Slashdot Log In
Apple Sued over Tiger, Injunction Sought
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Thu Apr 28, 2005 05:38 PM
from the road-bumps-to-launch dept.
from the road-bumps-to-launch dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Online retailer Tiger Direct has reportedly sued Apple over the use of the Tiger name just one day before the Mac maker is scheduled to roll-out its next-generation Mac OS X 10.4 'Tiger' operating system, according to an article at AppleInsider. TigerDirect, which owns trademarks on the names Tiger, TigerDirect and TigerSoftware, has requested an injunction that could prevent Friday's launch of the Tiger OS. Tiger Direct is also seeking damages and legal fees. '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's attorneys wrote in the lawsuit." While the suit may have some merit, it is odd for them to wait until now to try and halt such a heralded product.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Tigger (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Tigger (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Tigger (Score:5, Funny)
In other shocking news, joining in TigerDirect's "Lawsuit" is a conglomeration of six hundred thousand Chinese Restaurants who also feel wronged by Apple's use of the word Tiger.
To only add to the confusion, the actual Apple fruit (malus pumila) is suing Apple for their misleading representation that the Apple fruit is always bitten out of.
*&#@^( you! you crazy, money hungry, insane, can't do business bastards who sue for stupid ass reasons.
Parent
Re:Tigger (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Boycott! Boycott! Boycott! (Score:5, Funny)
A tiger? In Africa?
What?
A TIGER? In Africa?
Shhh!
Parent
pre-emptive lawsuit (Score:4, Funny)
Re:pre-emptive lawsuit (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:pre-emptive lawsuit (Score:5, Informative)
Specifically our files show a pattern of complaints alleging dissatisfaction with product quality, failure to deliver promised goods, service issues, misrepresentation in advertising and marketing practices and the failure to address and overcome the basic cause of complaints brought to their attention by the Better Business Bureau.
Complaints allege customers are led to believe they are buying new, Brand Name computer systems, parts and other products with either a 90-day, or 1 year warranty. Complainants allege they are receiving generic, defective and refurbished items and only a 30-day warranty with the option to purchase the 1-year warranty. Customers who purchase the warranty also experience difficulty in getting return phone calls to get the problems fixed or replaced. Customer are told they may return the items for replacement, but they will need to pay again for the replacement and will credited back when the item is returned and received by the company.
Some of the complaints have issues with the advertised rebate, both the catalog and web site have numerous offers for items with a mail-in rebate. Upon receiving the products the rebate application is not included in the package. Customers are told the rebate application is on the website and customers are required to comply with the program and submit paperwork that they never received. Many are denied because the product they have purchased does not have the advertised rebate, the rebate has expired, and some rebates are only good if the item is purchased with a computer. Many customers feel they have been victims of bait and switch, and are unable to return the products because the package has been open. Customers who have contacted customer service with concerns have problem with getting return calls, emails, and experience unresponsiveness and unconcerned customer service staff.
Parent
Re:pre-emptive lawsuit (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:So I can start AppleSoftware then? (Score:5, Informative)
Glad you covered that in school but that's a bit of an oversimplified perspective. It's a balance between how similar the markets of the two products are, how generic the name is, and possibility of confusion. Here, "computers" in general isn't all that narrow, "Tiger" is a pretty common name, and there's almost no possibility for confusion as one is a computer reseller and the other is an operating system. So there's little case for infringement here. Hell, the Windows vs. Lindows case wasn't open/shut, and there it was two operating systems, a much closer match.
Maybe Tiger Direct isn't that naive, but is Apple really that naive as well to just go take names?
You can't own something as generic as "Tiger."
It is certainly fair play that Apple has to play by the rules. All that imagination for computer design, but they couldn't come up with a more original, and unused, name?
OK then kid, you find a name less than 15 letters that hasn't been used in some way - any way, according to your logic - with computers. See how ridiculous that gets? That's why trademark protection isn't as broad as you seem to think.
Guess what, Apple... somebody already thought of it
No they didn't. They have a computer sales business named Tiger. There's no OS tamed Tiger. 'Til tomorrow.
