?

E's Lil Theorem · Apr 28, 2005, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by Person Man

What "Bloomberg" are they talking about. I went to Bloomberg.com and couldn't find this story. In fact, I haven't been able to find this story outside MacNN/AppleInsider or MacMinute...

Is this real? I want to see a secondary source (i.e. OUTSIDE of the Macintosh Sites)

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/...82&newsLang=en

f1000 · Apr 28, 2005, 06:36 PM

Originally Posted by Apple Pro Underwear

In the article in the first post it says they registered "tiger".

if that is a fact, then it's somewhat computer related. regular customers of Tiger Direct may get confused or atleast may dilute their Trademark.

The fact that the USPTO doesn't show such a registration makes me suspect that this article is a hoax.

Maybe Tiger Direct is merely claiming that Tiger is a tradename.

EDIT: Just saw the press release above. Well, Tiger Direct doesn't claim that Tiger is a trademark. I guess it's up to the court to decide whether or not Apple's branding strategy is meant to confuse TigerDirect customers.

trip · Apr 28, 2005, 06:37 PM

If they had of picked any other time to file, I might have thought "OK they're just looking out for their business" but when it's the day before release. forget it - it's a makerting ploy. Even if it was't a marketing ploy (which it is) - it's completley stupid. Why would I want to buy from TigerDirect when they pull crap like this. I'd rather support companies that don't play these stupid games.

Person Man · Apr 28, 2005, 06:38 PM

Well, according to the article E's Little Theorem linked to, the preliminary injunction hearing has been set for May 3, so the launch is not threatened at all.

Xeo · 07:05 PM

The link in my last post doesn't work. We'll try this one:

Status of Apple's trademark for "Tiger"

It looks like someone (probably TigerDirect) quickly put in an extension on their right to oppose, after the publication for opposition had only been out for 2 days. Then, in December, someone (again, probably TigerDirect) did oppose the registration. It is still pending.

But Apple is still branding the name "Tiger" even though the trademark isn't final. If TigerDirect wins the opposition of the trademark, the will surely win the lawsuit against Apple. If Apple does get the trademark, the lawsuit will probably go away as well.

So really, Apple is playing with fire by using the "Tiger" name even with all this going on. They knew well before Tiger went GM that the opposition was filed and they still chose to market it. So the lawsuit makes sense to me.

On a somewhat related note, they've registered (without opposition) Lynx and Leopard. Considering the newest activity on Leopard was yesterday (extending it so they can still use it), I'm thinking if they lose this suit, Tiger will be renamed to Leopard. Just a guess.

Oh, and they registered something called Graphulator. I wonder if they will ever use it for anything.

Briareus · Apr 28, 2005, 06:55 PM

and, yes, Tiger Direct is based in Florida

Yet another week with a Florida Wackiness� news item

Siggi_arni · Apr 28, 2005, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by ManOfSteal

Yeah, I just hired one as well...his name is Tony and he is G-R-R-R-R-eat...

[/waiting for Kelloggs to sue now]

Mine is already on the case

mitchell_pgh · Apr 28, 2005, 07:09 PM

News Flash: Tony the Tiger sues Tiger Direct... film at 11.

mitchell_pgh · Apr 28, 2005, 07:11 PM

This is one of the few times I hope Apple counter sues and drills them in to the ground.