Apple Sued over Tiger, Injunction Sought

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.

Good Timing

While the suit may have some merit, it is odd for them to wait until now to try and halt such a heralded product.

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...

... as if millions of geeks suddenly added "0.0.0.0 tigerdirect.com" to their hosts file and a web server suddently went silent.

Well,

They should be fine. If I remember correctly, they have at least one lawyer on staff.

Are they kidding?

First of all a trademark search shows something like three other companies who have just the word "Tiger" trademarked in the first page alone (with 1759 records total with tiger somewhere in the name). Second, why did they take so long to bring this up? Certainly Apple has some version of Mac OS Tiger trademarked, isn't it past the time to complain already? The real reason seems to be:

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?

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).

http://www.google.com/search?q=tiger [google.com]:

1. http://www.5tigers.org/ [5tigers.org] -- group dedicated to the animal
2. http://www.tigerdirect.com/ [tigerdirect.com] -- company suing over trademark due to loss of rank on search engines
3. http://www.tigerhaven.org/ [tigerhaven.org] -- more animal people
4. http://www.apple.com/macosx/ [apple.com] -- Apple's new version of OS X
5. http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger [apple.com] -- Apple's new version of OS X

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?

Money grab

This is a grab for quick settlement money, no questions about it. Clever and slimey-- Apple can either take their chances fighting it (with a small chance to be hurt big) or pay TigerDirect cash. Blackmail, essentially, and the timing of this suit is proof.

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

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.


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.

Re:Money grab

True. However, in fact TigerDirect does not own the trademark to Tiger-- Apple does.

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.

Re:Money grab

Not necessarily the case, and from what I know of trademark laws there has to be more to the story than what we are seeing here.

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?

Break out the magic markers

Jobs: "OK I need about a million volunteers: 1) Cross out the 'Tiger' on the box 2) Write 'Big Orange Cat with black stripes' "

Re:Break out the magic markers

How do you know it's not black with orange stripes?

Yeah

I heard Tiger Woods is pretty pissed too.

Not odd at all.

it is odd for them to wait until now to try and halt such a heralded product.

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..

If this is true, then Jaguar [jaguar.com] has standing to sue as well.

"But your honor, these shysters have a prior history of this conduct!"

it's so confusing

I've ordered several things from TigerDirect. Now, thanks to Apple, I don't know if I should enter purchases into a web page or just send it directly to the operating system.

They do????

According to a search on USPTO.gov using Tiger Direct on the owner name as my search parameters I don't see them having a trade mark on Tiger.

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
TIGE RSYSTEMS
TIGERDIRECT
TIGERDIRECT
TIGERDIRECT.CO M
there are all the live trademarks.

See for your self [uspto.gov].

Some points for TigerDirect

I just read the complaint and memorandum of TigerDirect. They have some legitimate beef:

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:

"Apple Computer's use of its infringing family of Tiger marks to expand sales of products besides its operating system software is already evident -- for example, Apple Computer is offering free iPods and laptops as part of its Tiger World Premiere giveaway. In short, notwithstanding its representation to the PTO that it would only use Tiger in connection with their unique computer operating system software, Apple Computer has in recent weeks used a family of Tiger marks in connection wiht a substantially broader group of products and services, including the very products and services currently offered by Tiger Direct under its famous family of Tiger marks."

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:Why did they wait so long?

Trademarks are applied in specific domains. Tiger, as used by your local zoo, is not the same Tiger as the computer companies are using, or as a textile company, or a shipping company, or an airline, would use, despite them being spelled the same way.

Specific domain? Tell that to the WWF.

WWF was having battles with the other WWF for years about the name. The World Widelife Fund finally won a few years back over the World Wrastlin' Federation. Are they in the same specific domain? Maybe, they both have to do with animals...

Re:Tigger

And they don't even own Tigger! A.A. Milne's estate does, but this won't stop those assholes at Disney.

Re:pre-emptive lawsuit

Gimme a break. Just like Apple sued Mac Mall and Club Mac, huh? This is just a grab for funds by Tiger Direct. They are allegedly being investigated for their rebate practices and their reseller rating has gone to shit. I wouldn't doubt it if this is a last ditch attempt to remain solvent.

Re:pre-emptive lawsuit

I'd say you might be on to something, though TigerDirect seems to be making two arguments:
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:pre-emptive lawsuit

I am not a lawyer, but I can see Tiger Direct's point here. Tiger Direct certainly isn't guaranteed a position in the search engines, but it's reasonable to argue that if another company in the same sector (computer sales) infringes on a trademark they claim, hurting their search ranking in the process, then they've been injured by trademark infringement.

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.

Re:pre-emptive lawsuit

I'm curious as to what exactly they're complaining about?

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.

Re:pre-emptive lawsuit

I do not understand their complaint about Google search rank. If I type "tiger direct", I get www.tigerdirect.com as the first result. Does it get any better than that?

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.