Manage updates with the Download AppApril 29, 2005 8:19 AM PDT
Lawsuit could grab Tiger by the tail
- Related Stories
-
Apple settles with another alleged Tiger leaker
April 19, 2005 -
In Apple, Microsoft OSes, search is on
April 19, 2005
Tiger Direct, a subsidiary of Systemax, filed the suit Thursday and is seeking a temporary restraining order and injunction when it goes before a U.S. District Court in Florida for a hearing Tuesday.
Should Tiger Direct, which also sells Apple products, prevail in its case, it could grab Apple's extensive marketing and promotions for Mac OS X 10.4 by the tail.
Apple plans to debut its Tiger OS at 6 p.m. Friday amid much fanfare at its retail stores. The computer maker plans to close its stores at 5 p.m., only to reopen them an hour later for Tiger's launch with a celebration that will continue through midnight.
Tiger Direct, however, will not be celebrating.
In its lawsuit, Tiger Direct alleges Apple's infringement on its trademark has had far-reaching implications.
"Apple Computer's use of the term 'Tiger' has also affected search results in Internet search engines. Before?an Internet search for the term 'tiger' would result in Tiger Direct being the sole provider of computers, computer software and computer related products. Tiger Direct would also almost always appear in the first three responses to such a search," the lawsuit states.
But now, Tiger Direct alleges, Apple's Tiger OS is at the top of the search listing on Yahoo and Microsoft's MSN, as well as inundating search results on Google.
And as other Apple resellers begin to carry the Tiger OS, more competition is expected to follow when it comes to computer-related Tiger searches, Tiger Direct claims.
Tiger Direct is asking the courts to issue preliminary and permanent injunctions against Apple to prevent its future use of the name "Tiger" in its products, as well as seeking damages in excess of $75,000.
Apple declined to comment, citing the pending litigation with Tiger Direct.
53 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment
wait so long to file anyhow?
Public relations schemes that involves suing big and known
companies in order to get free publicity, they are the new
"remoras of the industry" parasitic jerks that are out to flood the
system for wicked purposes, I hope they and there lawyers are
destroeyed in court and made to look like fools in the eyes of
the industry.
practically $2 billion dollars in sales in 2004 (that's BILLION).
By the way Apple's sales for the same period were higher, but only about four times higher coming in at $8.24 billion and that includes subsidiaries like Apple UK and Filemaker.
So I don't know how the first qualifies as Rinky Dink and not the second. 8*Rinky Dink should be at least "Dink" if not "somewhat less Rinky Dink"
Tiger Direct grow up. Your store is a mess, the staff pretends to know everything under the sun when it comes to computers and technology, and it's just plain chaotic and disorganized. Thanks for giving me a reason not to shop there anymore.
Apple corp's employees need to visit the campus site of Tiger Direct with brass knuckles, numchucks, and pry bars and do some damage. Normally this would be bull **** worthy of just getting pissed over. But considering they pulled this the DAY before the release of Tiger I consider this pummel worthy BS.
will find a mouse pad, two cheap PC's, and a Tiger Woods golf
game. That's it.
Maybe Tiger Direct should stop wasting everyone's time!
It's the same reason why Apple didn't sue a business like "Apple Vacations"
Hmmmm.
And besides, Tiger Direct, to my knowledge, doesn't even sell the Mac OS or hardware. What the f- are they complaining about?
Wake up...time to die!
Anyways, I get about 300 pieces of junk e-mail in my throw-away yahoo account, and it has hardly brought the yahoo service to its knees. So you would need to send about 500,000 messages each not just 500.
I have a funny feeling that both are. If Tiger Direct did not
trademark "Tiger", they have no case. However, they may have a
case with the search engines.
The case won't stand.
Tigers" (about saving 5 species of Tigers) beat them both....
TigerDirect was #2 and Apple was #4.
Funny...
Word Mark TIGER
Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: computer operating system software
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 78269988
Filing Date July 2, 2003
Current Filing Basis 1B
Original Filing Basis 1B
Published for Opposition August 17, 2004
Owner (APPLICANT) Apple Computer, Inc. CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 1 Infinite Loop Cupertino CALIFORNIA 95014
Attorney of Record John Donald
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
I went to the PTO website and searched for "tiger computer" and guess what came up?? Tiger Direct has TigerPC registered.
It's like me using Apple for a video card (that's a part of a computer) and then claiming it's just a regular object.