Parent
Re:pre-emptive lawsuit (Score:5, Interesting)
1. The media blitz involving the word "Tiger" is hurting our ability to reach out to customers, and
2. We should own the trademark to "Tiger"
Now, you're getting at the second argument. TigerDirect has already filed a case at the trademark office to overturn Apple's ownership of the word "Tiger" in this context.
Distinctly, however, this injunction is about the first argument. Nothing to do with trademark ownership, but, assuming ownership, that Apple is hurting their ability to reach customers. To lift from www.macrumors.com,
"The company says that Apple's use of Tiger has changed internet search results, directly impacting its ability to market product to its customers. The company alleges that Apple's use of the name has adversely affected its ranking among the internet's largest search engines, Google and Yahoo, bumping the company from its usual spot in the first three results."
Now, I fail to see how this adds up to a case personally. Search engine ranking is hardly property, or anything close to it. I call blackmail.
Lawyers, check my reasoning?
Parent
Re:pre-emptive lawsuit (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, I don't see how filing the suit the day before the product launch could be anything but a stunt.
I'm rooting for Apple on this one.
Parent
Re:pre-emptive lawsuit (Score:5, Informative)
Searching on google and yahoo for "tiger direct", "tiger computers", "tiger computer", "tiger" and various other incarnations all show Tigerdirect.com and often tigerdirect.ca in the top 3 (with the exception of "tiger" on yahoo).
What exactly are people searching for that yield different results than these? Do they market themselves as "tiger" at all? I've only ever seen references to "TigerDirect" and I've never seen it refered to as "tiger" before. I'm in Canada (and I've bought stuff from them before) so maybe it's different in the US, but.. I don't see why this affects them so much.
Parent
Re:pre-emptive lawsuit (Score:5, Informative)
I don't see what they are bitching about, they are the second link on google above apple.
Parent
Re:pre-emptive lawsuit (Score:5, Insightful)
If I type "tiger", the first result has to do with real tigers (the kind with paws). And that makes sense to me as well.
So I do not see their point. I think the real issue is that over the last year or so, Tiger Direct has become more and more irrelevant as other bargain stores enter the market, and they are hurting financially. Apples has comparatively deep pockets and Tiger Direct may be looking for some revenue.
Parent
Re:pre-emptive lawsuit (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:pre-emptive lawsuit (Score:5, Interesting)
No it's not and never has been. Numbers by themselves are not trademarkable, yes. As the USPTO FAQ states, a trademark is "any word used or intended to be used in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from goods manufactured or sold by others."
A company cannot own a generic word
Yes, yes they can. Trademarks are owned in a particular context. The most famous example is probably Apple. The Beatles' label Apple Corps owns the trademark on "Apple" as it applies to music and Apple Computer owns "Apple" as it applies to computers. This has led to a great deal of legal action with Apple's move into the music world.
Try searching TESS [uspto.gov] for common words and you'll have lots and lots of hits.
Parent
Re:pre-emptive lawsuit (Score:5, Insightful)
No, Microsoft owns several trademarks on just the word "Windows" in various categories, the oldest active one being from 1992 (#74274174).
Apple couldn't trademark "System"
Most likely because it was already in use or just because the word "System" is a fairly integral part of what the product is. You couldn't trademark the term "truck" in relation to selling pick-up trucks because it's not a unique name for your product. At the time Windows was registered windowing operating systems certainly existed, but no one marketed/sold them as that until Microsoft did. Calling your operating system "Windows" was a unique idea. At the time Apple would have tried to trademark "System" people would have been selling items called operating systems for easily a decade or more and calling your product "system x" would not have adequately differentiated it.
Parent
Re:pre-emptive lawsuit (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Good Timing (Score:5, Funny)
Not when now is the time the threat of an injunction to stop distribution could result in a multi zillion pound pay out
I felt a disturbance in the force... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Why did they wait so long? (Score:4, Insightful)
And wait a sec. Are these guys telling me that they have a patent on the word "Tiger"? Somebody better get some lawyers for the local zoo.
