Apple Sued over Tiger, Injunction Sought 1075
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.
Okay. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm also not a fan of Apple, as I absolutely hate using the 10.3 Macs we have in the lab here in our library.
However, this should be pretty clear-cut. If TigerDirect, a computer-related company, owns the trademark on Tiger, as applied to computer products, and Apple has been using that trademark without permission, then TigerDirect should be granted damages.
Especially since, I doubt them having the trademark on Tiger is a new thing.
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.
You have got to be kidding... (Score:3, Interesting)
This lawsuit will only further "dilute their brand"... wait... perhaps this is just a ploy to plaster tiger direct all over the news and that way reclaim their ranking in the search engines!
Tiger's mad for one reason (Score:2, Interesting)
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".
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?
Re:Money grab (Score:3, Interesting)
It is entirely possible that the entire reason that they waited so long is that they've been talking to Apple about this the entire time. It is also entirely possible that Apple only *recently* gave Tiger Direct "the finger."
Unless you're a member of the Apple legal team or an employee of Tiger Direct, I find it hard to believe that you can be so certain that TD is in the wrong here.
a couple of issues: (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Whether or not there is a trademark issue here is far more complex issue to sort out than any of the random speculation that is going on here at slashdot.
2. The courts won't look kindly upon the litigant if it can be shown that they actually chose to wait until the last minute to claim, i.e. an attempt to wield maximum damage on Apple.
The test for trademark infringement is basically whether or not the use of the mark causes confusion, and the use of the mark has to be within the same "area" that the original mark is registered for.
I don't think TigerDirect has a good case: Apple's use of "Tiger" has always been subordinate to "OS/X" and "10.4" - how often have you seen Apple use the word Tiger as itself? In addition, Apple demonstrate history of using cat words, of which Tiger is merely one in a line.
Good luck TigerDirect, you're _really_ going to need it.
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.Clarification of WWF example. (Score:4, Interesting)
So there's more to that case than just name overlap.
Re:pre-emptive lawsuit (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:pre-emptive lawsuit (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, last time I checked, a 'tiger' was some furry critter with claws and tooth.
A company cannot own a generic word... otherwise, the only legal dictionaries would be blank dictionaries - which is probably just as well since good spelling and decent grammar are apparently deprecated.
This is why most company usually graft their name to their generics... like "Microsoft Windows", "Norton Antivirus", etc.
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.
Re:pre-emptive lawsuit (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:pre-emptive lawsuit (Score:2, Interesting)
Could it have anything to do with a $h1t7y economy? Certainly not! But Jaguar is filing suit due to their loss of google rankings.
Attempted Revenge for Cancelling clones. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:pre-emptive lawsuit (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:pre-emptive lawsuit (Score:2, Interesting)
Google has been known to change their PageRank algorithm from time to time. It could be entirely unrelated to Apple.
Are they planning to sue the zoos next for having a tiger exhibit featured on their web site?
If I was Apple, I'd be asking for the last few months of web server referrer logs.
Re:Are they kidding? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:pre-emptive lawsuit (Score:3, Interesting)
At one point, I actually owned f***tigerdirect.com (wish I still had it, lost my job and didn't want to renew it when I had other things to worry about), but the E-Commerce direct told me that it was trademark infringement, and he was planning on sueing me. Nothing ever came of it.
I actually can't believe they are still in business.
Hold on... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Free Catalog (Score:1, Interesting)
Aint no way I'm asking for one !
Apple's Trademark to Tiger & the opposition (Score:1, Interesting)
TigerDirect may be on shaky legal ground if they've not already raised questions about Apple's application. Apple's application for Tiger was filed on July 2, 2003, almost two years ago. And it was published for opposition on August 17, 2004, over 8 months ago. And there is someone's opposition: "An opposition is now pending at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board." An extension to file opposition came in on August 19, 2004, two days after it became open for opposition and was "instituted" (probably meaning filed) on December 15, 2004. Given the sluggishness of the opposition's response to such a simple issue, I suspect that TigerDirect is involved and their lawyers have been trying to drag things out in the hope of extracting cash out of a weak case. Delay is what lawyers who think their case won't do well in court do.
And why is the USPTO taking so long on this? Filed in July 2003, Apple should have had that trademark (or not) by the end of 2003.
My own take on this is that Apple Computer is so big and well-known, no one would confuse them with a third-rate mail order house. Apple has class, these folk don't.
Someone in the media might want to call Apple's lawyer at: 408-974-4240 He probably won't say much, be he might give us a few facts.
--Mike Perry, Untangling Tolkien
Re:Are they kidding? (Score:1, Interesting)
I gotta go with "they're filing now because they're hoping to make Apple nervous enough about the possible disruption of a ballyhooed product launch to pay lots to make it go away."
If they'd done this even weeks ago, Apple would be in a better position to rebrand stuff on the off-chance Apple actually faces injunctions. Nope, they (TD) waited until the day before the product launch, when their enemy was weakest, and struck.
Re:pre-emptive lawsuit (Score:1, Interesting)
There's your answer.
Re:So I can start AppleSoftware then? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Apple's Trademark to Tiger & the opposition (Score:3, Interesting)
Point two:So have 'Smith Bros. Cough Drops'. (Sugar and gelatin, no medication at all.) So have those fake-Disney cartoons you see at drug stores, with voice acting that would gag any Junior High School theatre production and animation that would gag any three-year-old with a crayon. So has Windows, come to that. Just because they've been around for a while doesn't make them first-rate, or even second-rate. Me, I'd say that even third-rate is too generous for them: I've known three people who ordered from them, and three people who were burned by them shipping the wrong merchandise and not taking it back, shipping used merchandise as new, and ignoring rebates.
One person got shipped a video card that had obviously been opened, and which didn't work. Matrox wouldn't take it back, because it was OEM, and Tiger wouldn't take it back because they didn't feel like it. And, to add insult to injury, the bar code was already cut from the box it came in, so he didn't even get to claim the rebate they'd promised him. Not that they would have sent it in any case.I think 'you statement' qualifies you as a person who doesn't bother to do even the most rudimentary research (say, searching for 'TigerDirect' on google and checking out all the customer complaints) before passing judgment on other people. Am I right?
-fred
Re:pre-emptive lawsuit (Score:5, Interesting)
There is already a Tiger Computer (Score:2, Interesting)
Article submitter is a moron. (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, it is quite strange that they would seek a settlement at the point when Apple would have the most incentive to end the matter as quickly as possible. Idiot.
The article isn't quite right.. (Score:3, Interesting)
They've only been going under Tiger Direct for a few years. They used to be known as Misco.
Re:pre-emptive lawsuit (Score:2, Interesting)
You have every right to put whatever you want in your sig. And I have every right to make fun of you for it and ignore the substance of your comment.
Besides that, your sig reveals that you have a bias on this particular topic. Again, there's nothing wrong with having a bias. Nor is there anything wrong with my pointing it out. Breathe in... Breathe out... OK?
I haven't studied trademark law in a while, but what I do remember is that the mark itself does not have to be exactly the same for it to be infringing. The test (under US law) is the likelihood of consumer confusion.
My opinion--which I consider to be an unbiased opinion since I'm not trying to sell Apple or non-Apple computer products--is that this could lead to a lot of consumer confusion. For example, many consumers would likely think that tigerdirect.com is a place to buy Apple products and not a place to buy PC products. This could negatively affect TigerDirect's future business.
If you know more about trademark law than I do, go ahead and school me. But making an unelaborated argument that something is "not legally the same thing" doesn't help to convince anyone.