Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

ReggieX · Apr 28, 2005, 07:11 PM

Too bad people already have the OS in-hand.

ghporter · 09:33 PM

How about this:

Maybe the Detroit Tigers should sue BOTH Apple and Tiger Direct!

Naaaa. It wouldn't help their performance. And they don't need to jump around and wave their hands in the air to get attention. And I will never buy anything from Tiger Direct. It's childishness, pure and simple.

Edited to fix stupid finger tricks when posting the picture.

Person Man · Apr 28, 2005, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

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

Yep. Same here...

Apple Pro Underwear · Apr 28, 2005, 07:55 PM

have any of you read the latest Wired issue where they have an article about the recent think secret lawsuit and how it may have been used as a marketing strategy?

damn apple is genious at this type of attention whoreing

Mafia · Apr 28, 2005, 07:59 PM

wow. that is one of the stupidest things i've ever heard.

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Apr 28, 2005, 08:47 PM

Originally Posted by Apple Pro Underwear

have any of you read the latest Wired issue where they have an article about the recent think secret lawsuit and how it may have been used as a marketing strategy?

damn apple is genious at this type of attention whoreing

I didn't see that and I don't see how apple got any more press over suing its fans rather than selling billions of iPods.

ironknee · Apr 28, 2005, 09:31 PM

tigerdirect="hey look at me!!!"

sorry if someone said this before...but isn't tiger a code name?

Eriamjh · Apr 28, 2005, 10:01 PM

Isn't TigerDirect the Harbor Freight of the computer world? The Wal-Mart of the computer world?

Didn't a similar thing happen with Jaguar in Austalia? I don't think there was a suit, but the name was already taken, IIRC. Wasn't the name Jaguar just dropped in reference to OSX 10.2? Hmmmmm....

Tyre MacAdmin · Apr 28, 2005, 10:33 PM

I used to work as an account manager for Tiger Direct Corporate. Apple used to be one of the main products that they sold... but they had a really bad falling out. Over what I don't know, but this law suit does not surprise me. I'm actually still affiliated with Tiger for the freelance stuff I do and have bought several Apple solutions for customers ironically. When I asked about being able to still buy Apple products through them I was told that since Tiger's main warehousers still stocked Apple hardware and software it was OK to sell it if the demand deemed necessary. One thing that you'll never see no matter how big apple gets is Apple hardware in their catalogs or at the stores. This has obviously put me in a bad position since I both use and sell Apple hardware and I'm affiliated with Tiger. There goes my supplier!

JustAnOl'Broad · Apr 29, 2005, 01:14 AM

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

I didn't see that because of the
article about George Lucas and Star Wars.

Fixed.

Sorry couldn't resist.

Lancer409 · Apr 29, 2005, 04:13 AM

can you say "free media attention / shameless self promotion"?

Apple Pro Underwear · Apr 29, 2005, 07:11 AM

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

I didn't see that and I don't see how apple got any more press over suing its fans rather than selling billions of iPods.

wellm the writer at wired reasoned:

days before a major announcement

1. buzz/rumors/excitement
2. lawsuit headline announcement
3. official release announcement

_________________

apple gets #2 for free. it acts like a preliminary announcement. so they (as well as a professor they used as a source) reason it's like having 2 official announcements instead of 1. the lawsuit doesn't really affect anything or anybody except for 3 people and adds to the "buzz".

i dont know if this is true or not though. seems suspicious though.

amsalpemkcus · Apr 29, 2005, 08:43 AM

http://www.tigerdirect.com/sectors/Help/contactus.asp

Eriamjh · May 13, 2005, 09:22 PM

Tigernated!

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

A judge has denied a request by computer retailer TigerDirect for a preliminary injunction against Apple Computer over allegations that Apple's nickname for its new operating system, "Tiger," infringes on the retailer's trademarked name.

The ruling was part of a 56 page opinion handed down on May 11th by Judge Joan Lenard of the United States District Court for the District of Florida. After weighing arguments from both sides, the Court found that "there is greater risk of damage to Apple from granting the injunction than any potential harm to TigerDirect from Apple's use of Tiger marks."

In the suit, filed last month, TigerDirect argued that Apple's use of the Tiger name alongside its Mac OS X 10.4 operating system was causing "confusion, mistake and deception among the general purchasing public." Specifically, the retailer contended that Apple's use of the name "Tiger" on the Internet had knocked it from the top of search results on Google, Yahoo and MSN.