Re:Why did they wait so long? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Specific domain? Tell that to the WWF. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Clarification of WWF example. (Score:4, Interesting)
So there's more to that case than just name overlap.
Parent
Re:Why did they wait so long? (Score:4, Interesting)
"Tiger" has a trademark pending by Apple as a computer operating system.
The trademark applications are in different realms.
The thing I find interesting is that after tigerdirect failed to win in their case against tiger.com, they failed to register "tiger.net," or even contest it. They haven't done much to "defend" the tiger brand, and their business bears no association to tigers in branding.
Parent
Re:Why did they wait so long? (Score:5, Funny)
My personal tinfoil theory is that Microsoft slipped TigerDirect a generous amount of money to try to sabotage Apple's launch.
Parent
Well, (Score:5, Funny)
Are they kidding? (Score:5, Insightful)
At the root of the issue appears to internet search results. Tiger Direct contends that Apple's use of the name has adversely affected its ranking amongst the Internet's largest search engines....
So does that mean they plan on taking on some non-profit who appears above them on google, because hey everyone knows I might get confused while searching for "tiger" instead of "tigerdirect" (which shows them ranked first btw). This whole things stinks of a "get rich quick by settlement" scam.
Re:Are they kidding? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.google.com/search?q=tiger [google.com]:
What are they complaining about, again? And why did they wait so late to file this complaint? We've known the name of this version of OS X for how long now?
Parent
Money grab (Score:5, Insightful)
I sincerely hope they'll fight it, not only because I believe the lawsuit is meritless and one should never give into blackmail, but also...
Apple has taken the "we defend our legal rights" stance when they've sued Tiger leakers. Fair enough. If they reverse their stance on that now when up against someone with lawyers, I think that'd be quite hypocritical.
So, sock it to them, Apple.
Re:Money grab (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think it's at all clear cut that Apple are in the right here. Sure, TigerDirect could have been more friendly than waiting until release day to slap on the suit, but if they own the trademark, they own it. Apple could (and should) have done a search before picking that name.
Parent
Re:Money grab (Score:5, Informative)
Now, TigerDirect is challenging that at the trademark office, but Apple is the current owner. So I do think TigerDirect is in the wrong here for assuming certain rights that are in fact pursuant to the outcome of a pending appeal (which I personally don't believe will be found valid).
So I'd stand by my assessment of this as a meritless money-grab.
Parent
Re:Money grab (Score:5, Informative)
For those in the know companies spend hundreds of thousands on trademark research with companies such as Namprotect [nameprotect.com] and Thomson and Thomson [thomson-thomson.com] who make millions from clients who research Trademarks, Service Marks, and Copyrights years (sometimes minutes) before they even plan on utilizing the mark. So that they can avoid situations like this.
Now who really wants to bet that Apple did not do their due diligence by using a trademark research firm?
Parent
Break out the magic markers (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Break out the magic markers (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Yeah (Score:5, Funny)
Tigerdirect is cheap for a reason (Score:4, Interesting)
So, despite having spent thousands of dollars there, they decided that they would rather lose both my personal business and that of the company I work for than accept a return on an unopened $120 board they sold under false pretenses.
Don't fool yourself -- you get what you pay for. TigerDirect is cheap because their service sucks the big one.
Re:Tigerdirect is cheap for a reason (Score:5, Informative)
I (think) have you beat. I bought a desktop from tigerdirect and they never sent a mouse. Customer service was in Canada*, and had no 800 number. So I had to make an out-of-country call, wait on hold for 45 minutes, to get someone to take my number and call me back in the next 48 hours!
Not only was the computer not near any phone, but the rate they called back was somewhat dissapointing. The computer had these new PS2 mouse jacks and I finally convinced someone to send me a new mouse (conversations usually included them saying "but aren't they pretty inexpensive" and me saying "yes they are. I bought one from you and you should send it to me."). The new mouse was serial (while this would have worked, I wanted what was promised with the system). After spending several weeks working on contacting them again, they sent me an adapter. However the adapter would allow you to plug a ps2 mouse into a serial port. After receiving the phone bill, I finally gave up. My unsatisfied principals has cost me nominally $75 in phone charges, so I have up. What a waste of a company. But I have done everything I can to talk people out of buying from them.
