Slashdot Mirror


Judge Denies TigerDirect's Request for Injunction

wallykeyster writes "As predicted in previous discussions the judge has ruled against TigerDirect's request for injunction to prevent Apple from using 'Tiger' in their advertising." I heard that both people who still held respect for TigerDirect no longer do.

81 of 378 comments (clear)

  1. Does that mean... by pmazer · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can say "Tiger" again?

    1. Re:Does that mean... by DoraLives · · Score: 5, Funny
      I can say "Tiger" again?

      Only if you say it indirectly.

      --
      Is it fascism yet?
    2. Re:Does that mean... by gvc · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, but you still don't have enough free vocabulary to relate the opening scene from The Flintstones. As you may recall, Fred puts the tiger out but it re-enters the house, not through the door but through the winspire.

    3. Re:Does that mean... by macthulhu · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't know... The 80 year old man that lived next to me as a child used to call me "Tiger"... That was 1974. You'll be hearing from my lawyers.

      --

      Someday a real rain is gonna come...

    4. Re:Does that mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Your girlfriend calls me "Tiger"--more prior art :).

    5. Re:Does that mean... by antic · · Score: 5, Funny


      My neighbor used to call me the same thing, until I stopped leaping out of the bushes in his front yard and scratching at his face.

      --
      'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
    6. Re:Does that mean... by digitalcowboy · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't know... The 80 year old man that lived next to me as a child used to call me "Tiger"... That was 1974.

      How old are you and what dimension are you from? As a child, this now 80 year old man lived next to you and that was in 1974?

      Oh, wait. I parsed the sentence wrong, didn't I?

    7. Re:Does that mean... by AndroidCat · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sure, the judge said "Hold that Tiger!"

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  2. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    So it looks like TigerDirect's injuction was nothing but a paper tiger.

  3. They still have a shot. by wls · · Score: 5, Funny

    Next up, TigerDirect sues Microsoft for using the word Direct in DirectX.

    1. Re:They still have a shot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Apple have been dying ever since Steve 'rim' Jobs founded it. Although it may have a fancy GUI, OSX is not any more functional than Windows 3.x and is on average 5 times less than reliable. This is mainly due to poorly written proprietry code hashed onto a stolen communist operating system - linux. To complement the inferior software, Apple sells hardware which is generations behind its equivilant PC counterparts - albeit disguised in white enclosures which it markets as 'trendy'. Unfortunately they can at best be described as gay. One can only hope that Apple throw in the towel soon and recall their entire product range before there are any more victims of fires caused by their inferior products. APPLE IS TEH SUXXORS

      In order to enjoy a smooth running reliable and lightning fast operating system which will run on anything from the original 80186 CPU to the newly released Pentium II processor, we recommend that you use Microsoft Windows Millenium Edition (TM). To obtain this software please visit www.microsoft.com

    2. Re:They still have a shot. by mbaudis · · Score: 3, Funny

      everything true. and the design! they should fire this european guy, and hire the design team from dell, or better from e-machines. also, put some neon lights in their boxes - they have all those unused holes. and, you forgot to mention the file transfer times. 2 hours for an email attachement. and no floppy for years, and no known viruses => no geek challenge!

  4. Watch Out... by MarkMcLeod · · Score: 5, Funny

    Tony the Tiger, you're next!

    1. Re:Watch Out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Grrrrreeeaaat!

    2. Re:Watch Out... by Winterblink · · Score: 3, Funny

      Imagine if you will, the legal 69 that would occur if TigerDirect changed its slogan to "TigerDirect. We're GRRREEEAT!"

      --
      "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
      -Hoban Washburn
  5. Telling the difference between the two by Faust7 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Judge Lenard said "any given customer who cross-shops TigerDirect and Apple, whether over the internet or in person at their retail local stores, will be able to distinguish their respective retail outlets due to the distinctive differences in their marketplaces' appearance and messages."

    Need proof? Look at the shiny polished Slashdot logo at the top. When was the last time you looked at that and thought "Oh, I'm in the TigerDirect section of Slashdot!"

