Slashdot Mirror

Did some research, found the following two patents:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=nanocoolers&OS=nanoc oolers&RS=nanocoolers [uspto.gov]

And

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =2&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=nanocoolers&OS=nanoc oolers&RS=nanocoolers [uspto.gov]

It looks like they're using a Gallium/Indium (rare elements) alloy. This is certainly not environmentally safe from a chemical point of view as these are toxic heavy metals. I think by environmentally safe they are pointing to the "sealed" system that they are advertising. That is, they dont exepect the systems to leak, as they do not require any refilling.

Basically, their argument appears to be that it's safe because it cant get out, just like coolant in a nuclear reactor. This is actually a reasonable claim, however, we shouldnt take it to mean that the liquid metal coolant itself is evironmentally sound, just that the system, while in operation, is.

P.S. it appears they've also experimented w/ Lead/Bismuth, mercury, and Sodium/Potassium alloys.
--
I'll PayPal $5 to the next 5 complete referrals [electrogift.com].

Did some research, found the following two patents:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=nanocoolers&OS=nanoc oolers&RS=nanocoolers [uspto.gov]

And

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =2&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=nanocoolers&OS=nanoc oolers&RS=nanocoolers [uspto.gov]

It looks like they're using a Gallium/Indium (rare elements) alloy. This is certainly not environmentally safe from a chemical point of view as these are toxic heavy metals. I think by environmentally safe they are pointing to the "sealed" system that they are advertising. That is, they dont exepect the systems to leak, as they do not require any refilling.

Basically, their argument appears to be that it's safe because it cant get out, just like coolant in a nuclear reactor. This is actually a reasonable claim, however, we shouldnt take it to mean that the liquid metal coolant itself is evironmentally sound, just that the system, while in operation, is.

P.S. it appears they've also experimented w/ Lead/Bismuth, mercury, and Sodium/Potassium alloys.
--
I'll PayPal $5 to the next 5 complete referrals [electrogift.com].

Did some research, found the following two patents:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=nanocoolers&OS=nanoc oolers&RS=nanocoolers

And

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =2&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=nanocoolers&OS=nanoc oolers&RS=nanocoolers

It looks like they're using a Gallium/Indium (rare elements) alloy. This is certainly not environmentally safe from a chemical point of view as these are toxic heavy metals. I think by environmentally safe they are pointing to the "sealed" system that they are advertising. That is, they dont exepect the systems to leak, as they do not require any refilling.

Basically, their argument appears to be that it's safe because it cant get out, just like coolant in a nuclear reactor. This is actually a reasonable claim, however, we shouldnt take it to mean that the liquid metal coolant itself is evironmentally sound, just that the system, while in operation, is.

P.S. it appears they've also experimented w/ Lead/Bismuth, mercury, and Sodium/Potassium alloys.

Did some research, found the following two patents:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=nanocoolers&OS=nanoc oolers&RS=nanocoolers

And

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =2&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=nanocoolers&OS=nanoc oolers&RS=nanocoolers

It looks like they're using a Gallium/Indium (rare elements) alloy. This is certainly not environmentally safe from a chemical point of view as these are toxic heavy metals. I think by environmentally safe they are pointing to the "sealed" system that they are advertising. That is, they dont exepect the systems to leak, as they do not require any refilling.

Basically, their argument appears to be that it's safe because it cant get out, just like coolant in a nuclear reactor. This is actually a reasonable claim, however, we shouldnt take it to mean that the liquid metal coolant itself is evironmentally sound, just that the system, while in operation, is.

P.S. it appears they've also experimented w/ Lead/Bismuth, mercury, and Sodium/Potassium alloys.

And this is like the zillionth time I've said that patent "experts" have completely missed the point about complaints about the US Patent system.

Try to understand: The patent statutes could've been put together by the tooth fairy. It simply doesn't matter. Either what they say or where they came from.

What's relevant are the results. And the results are TRASH, as even a cursory examination of recent software patents shows.

The USPTO have been complicit in promoting these bogus statutes and are largely responsible for the current mess, despite their typical public service finger pointing effort "it's not my fault". Bullshit. They could've done one hell of a lot more than they are doing to fix the problem.

Like a lot of government departments they've been captured by industry interests and forgotten the fact that they are public servants.

---

Scientific, evidence based IP law. Now there's a thought.

35 USC 105

Note that 35 USC 102 is novel inventions, 103 is non-obvious inventions, 104 is foreign inventions, and 105 is inventions in outer space. It's no more than 2 statutes away from the critically misunderstood non-obvious inventions statute.