In hindsight, I guess you were out more money then I was, but at the time, I was very pissed
*Within a year after that, I read somewhere their customer support finally got an 800 number.Parent
Not odd at all. (Score:5, Interesting)
Not odd at all, for a few reasons. Only upper management (let's call them the CxOs) would have the corporate clout to initiate a lawsuit against a big-name corp like Apple. Consider the following hypothetical scenarios:
1. Prior Apple products have had internal code names that were used in a semi-public way. (The Sagan/BHA saga comes to mind.) The CxOs thought Tiger was just such a code name, and, being clueless as only management can be, didn't realize until this late that it was not the case.
2. The CxOs, being clueless as only management can be, hadn't heard of Apple's "Tiger" until now.
3. The CxOs, realizing that this was an open-and-shut case, figured they'd give Apple enough rope to hang themselves. They're all expert blackmailers - sorry, "negotiators" - and know that Apple is now facing a time crunch. Apple has a hard deadline and must settle on Tiger Direct's terms.
Don't know about you, but #3 strikes me as really plausible. I don't know if that makes me cynical or just experienced, but I don't see Tiger's behavior as odd, in the sense of "statistically unusual".
Wait a minute.. (Score:5, Funny)
"But your honor, these shysters have a prior history of this conduct!"
it's so confusing (Score:5, Funny)
They do???? (Score:5, Informative)
They have 11 entries almost al with the word Tiger in them but not the word Tiger alone. In fact all of their trademarks with tiger in them are one word entries.
XCONNECT
TIGERPC.COM
TIGERTV.COM
TIG
TIGERDIRECT
TIGERDIRECT
TIGERDIRECT.C
there are all the live trademarks.
See for your self [uspto.gov].
Re:They do???? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Some points for TigerDirect (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Apple only announced the April 29th launch date publicly on April 12, 2005. That's critical in asking "Why only now?" -- there was nothing imminent prior to that.
2) Apple tried registering "Tiger" as a trademark (with intent-to-use) in July 2003, but was denied b/c of possible confusion. Apple won the Tiger trademark by agreeing to limit its use to computer operating software.
3) Tiger attempted to settle, and then filed an opposition to Apple's mark in December 2004.
4) Tiger has six registered marks, and several other common-law marks.
Much of this wouldn't matter (IMHO) if Apple wasn't a reseller itself. But since they do sell many of the same products as TigerDirect, there is a beef. Tiger makes a good case that Apple is using the Tiger mark more broadly that it is entitled, to venture into other sales areas than just operating systems, and that that can affect Tiger's revenues. Here's a quote from their court memorandum:
Personally, I don't think this passes the "likelihood of confusion" test, but that's for a court to decide. If I were in TigerDirect's shoes, I'd similarly be upset.Re:Some points for TigerDirect (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
A little poking about the USPTO... (Score:5, Informative)
Tiger, owned by Systemax Inc. (owners of TigerDirect.com) and first used in 1987, filed in 2000 and registered in 2002. Serial no. 75915934
and
Tiger, owned by Apple Computer Inc. Not yet registered, but filed in 2003 with publication for opposition in August 2004. Serial no. 78269988
While this seems the end for Apple's Tiger, a closer look reveals the important bits. Apple's Tiger has been filed for "computer operating system software", while Systemax's Tiger was registered for "Mail order catalog services featuring computers and computer related products; and Retail store services featuring computers and computer related products."
They are two very different uses for the trademark. I'm sure Apple's lawyers will pounce on this fact. TigerDirect does not have much of a chance of pulling this one off.
On top of this, waiting until the day before the product launch was not the best plan for TigerDirect. Apple's tradmark was published for opposition last year. Given all the publicity, TigerDirect's management would definately have known about this long before now. Any decent judge would see TigerDirect's real intentions in filing this late.
I suspect that TigerDirect's managment are hoping that Apple's lawyers are stupid and will settle immedaitely. If this is the case then I think TigerDirect's management are in for a rude awakening. Steve Jobs will fight this one.