    1. Re:Telling the difference between the two by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 3, Funny

      Damn. I've been trying to install this shop on my mac for days, and *now* you tell me I should have been buying a product sold at a store not the store itself.

  6. Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple. by Ph33r+th3+g(O)at · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So you concede then, that Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly, because Linux is available for the PC. Fair enough.

    --
    I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
  7. This is dumb. by Entropius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The number of trademarkable things is increasing daily, as more people go into business making more products.

    The number of words in the English language, however, remains the same.

    Just a namespace collision isn't evidence of trademark infringement. That requires (or should require -- I gave up on learning the details of IP law once I realized that it made no sense) one company to choose their name specifically to leech off another successful name.

    Tigerdirect has been around since before Apple picked the name Tiger.

    Apple wouldn't want anything to be named after such a shitty company.

    So what's the deal?

    1. Re:This is dumb. by cowscows · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The deal is that TigerDirect saw the possibility of some easy money, hoping that just the threat of an injunction so close to Tiger's release would scare Apple into sending them some cash just to forget about the whole thing. Apple didn't bite. And a judge didn't fall for it either.

      So TigerDirect revealed themselves as a bunch of jackasses, and the courts worked as they're supposed to. Yay!

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    2. Re:This is dumb. by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Funny

      Bullshimble!
      The English language is evolving.com all the time, and new words are addendumated every year into the lexicolon.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    3. Re:This is dumb. by SpeckledJim · · Score: 5, Funny

      Who'd have thought it? George W Bush posting on Slashdot.

    4. Re:This is dumb. by cowscows · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah, there's so much in common with this Tiger case and what happened to kleenex. A made up word used as a brand name for a product becomes a common term sometimes used for all similar products. Sucks for Kleenex.

      A company that has an already common word as part of their company name is upset because another company uses the same already common word as part of the name of one of their products. Oh God, the world is coming to an end! Between Tiger Direct, OS 10.4 Tiger, the approximately 6 bazillion sports teams named the Tigers, a dominate golfer named Tiger, oh and some stupid animal using the name too...I don't think I can function anymore, my brain is overloaded!

      Besides. Apple announced their product as Tiger a long time ago. Then TigerDirect decides to make a big deal of it right before it's about to ship? The timing seems awfully suspect to me. Must be because I'm an Apple simpleton.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    5. Re:This is dumb. by tourvil · · Score: 3, Funny
      The English language is evolving.com all the time, and new words are addendumated every year into the lexicolon.

      Wouldn't words come out of the lexicolon?

    6. Re:This is dumb. by cowscows · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Apple has done it before. They did it with Panther and Jaguar. When they first announced Tiger, they referred to it as Tiger, they had big banners that said Tiger, etc. If TigerDirect was truly taking this seriously as a real threat to their trademark value, they would've done enough research to find this out (it wouldn't have been hard). They were just looking for some easy money.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    7. Re:This is dumb. by Scrameustache · · Score: 3, Funny

      Bullshimble!
      The English language is evolving.com all the time, and new words are addendumated every year into the lexicolon.


      ...perfectly cromulent word.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    8. Re:This is dumb. by Have+Blue · · Score: 5, Funny

      lexicolon

      I know you were joking, but this is seriously the best word ever. We can use it for the entire vocabulary of horribly abused words on the Internet and cell phones.

    9. Re:This is dumb. by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Informative
      The number of words in the English language, however, remains the same

      Actually, English is acquiring new words at a fast pace, probably thousands per year. Even the staid Oxford Dictionary records many new words in each edition.

  8. Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple. by skingers6894 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IP rights? To the name "Tiger"?

    Right.

  9. Pardon? What intellectual property? by dscho · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How could a term like "Tiger" in any non-judicial sense (such as common sense) ever be accused of being an intellectual property?

    1. Re:Pardon? What intellectual property? by jimicus · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you're a great big stripy cat with the power to rip out someones' guts with one swipe of razor-sharp claws, your name is damn well protected.