I apologize for sounding like I'm ranting on you. It's not you, it's just that it's really hard to have a positive, upbeat attitude when disseminating information about the US Patent system around Slashdot. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who IS informed about how the patent system actually works and I hope you'll understand.

Have a great weekend.

Then why didn't you submit this under 37 CFR 1.99?

I haven't read the prosecution history for that patent, have you? Just an observation. Neither of us know of Lotus was used (and defeated) as prior art. Just an observation.

I don't know if you're trained to perform a legal analysis of prior art, or if you have even a passing knowledge of 35 USC 102 or 103 and the volumes of case law surrounding those statutes. It does require at least a basic knowledge of these things to make even an initial judgement of what is anticipatory or teaching prior art.

I'm not deliberately trying to be an ass, but there is such a cataclysmic misunderstanding of US patent statutes and case law around Slashdot that I really wish they'd quit carrying the stories - As an IP professional, I hereby certify that Slashdot is a more reputable forum for prenatal medicine than the US patent system. (Hell, there are even people who believe that the "obvious" doctrine of 35 USC 103 is not completely and wholly based on the existence of prior art. See for yourselves MPEP 2143, the manual for proving something is obvious. "References" refers to prior art.) I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, but instead trying to balance the offering of Lotus as prior art with the thought that maybe, just maybe, the existence of Lotus is not a valid point of criticism of this patent unless we have seen the prosecution record.

Nintendo is a lot like Disney.

At least Nintendo doesn't make distorted adaptations of popular folk tales and then try to use trademark law and copyright term extensions to deter otherwise non-infringing and/or non-commercial competition. (There was the SuicideGirls incident, but that was Nintendo's law firm's mistake, not Nintendo's.)

Nintendo is a lot like Disney. 9 times out of 10 they put out the highest quality stuff around

May be true of Nintendo but not of Disney. Of Disney's last five canonical animated films (Atlantis, Lilo & Stitch, Treasure Planet, Brother Bear, and Home on the Range), only Lilo & Stitch got overwhelmingly good reviews.

I am going to reply to my own post and am going to add karma bonus to this message because I think that this is an important message. I am obviously going against the opinion of the moderators and most people on slashdot but I don't care.

People on slashdot don't seem to realize what a great resource the US patent office is. Every single invention -- or what people thought was an invention -- from anyone in the US (or dealing with the US) since the time we became a seperate country is available for the world to see. Most inventions are posted online at http://www.uspto.gov/ (except for those that are too old.) And if they aren't online then you can get a hard copy of them

EVERYTHING!!! from the steam powered skate board to the light bulb. And if it is older than a certain date then everything is in public domain. Want to know how your ipod works? Check out uspto.gov apple probably put a patent on it (they may even have been nice enough to print the patent number on the back of the product.) You can read the patent which will point out how the invention works (in great detail) why they think the invention is new, and the applications that they thought of.

I don't like big companies taking the little guy to court anymore than you do. But if MS can't use useless patents to try to sue open source into nothingness then they will simply try something else. Useless lawsuites that only hurt the little guy are a problem of the courts not the patent office. If you want to get mad at something get mad at the courts and the corporate lawyers who try to sue everyone into submission!

And no, we should not raise the bar on what can or can't be patented. Everything that anyone thinks is a good idea should be documented and then posted at uspto.gov for everyone to see. Because if you raise the bar then there is a chance that someone who does have a patentable idea won't be able to get one. Imagine that you tried to patent something but the patent clerk didn't understand it so you weren't granted a patent; then some big company comes along and steals it only to make millions off of it. If companies get scared that they will not be able to patent their ideas then they will not publish them. No one will be able to work off of anyone else's idea and technology will be slowed.

Yes it would be nice if everyone were to open source their ideas so we wouldn't need the patent office, but that isn't going to happen. If someone invents something, and it really is a new idea, then they have the right to make a little money off of it. But with the patent office in a few years then that idea will become open source -- it will make it into the public domain. Soon everyone will be able to use it.

BTW, there is nothing stopping you from reading and then building a prototype of something that is patented. You can even try to improve on the invention to make your own patent. You only have to pay royalties if you try and sell it and make money one it. Imagine the billions of dollars worth of research that went into the patents that are available free online. Most of those ideas are now free and open because most of the patents have expired.

All I am saying is: yes the courts suck. Yes big companies will always try to find ways of suing the little guy. That is life today. But the patent office doesn't suck. The patent office's purpose in life is to try and eventually open source everything!

Why is his prior art such a piece of crap? Having written patents before, it is beholden on the author to do a reasonable search for prior art.