Re:Understanding Mac numbers (Score:5, Informative)
Windows NT 3.1 - Version 1 (the number was picked to be in sync with the 16-bit Windows)
Windows NT 3.5 - First real update - added Alpha support
Windows NT 3.51 - Minor service pack, added PowerPC support
Windows NT 4 - moved GUI and device drivers into kernel mode for speed, added Win95 GUI. Major upgrade.
Then came 6 service packs...
Windows NT 5 - AKA Windows 2000. Not a huge upgrade overall, but added Active Directory.
Windows NT 5.1 - AKA Windows XP. Other minor improvements, more consumer-oriented features, prettier GUI.
The equivalent in Mac-land:
Mac OS (through version 9.2): Older cooperative-multitasking-based systems. 9.2 is still supported under OS X as "Classic", but for more than a year you haven't been able to buy a Mac that would boot 9.x by itself.
Mac OS X 10.0 - "Cheetah". The first cut at the new version. It was updated with minor service packs a few times, then in fall 2001 it was replaced with:
Mac OS X 10.1 - "Puma". Really just the equivalent of a Windows service pack, despite the numbering. It was handed out by Apple as a free update CD. They added the DVD player, fixed a lot of bugs, and such.
Mac OS X 10.2 - "Jaguar". Jaguar was the first version to actually get the "big cat" name made an official part of the product name (the previous names were code names only). Jaguar got updates through 10.2.8, and still is supported with the occasional security update. The biggest change from a GUI perspective was the move to the "brushed metal" look.
Mac OS X 10.3 = "Panther". Panther was released in October 2003, about a year after Jaguar. As it's been around for a year and a half, it's gotten point updates up to 10.3.9.
Basically, there's no direct analogue between the two, but the closest thing in Mac land to a Windows-style service pack was the 10.0 to 10.1 update. It was a free CD at the Apple Stores and from resellers (you could buy it for $20 as a shrinkwrapped update kit IIRC). They didn't make it available for download, though.
Typically, Apple point releases are simply bugfixes and occasional minor feature upgrades (10.3.9 just gave us the new Safari 1.3, which shares most of its guts with Tiger's Safari RSS 2.0), new drivers, etc. But they release them every 2-3 months or so, whereas Microsoft tends to roll a lot more stuff into a service pack, and they release them far less frequently - like every year or two. XP came out in 2001, and they're only on SP2 for it. But Microsoft releases bugfixes and security updates regularly in between service packs - Apple does some of that as well but mostly relies on point releases.
But to Apple overall, they think of what looks like a "minor" update by the version numbers as a major one, and it usually is in terms of features added and the like. Check out the analysis on Ars to see what all the new goodies really entail.
Parent
Re:Okay. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:in regards to the flamebait moderation... (Score:5, Funny)
I actually got a good giggle out of this, because I think you honestly believe that titling a comment 'You fuckers' and calling everyone who disagrees with you 'brainwashed' is not flame-bait.
But okay, I'll bite... perhaps you're complaining about the moderation because you don't really know what 'flame-bait' means. Flame-bait doesn't necessarily mean that the person who is posting is wrong... it just means that their comment was posted in just a way as to invite flamage.
For example: if I posted that I thought that desktop Linux was really coming along, and that more people really ought to consider it as an alternative to Windows, I wouldn't be modded down as flamebait. If I posted that desktop Linux still had too many usability problems and that Windows was still better for end users, I wouldn't either. If I posted that I thought anyone who used Windows when Linux was available was a cretin who shouldn't be allowed to breed, I would almost certainly be modded down as flamebait (unless I said it in a fucking hilarious way), and the same goes for saying the same thing about people using desktop Linux.
So, in case you still can't see what you did, a helpful hint: calling people 'fuckers' because they believe different things than you, even if what they believe is so obviously wrong that you just can't imagine anyone actually believing it and it makes you nauseous to even consider the idea that anyone could believe it... well, that invites flames. And thus is flame-bait.
Dickhead.
-fred
PS: By the way, you're also wrong.
Parent