      Not that sort of tiger?

  10. Nope, they are being sued themselves by T-Com ... by dscho · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... for their use of the letter "T"

  11. I have mod points by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So where can I moderate Cowboyneals comments on this story?

    1. Re:I have mod points by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Funny

      So where can I moderate Cowboyneals comments on this story?

      In your hosts file.

      Something like this should suit you nicely :)

      64.236.24.28 slashdot.org

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    2. Re:I have mod points by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Funny

      And now Im in a wierd position, I would *love* to moderate you for that comment (up incase youi were wondering) but I cant because Ive commented, but you wouldnt have made that comment if I hadnt commented, so I couldnt have moderated you if I hadnt commented. Oh well :)

  12. Re:Unnecessary comments by cowscows · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I generally think the editor's comments are annoying attempts by them to try and sound funnier and smarter than they really are.

    But this one at least made me smile. Lighten up. It's their website, not yours. They've been adding commentary like this for years, most of it's dumb, sure, but that's how the world works.

    --

    One time I threw a brick at a duck.

  13. Re:Unnecessary comments by Timesprout · · Score: 3, Funny

    Are you insane! How will the slashbots know what the current group think is without the asinine comments!

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
  14. What the future holds by LP_Tux · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Will companies and products have to have numbers in place of names? After all just about everything is trademarked these days until you decide to invent words... Right now I'm off to buy a 5759852850 by 1284257630530. See you later...

    --
    Open-Source > *
  15. TigerDirect ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    As I type this there is a TigerDirect banner ad at the top of my Slashdot page...

    I'm sure there's some witty comment I could be making here, but I have no idea what it is.

  16. Re:I look forward to the day... by cpghost · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah: imagine a dictionary full of (C)s and (R)s:

    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)

    --
    cpghost at Cordula's Web.
  17. Re:Unnecessary comments by mattdm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If it's news for nerds, keep this kind of commentary out of it please.

    *Man* do we need a "Haha you're new here" moderation for these kinda comments. This isn't a journalism site -- it's an entertainment and discussion site. I damn well *expect* there to be snide partisan commentary from the editors (a poorly-chosen job title, but oh well -- deal with it).

  18. Re:No respect by almostmanda · · Score: 2

    Right, except Apple was also granted a trademark in 2003 for the use of "tiger" in reference to an operating system. Why didn't Tiger Direct take action then? Oh, I know, because this is a blatant PR grab.

  19. Funny by Zebra_X · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the tables were turned, I'm sure apple would do the same thing to tiger direct. Apple has quite a colorful litigeous history.

  20. blah blah blah... by east+coast · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the blurb: "I heard that both people who still held respect for TigerDirect no longer do.

    From my dealing of people who put TigerDirect first on their lists I doubt that many of the TigerDirect customer base give a damn about either Apple or Geek politics. Let's not take ourselves too seriously here.

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  21. This is not personal. They have to protect it. by tempshill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    On trademark infringement, companies don't sue other companies to try to cash in. They do it because if they don't attempt to protect their trademark, courts will rule that it isn't a trademark anymore and isn't protectible. Aspirin, Zipper.

    1. Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it. by Jesus_666 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Note that aspirin mainly is not a trademark because Germany lost WWI. There was no way fo the Bayer company to protect their trademark against the Allies.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    2. Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Yeah? You and whose army .. oh."

    3. Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it. by Afrosheen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's a little known facet of WW2. The Germans lost not only the war but every single patent they ever had. Who did they lose them to? Oh, the USA of course. It was the single largest theft of intellectual property the world has ever seen, not to mention the absolute looting of major banks and households.

      Ironically enough, a percentage of German gold was actually stolen from displaced/killed Jews and other countries that Germany had conquered. Tons of that gold made it back to New York where it was re-pressed with the Federal Seal, thereby making it US money. Through following paper trails and lots of hunting, Jewish advocacy groups located much of their own gold and the US government was forced to pay them back, with interest. This all happened very recently (the payback itself).