TigerDirect's original motion for a preliminary injunction requested the court enjoin Apple from using the term "Tiger" in any matter -- a request that, if fulfilled, could have halted Apple's roll-out of the Mac OS X 10.4 operating system. However, at the May 5th preliminary injunction hearing, TigerDirect narrowed its request and asked the court to bar Apple from using the Tiger mark in any manner except in direct proximity to Mac OS X or Mac OS X 10.4.

To lessen the harm to Apple, the retailer said Apple could still use previously paid for advertising and promotion materials, but requested the Cupertino, Calif-based computer maker cease from using the Tiger mark anywhere on its web site or in any new advertising, signage, or packing; except when pertaining specifically to Mac OS X 10.4.

During the hearing, both parties provided slide presentations as exhibits. Apple also called Philip Schiller, Senior Vice Present of Worldwide Marketing, as a witness. Schiller was reportedly present when Apple selected the "Tiger" nickname for Mac OS X 10.4 and testified that Apple had no intention of trading on the goodwill built up by TigerDirect. He said Apple, over the last several years, had engaged in a practice of naming updates to Mac OS X after large predator cats in order to convey the strength and speed of the operating system.

Apple also entered into evidence a survey that revealed only 6% of consumers associated the name "Tiger" with TigerDirect. Meanwhile, the survey of 517 people showed that only 4 people associated the name "Tiger" with a company -- a result the Court found most interesting. Apple asserted that TigerDirect does not posses a protected family of Tiger marks, as defined by applicable trademark law, nor does it retain a valid Tiger mark for computer goods.

Furthermore, Apple disputed that its own use of 'Tiger' is confusingly similar to TigerDirect's use and provided evidence of over 200 federal registrations of marks containing the term "Tiger" -- including 24 companies, other than TigerDirect, which employ Tiger marks to promote computer products and services.

The Court ultimately sided with Apple, agreeing that TigerDirect was unable to meet the burden of proof necessary for a preliminary injunction to be granted.

"Turning to the overall impression created by the marks, in the context of each party's use thereof, the Court finds that the marks are distinctly different," Judge Lenard wrote in her opinion denying TigerDirect's motion. She said Tiger marks are frequent in the computer industry and that she saw no evidence that Apple adopted the Tiger name in bad faith or that it has caused any confusion in the market place.

And while TigerDirect and Apple share an overlapping consumer base, Judge Lenard said "any given customer who cross-shops TigerDirect and Apple, whether over the internet or in person at their retail local stores, will be able to distinguish their respective retail outlets due to the distinctive differences in their marketplaces' appearance and messages."

According to court documents, over the last year Apple has spent over $50 million to orchestrate a carefully planned marketing campaign and product launch of Mac OS X 10.4.

Millennium · May 14, 2005, 10:43 AM

I love the comment tacked onto the end of the Slashdot article: "I heard that both people who still held respect for TigerDirect no longer do." It's times like this that the term "pwned" was coined to describe.

budster101 · May 14, 2005, 10:49 AM

I never hear of them until this lawsuit and now I don't like them. Bad move on their part. Real bad.
Does Paris Hilton give them legal advice?

Apple Pro Underwear · May 14, 2005, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by Millennium

I love the comment tacked onto the end of the Slashdot article: "I heard that both people who still held respect for TigerDirect no longer do." It's times like this that the term "pwned" was coined to describe.

thats too funny. however, a lot of people know of tigerdirect now for better or worse.

kcmac · May 14, 2005, 11:25 AM

"Meanwhile, the survey of 517 people showed that only 4 people associated the name "Tiger" with a company -- a result the Court found most interesting. "

That's the most revealing part of the story. And I doubt any of those people associated it with an Apple product either. What a waste of the taxpayers money.

budster101 · May 14, 2005, 11:47 AM

Chalk that up to over zealous attourneys who want to make a fast buck.

Person Man · May 15, 2005, 06:01 AM

However, at the May 5th preliminary injunction hearing, TigerDirect narrowed its request and asked the court to bar Apple from using the Tiger mark in any manner except in direct proximity to Mac OS X or Mac OS X 10.4.

In other words, they changed their demands to try to force Apple to do what they were already doing: using "Tiger" only in direct proximity to Mac OS X or Mac OS X 10.4...

Big Mac · May 15, 2005, 06:14 AM

What makes the company's lawyers believe that they possess some sort of universal trademark lock on the word tiger in the electronics/computing context?