Sorry there's no excuse for this mistake on Apple's part.
Maybe that's what Tiger Direct is doing. I don't know.
Maybe something like this happens in Europe...but that's also unlikely.
Just more fuel to the "litigation for self-promotional purposes" fire...
with Apple. What they registered, I believe, is "Mac OS X Tiger".
I'm not a lawyer, plus I don't live in US, but I sometimes deal
with logos and brand names. So I believe it's not a problem to
register an ordinary word, like "apple", "tiger" or "window".
What's more difficult it's to lay claim to the exclusive use of it.
That's why I'm often pushed not to use plain words but invent
something new instead. Or at least to add something to the
word. Like in "Apple Computer" or "MS Windows".
I believe you can register a company name with just one letter,
say "T". But it doesn't mean that since then every brand name
with "T" (e.g. "Tiger"), is banned.
Under Rule 65(b) of the Fed. Rules of Civil Procedure, before a
TRO can be issued, the plaintiff must certify in writing what
efforts were taken to give notice to the other party or reasons
notice is not required.
TigerDirect did not do this, so their TRO was denied. This is,
literally, 1st year law school stuff.
So, either:
1. their lawyers are so bad they flubbed this totally basic
requirement for any TRO, or
2. they knew full well what they were doing and the whole
motion for a TRO was bogus
Other than the notice requirements you mention, the moving party (in this case Tiger Direct) has to show things that are very difficult to show such as immediate injury.
So their lawyers aren't as bad as you think they are.
That is because there is between slim and no chance that people are going to confuse the company Tiger Direct and Apple's new operating system, Tiger OS. A trademark is any word, name, symbol, etc. or any combination used in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from others and to show the source of goods. In short, trademark is a brand name.
I have purchased computer-related products, printers, software, etc., from Tiger Direct. It seems to be a good company. Good price, reliable, fast shipping. But, the test under trademark law is the "likelihood of confusion." There is no way that Tiger Direct can assert without giggling or on-the-floor laughing that an average buyer is going to confuse Tiger Direct, an online computer parts store with Apple's new version of its Mac operating system. There is no similarity in the overall impression created by the two marks except they both use the word "Tiger." And, I am sure that Apple and its lawyers did not intend to illegitimately trade on the reputation of Tiger Direct and intend to siphon off business from Tiger Direct, which sells Apple products, by the way.
But, business is business. Maybe Tiger Direct wants the spotlight on them at Apple's expense. What is most telling is that Tiger Direct complains that it is no longer at the top of the "hits" when Tiger is entered into Google, Yahoo or other search engines. I was trying to think how Tiger Direct could complain and I took a couple of spins in my office chair and remembered about a guy I was introduced to a few years ago who was real talented at singing songs or tunes without opening his lips or forming words. Everybody called him "Hummer" and he really liked it. But, then the US military started ordering vehicles also called Hummer and pretty soon he wasn't third or fourth on Yahoo or Google, he wasn't even there at all. But & our Hummer didn't sue &
Evan Shirley
Honolulu, Hawai'i
they DID trademark. And it's one word because any half-way
competent trademarl attorney would have made it clear to them
that 'Tiger' alone is not a trademarkable item
On the same basis, MS's trademark on 'Windows' is totally
fraudulent. 'Microsft's Windows' is a legitimate trademark, but
'Windows' alone is a totally generic term. Of couse, Ol' Bill's legal
staff will raise all sorts of futile smoke on this one, and
eventually, MS dollars tend to 'win' the argument. But, 'Lindows'
remains a perfectly good product name.
Now a trademark can become "generic" which is something you must have heard of. For example, at one time "elevator" was a trademark belonging to Otis. However, Otis used it to describe their people mover product in a way that caused it to become a generic name for the product.
So there's no reason why someone can't get a trademark on the word "tiger." It depends on the context. Actually the following "tiger" words are trademarked:
tiger (lighting products)
black tiger (comic books)
eye of tiger (paint brushes)
red tiger (flowering plants)
and a few thousand more.
And don't worry - Windows is a valid trademark. Just ask the people who made an overpriced product called Lindows, or whatever became of it. What do you think their first defense was, of course that "Windows" is not a valid trademark, and yet they lost. Let me guess, that means that the courts are all in the grasp of Bill...or maybe it's a valid trademark.
HAPPY MAY DAY