    4. Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it. by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Informative
      On trademark infringement, companies don't sue other companies to try to cash in. They do it because if they don't attempt to protect their trademark...

      From TFA "... evidence of over 200 federal registrations of marks containing the term "Tiger" -- including 24 companies, other than TigerDirect, which employ Tiger marks to promote computer products and services."

      So will these 200 companies lose their marks because they didn't challenge the 201st?

      It has to be a similar product with a similar mark, the degrees of similarity being the things a judge decides on. In this case, not very, just the word "Tiger" isn't enough.

    5. Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it. by dwntwnboi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Escalator and Elevator also were both trademarks that lost it due to "Common Use", as trade mark law puts it. Kleenex was so very close to losing it about 10 years ago.

    6. Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it. by Jesus_666 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Another interesting fact about WW2 is that the looting of the German industry (pretty much all machines were taken) is partially responsible for the Wirtschaftswunder: As we had no machines to produce anything we had to replace them, which we did - with the most moderm machines on the market, which boosted productivity. Had we not lost all the old machines, economy would still have boomed, but not as much as it actually did.

      All in all, it seems that the people who profited from the massive looting are not the looters themselves, at least as far as physical things are concerned. The intellectual property (what an ugly word) theft, however... Hmm, didn't Microsoft just start this contest where people make movies about "Thought Thieves"? This sounds like the perfect topic for an entry. ;)

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    7. Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it. by Reaperducer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It was the single largest theft of intellectual property the world has ever seen

      How is it theft? Sounds like the spoils of war.

      And don't forget -- this is Slashdot where it's not politically correct to say intellectual property can be stolen. Otherwise people might have to pay for their music.

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    8. Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it. by Reaperducer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I had no idea that 'spoils of war' was still an acceptable ideal.

      I never said it was still acceptable. We're talking about a war that was fought 60 years ago, when ideals were different. It is folley to apply today's political correctness to yesterday's society.

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    9. Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it. by Alsee · · Score: 3, Informative

      HOLY FUCKING SHIT.

      You're citing John Nugent? John Fucking Nugent? Delusional white-supremacist holocaust-revisionist John Fucking Nugent? America belongs to the whites because europeans were here before the indians John Fucking Nugent?

      Oh, and this is really your lucky day. You really hit the jackpot. One side of my family was exterminated in concentration camps, and you're citing a delusional holocaust-hoaxist.

      For your sake I really hope you had no idea that you were reading and citing that sort of psycho. That libertyforum.org seems to be crawling with an appalling number of borderline neo-nazis. Not everyone there of course, but a very very ugly subgroup.

      On the bright side I did get a chuckle out your link of when he explained that all of the UFO sightings since World War II were due to the magical futuristic stolen German inventions we never found out about. Not merely a holocaust denier, but a UFO conspiracy theorist to boot. That's just icing on the psycho-cake.

      Oh and not to nitpick, but you should attend your English classes. I before E except after C would teach you that it's 'piece' not 'peice'.

      Hmmm, lets review the "ei" words from my post. There was 'their' 'peice' and 'neither'. Ok, I botched 'peice'. However if your "English class" is the worthless I before E except after C you're going to be misspelling 'their' and 'neither'. I before E except after C except when pronounced as "A" and in neighbor and weigh, except science and species, except in pluralized 'cy' such as frequencies and vacancies, except in neither and either and eight and foreign and dreidel, and most of all in my daily caffeine. And on and on. But enough with the grammar Nazism, as if we didn't have enough Nazism with John Nugent already.

      ---
      When you said, "Things like copyrights and patents ...", did you ever consider books?

      Well I dunno... "things like copyrights"... books... "things like copyrights"... books...
      Hmmm. There might just be a connection there.

      You believe in physical property rights but not intellectual property rights?

      There are property rights.
      There are copyrights.
      There are patents.
      There are trademarks.

      Good and useful things. Only one of them is property rights.