Clearly, Dan is either incompetent at locating e-mail packages that do precisely what his patent claims, or he is willfully omitting them in the interest of scoring a quick patent.

Somebody ought to create a legal fund designed at shooting this crap down. Honestly.

Well, on the good side, at least my patents don't suck as badly now, comparatively.

So... that's another use what the Whitened Fluff Pulp (US Patent # 6,893,473 as was mentioned in the First Post) is good for.

. . . the patent in question here, it has a single independent claim. It consists of 11 unconditional sub-clauses and 1 series of conditional sub-clauses with 6 options. So to violate this patent a system would have to perform all of the actions in those 11 sub-clauses and at least one of the actions in the conditional sub-clause.

There's the rub. When you see a patent with a claim this narrow, you can bet that the USPTO kicked the applicant's butt. MS would never have put all that stuff in the claim if it didn't have to.

This patent is useless as an offensive weapon. It is only useful as prior art to some later, broader, stupider patent.

YIAAPLBIANYPL. GYODPL. YMNO.

If you want to "get it" try going and having a good look at PAIR http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair this allows you to read the file wrapper of the case. Go and have a look at the letters sent back and forth on this case.

Since we're on the subject, I thought this would be a good time to let all of you know that I have just patented the .sig file. That means that all you suckers who use .sigs now owe me a dollar every time you post. You'll all be recieving bills very soon now.

^_^

Seriously, though, I think the exchange on Dan Crevier's blog regarding his last patent is pretty telling...he gets a barrage of posts criticizing him for stifling innovation, and instead of addressing them, he closes the thread. Yes, yes, I'm well aware it's his blog, and if he doesn't want to play, he' s well within his rights to close the thread...just like that kid who would always take his ball and go home when the game didn't go his way...remember that kid?

I don't know if this patent is evil, but if sure as hell deserves a +5 informative.

It contains an awful lot of information about genetic analysis and allele identification, including references of seminal articles about such techniques as PCR and such.

Link

And if it is true that this guy was first to figure out that 1) there is order in non-coding DNA and 2) this order can be used to gain access to coding DNA, then I don't see what's wrong with this patent in itself.

Thomas -

No, Adobe patented it quite a long time ago already. E.g. US 5,546,528 and EP689133.

Tigers(C) (Panthera tigris(R)) are mammals of the Felidae(TM) family, one of four "big cats"(R)(C) that belong to the Panthera(R) genus. Tigers(R) are "predatory carnivores"(TM)

You did not properly tag all of the existing trademarks you used. All of the following can be verified at the US Patent and Trademark website.

Panthera: serial number 78308042
Are: serial number 76529298
Mammal: serial number 75769435
Of: serial number 76165824
The: serial number 75726394
Family: serial number 78410485
One: serial number 78570482
Four: serial number 78450854
That: serial number 78270174
Be-long: serial number 78507203
To: serial number 76217768
Genus: serial number 78456711

What you should have written was:
Tigers(C) (Panthera(TM) tigris(R)) are(TM) mammal(TM)s of(TM) the(TM) Felidae(TM) family(TM), one(TM) of(TM) four(TM) "big cats"(R)(C) that(TM) belong(TM) to(TM) the(TM) Panthera(R) genus(TM). Tigers(R) are(TM) "predatory carnivores"(TM)

-

Where I work, they handle like 300 million users and have data associated with each user. Unlike AOL which used sybase to store users (and crawled) these guys use a filesystem based repository. It's a fast replicated database indexed by only one key - the username. It scales great and works on FreeBSD.

this patent and related patent should answer a few questions.... (Google fs is not as good for search scans)

Where I work, they handle like 300 million users and have data associated with each user. Unlike AOL which used sybase to store users (and crawled) these guys use a filesystem based repository. It's a fast replicated database indexed by only one key - the username. It scales great and works on FreeBSD.

this patent and related patent should answer a few questions.... (Google fs is not as good for search scans)

Remember, patents don't mean you can't code it. You can code it. You can use it for personal non-commercial use.

This is completely wrong if you're trying to apply it to the US. A patent grants the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing the invention. There's a very narrow exception for learning how the patented invention works or improving upon it (and you can patent the improved version, but nobody can make or use it without a license from the original patent holder as well) but not for any other development or use, non-commercial, personal, or otherwise.

The patent is at

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,628,016.WKU.&OS=PN/5,628,016&RS =PN/5,628,016

The Patent Number is 5,628,016

There are two dates:

May 6, 1997

and

Filed: June 15, 1994

I assume the 1997 date is the "granted" date. Why is this problem surfacing now, almost ten years later??