      The term "intellectual property" is a misnomer, and it is an extremely harmful misnomer. Copyrights are different than property rights and they are SUPPOSED to be different than property rights because information is different than property. When someone starts thinking or talking "intellectual property" they almost inevitably misunderstand what the law actually says, and they almost inevitable try to "fix" the law to become what they *thought* it was supposed to say.

      Do you think that books also should not be copyrighted because they are just made up of words in different order?

      As I said, copyrights can be a good and useful thing. However it is important to understand what the law actually says and what the law is actually supposed to be and what it is supposed to do.

      To some people the following is going to sound like an attack on copyright. It's not. It is a defense of good old traditional copyright. It is merely an attack on a "backwards" view of copyright.

      The Constitution grants congress the power to promote progress if they choose to do so. If congress did not choose to exercise this power then there would be no copyrights at all. The initial state is that the public has all rights to do whatever they please with information. To the extent information itself is "property" it is fundamentally public property.

      If congress does choose to promote progress, the constitution grants a means of doing so. Congress may secure certain limited rights from the public and temporarily grant them exclusively to the author or inventor. A government granted limited monopoly. Th

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    10. Re:This is not personal. They have to protect it. by tootlemonde · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ironically enough, a percentage of German gold was actually stolen from displaced/killed Jews and other countries that Germany had conquered. Tons of that gold made it back to New York where it was re-pressed with the Federal Seal, thereby making it US money.

      This story is highly unlikely. There were two international conferences, one in 1997 and one in 1998, on the disposition of Nazi gold. As this CNN report on the first conference shows, the U.S.'s objective was always to return the gold to its rightful owners:

      Britain, France and the United States set up the Tripartite Gold Commission after World War II to return looted gold to 10 countries whose treasuries had been sacked when Nazi Germany's troops swept across Europe. The commission has returned all but 5.5 tons of the 337 tons it recovered to central banks, but none to individuals.

      Your story is even more unlikely if one knows the difference between monetary and non-monetary gold. Monetary gold is gold bars of 99.9% pure gold that are used by central banks. Non-monetary gold is jewelry and ornamental gold. For non-monetary gold, the type that would be stolen from individuals, to be "re-pressed with the Federal Seal", as you put it, it would not only have to be melted down but also refined to the level of purity required by monetary gold. There's no evidence in the report of the international commission that the U.S. ever employed this process.

      The Nazis certainly did convert non-monetary gold into gold bars but once they did, there would be no way to distinguish it from gold that was looted from national treasuries.

      In addition, while gold may increase in value it does not accumulate interest. If the U.S. did return gold to anyone it would return the exact number of ounces they were owned. It would not "pay them back, with interest" because the gold did not earn any interest.

      Reading the final report of the international commission shows that no advocacy group forced the U.S. to return the gold in its possession. The complaint of the World Jewish Congress was that the gold belonging to Holocaust victims was returned to European countries after the war, not that it was held by the U.S. treasury.

      In addition, the report of this commission also notes:

      Following Allied victory over Germany, the U.S. and the Allies conducted negotiations with the neutrals over the return of looted gold, the liquidation of German external assets, and the use of such assets for European recovery and for resettlement of stateless Nazi victims. Another key objective of these negotiations included denying Germany its external assets, and hence the capacity to wage a future war.

      The objective of impeding German's "capacity to wage a future war" may also bear on you allegation that the U.S. seized German patents.

  22. Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple. by oberondarksoul · · Score: 2, Informative
    You might want to have a look at this. A quote:

    "It is technically possible for a manufacturer to install any number of operating systems on a computer. The user then has to choose which operating system to use during the boot process (after switching on the machine). However, Microsoft OEMs are only allowed to install Windows. No machines with both Windows and, for example, the free (!) operating system Linux, can legally be sold by OEMs."

    Doesn't sound especially fair to anyone but Microsoft, that. Remember who the convicted monopolist is?

    --
    And tomorrow the stock exchange will be the human race
  23. Yeah, and... by interactive_civilian · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Apple had long been calling the things that opened in their Operating Systems "Windows" long before Microsoft ventured away from the DOS prompt.