Stephan

This is the patent in question.

Hmmm. http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv. html&r=1&p=1&f=S&l=50&d=PG01&S1=20030076303.PGNR.& Query=dn/20030076303

If I recall correctly, Nintendo has a patent on emulating Gameboy and Gameboy Advance hardware on portable platforms, so expect them to have a say about this..

What has Sun every done for the community, anyway? I have zero reason to trust them, and you can be sure they're only looking for a way to line their pockets. I will breathe a sigh of relief when they finally die and we can say there is one less evil corporation in the world. Thank goodness there are corporations on the other hand like IBM that Love Linux and promise not to enforce their patents for preventing unauthorized access to a rotating shaft against us.

These are fine real life examples that you can file a patent application for ANYTHING!

Process of love
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch- adv.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=20030152907.PGNR.& OS=DN/20030152907&RS=DN/20030152907

Process of reincarnation
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv. html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&p=1&S1=20040005535&OS=200 40005535&RS=20040005535

These are fine real life examples that you can file a patent application for ANYTHING!

Process of love
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch- adv.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=20030152907.PGNR.& OS=DN/20030152907&RS=DN/20030152907

Process of reincarnation
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv. html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&p=1&S1=20040005535&OS=200 40005535&RS=20040005535

Yeah, yeah, I was there but it doesn't work for me. I get an error message from a proxy. I suspect it is set up so that it serves only certain IPs, possibly only their internal LANs.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/menu/emploc.htm

Knock yourself out

There was a case in the UK where Locomotive Software wanted to trademark their name (they make/made office productivity suites). It was thrown out as too generic as it would, for example, prevent companies who made software for locomotives from using the terms.

Tm

Apple has a Trademark while Systemax has a Service Mark.

As noted above, there is also a trademark on the word "Tiger" by the parent company filed on January 27 200.

Perhaps the ironic point of the Tiger-Cats team's offer is that a football team owned by a FLOSS operating-systems [mb]illionaire is just as much in the same business as a designer operating system, no more no less, tha a retailer of hardware systems and vanilla operating systems. Any court with a broad enough reading of Trademarks to consider granting relief to Tiger-Direct (TD) here would have to consider the Tiger-Cats (TC) license to Tiger-Apple (TA) as plausible. Which is just funny.

The above referenced USPTO webservice reports

Word Mark TIGER
Goods and Services IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: Mail order catalog services featuring computers and computer related products; and Retail store services featuring computers and computer related products. FIRST USE: 1987 1020. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 1987 1020

The hopless litigant's TITLE tag says

TigerDirect.com - Computer Parts, PC Components, Desktop Computers, Laptops, Notebooks

IANAL but that Claim sure looks like they're claiming the Mark in the Mailorder and reatail business they're in (trading in computers etc), not in Computers etc. Since Tiger OS is only usable on PPC Macs, and Mac users wouldn't shop at a Wintel only outlet like TigerDirect, what's the possibility for brand confusion again?

If Apple opened "Tiger Express" stores adjacent to their AppleDirect stores in the malls, that would be a direct conflict with the claim (IANAL).

IANAL but I did a bit of Pre-Law ... so I'm anxiously waiting to see what PJ has to say on this one.

There are 73 trademarks with the term "Tiger" in them in the "software" category.

Tigerdirect's claim forTigerdirectwas filed on Nov 14 2001.
Apple's claim forTiger was filed on July 2, 2003.

While it is obvious that Apple could not license the name from a football team in order to help their case because they are not the same "Goods and Services" section, [IANAL] I don't think they could license the name from one of the other people in the software section either. The whole point of trademarks is to avoid confusion in the market, and Tigerdirect is claiming confusion with their trademark and apples, not some third party's trademark.

There are 73 trademarks with the term "Tiger" in them in the "software" category.

Tigerdirect's claim forTigerdirectwas filed on Nov 14 2001.
Apple's claim forTiger was filed on July 2, 2003.

While it is obvious that Apple could not license the name from a football team in order to help their case because they are not the same "Goods and Services" section, [IANAL] I don't think they could license the name from one of the other people in the software section either. The whole point of trademarks is to avoid confusion in the market, and Tigerdirect is claiming confusion with their trademark and apples, not some third party's trademark.

Yeah gee it's not like Apple didn't try to Trademark the word Tiger.

Has anyone tracked down this mysterious registration, or is TigerDirect merely claiming that their use of the mark precedes Apple's?

Actually it is TigerDirect's parent company Systemax that has the trademark registered, see here:
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=c fhosb.2.21.

BTW, someone this year filed a trademark claim on "PODCAST", something that I'm sure will get disputed by someone.

Yea, it's someone looking at making a quick buck. It was registered the day after the big podcast article was in USA Today.

Solaia Loses, Rockwell Wins...What Does It Mean?

http://www.livejournal.com/~waltboyes/2032.html

GE Fanuc Automation agrees to Solaia patent license

http://www.manufacturing.net/ctl/article/CA510015

Rockwell sues Schneider, Solaia, law firm over patent lawsuits

http://www.manufacturing.net/ctl/article/CA269801

The shameful Solaia affair

http://www.manufacturing.net/ctl/article/CA336749

US Patent Office

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r =1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=5,038,318.WKU.&OS=PN /5,038,318&RS=PN/5,038,318

BTW, someone this year filed a trademark claim on "PODCAST", something that I'm sure will get disputed by someone.

I just think there has to be a better name out there.

The patent law specifies that the subject matter must be "useful." The term "useful" in this connection refers to the condition that the subject matter has a useful purpose and also includes operativeness, that is, a machine which will not operate to perform the intended purpose would not be called useful, and therefore would not be granted a patent.

...
A patent cannot be obtained upon a mere idea or suggestion. The patent is granted upon the new machine, manufacture, etc., as has been said, and not upon the idea or suggestion of the new machine. A complete description of the actual machine or other subject matter for which a patent is sought is required.

If someone else comes up with the same idea then the invention may not have been obvious and therefore may not be enforcible in court.

I'm not saying all is fine and dandy. The patent system is not perfect. But I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bath water.

This has the potential to be a very good or very evil company depending on what percentage they spend on innovators or lawyers. We'll have to see...

More than one person can own a trademark. The word "tiger" has 187 registered. However, I was unable to find the record that shows TigerDirect's ownership, since for some reasons "(tiger direct)[ON]" doesn't work, but they aren't on "(tiger)[FM] and (tiger)[ON]" which I would expect to work.

TigerDirect.com does not own a trademark on the word tiger. A 30 second search at USPTO yields that Tiger Direct, Inc. owns seven trademarks:

Thankfully, spending a bit longer than 30 seconds reveals that Tiger Direct does not own Tiger, but their parent company Systemax does and has it assigned to Tiger Direct.

http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&e ntry=75915934

According to this page, their first use of "Tiger" was in 1987, they filed for trademark in 2000 and it was finally registered in 2002.

However, it says the category for this trademark is "Mail order catalog services featuring computers and computer related products; and Retail store services featuring computers and computer related products", so according to the registration it's not technically in the same market space as Apple's trademark on an operating system.

I'll be interested to see if that comes into play in court, though I highly doubt this case will ever actually make it to court.

Yep Apple has the tradmark of Tiger and a few other big cats.

You are correct sir. The registration can be seen a href="http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&s tate=53slb2.12.1">here.

Although one does have to wonder about this registration. Shouldn't that one also "overlap" with Tiger Direct's business?

This and other items prove we need better goverment checks on both IP and trademarks. Its a 19 century system trying to be used in the 21 century. It not working!

I don't know why people keep spouting this bit o' nonsense. How can you say the system is not working when it hasn't even been tested yet? Every time someone *threatens* to sue, everyone complains that the system is broken! Newsflash: Any idiot can threaten. If you back down, then you can't complain at the system, can you?

Acronym n.
A word formed from the initial letters of a name, such as WAC for Women's Army Corps, or by combining initial letters or parts of a series of words, such as radar for radio detecting and ranging.

World Wrestling Federation -> WWF
World Wildlife Foundation -> WWF
World Wrestling Entertainment -> WWE
Anonymous Coward - AC

Looks like an acronym to me.

http://www.answers.com/acronym
http://www.answers.com/abbreviation

The GP has a point about the direct commonality of the cases, but the USPTO FAQ supports my uninformed suspicion that "common words" are legal trademarks.

As a final caveat, a search of USPTO did not turn up TigerDirect's registration of 'Tiger'. For that matter, TigerDirect's page mentions 'TigerDirect', but not 'Tiger'.

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.

http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&e ntry=78269988

Apple has trademarked tiger, you can see the listing Here. It wasn't registered before TigerDirect existed, but its a registered trademark, in a different category, that was accepted by the uspto.

I don't see how its that much of an open and shut case.

Now if apple re-branded the Apple Store as "Tiger Store" then I would see the problem. Or if a direct link to the Apple Store came up in a search for Tiger.

A quick search also reveals that federal registration is not required to own a trademark.