    What exactly is your point?

    AFAICT, Tiger Direct does not market an operating system under their name, and it seems quite obvious that Apple is not using the word "Direct" in any of their marketing or naming strategies.

    Again I ask, what exactly is your point?

    Trademarks only reach so far, and Tiger Direct's does not (rightly IMHO) reach far enough. Next thing you know, African tour operators will be trying to sue Apple over the name of their browser, the French will be trying to sue Apple over their chosen name for autoconfig, mathemeticians and philosophers the world over will be trying to sue Apple over the name of their (bought out) music software, auto makers will be suing them over the use of the term "dashboard", etc. etc. etc.

    Trademarks only go so far.

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
  24. Wonder what would happen if I created AppleDirect? by PocketPick · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh, I'm sure Apple wouldn't have a problem that.

  25. Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple. by oberondarksoul · · Score: 4, Informative

    Apple aren't, but you can buy a Mac running Linux from here. They're an authorised Apple OEM. There you go.

    --
    And tomorrow the stock exchange will be the human race
  26. they got two things out of this by SideshowBob · · Score: 4, Interesting

    1) Assloads of publicity from suing Apple. Suing the fruity one always gets you some attention no matter how frivolous.

    2) The precedent of defending their trademark. So if another catalog retailer ever comes along with a name that really does infringe, they can't say that TigerDirect failed to protect their TM.

  27. Editorial by northcat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I heard that both people who still held respect for TigerDirect no longer do.

    That's right, CowboyNeal, say what everyone wants to hear. It'll drive up the ad revenue.

  28. Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple. by oberondarksoul · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You asked for a dual-booting machine. Don't move the goalposts.

    In any case, it is not the same. When you buy a computer from Apple, you are getting just that - an Apple. Apple have the right to ship whatever they want with their own computers. If Microsoft made a PC, they'd be allowed to ship Windows with it no matter what.

    The problem is that other companies, building their own computers, are being forced to ship nothing but Windows - or they get no Windows at all. Now, if Apple forced other companies who made PPC board to ship the Mac OS, then maybe it would be similar.

    --
    And tomorrow the stock exchange will be the human race
  29. Re:Wonder what would happen if I created AppleDire by eluusive · · Score: 2, Interesting
  30. Re:TigerDirect in the Wrong? by takev · · Score: 2, Informative

    I don't know how it is in the US, but in the Benelux (Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) you should not be able to get a trademark on a common word. So both Jaguar and Tiger should not be able to get a trademark.

    However you can get a trademark on a image mark, which could include a common word, but it will also be accompanied by the font used, other graphic elements and the colors used.

  31. Re:TigerDirect in the Wrong? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I mean, when Apple came out with Jaguar, they weren't allowed to market it as Jaguar in Brittain because of Jaguar cars. Now that case had no basis and yet Jaguar cars got their way.

    In that case, it was probably more expedient for Apple to settle as the laws in other countries are different than US laws. Companies run into problems like this when selling overseas.

    TigerDirect has a pretty good case here. Apple is using a name they used before Apple in the same industry.

    It would different if Apple used "TigerDirect" for the code name of their OS but they used a common English word. For example, in the case of MS, US courts have ruled that you can't claim a common word (Windows) but you can claim distinct combinations of common words and letters (Windows 95, Windows Me). Also adding the company name also makes it distinct.

    Could I come out with an operating system called OS X? Apple doesn't have anything called OS X, but they do have a Mac OS X.

    Microware sued Apple over OS 9. It had a real-time OS on PowerPC embedded systems called OS-9. After a few years, a judge ruled that since both companies occuped different markets, it was unlikely that a consumer would be confused. In your case, if you wrote an OS for personal computers called OS X, I think Apple would have a case.

    this is one of those cases where Apple just didn't do their research.

    And you know that how? Again "Tiger" is a common word. TigerDirect does not own "Tiger" but combinations of "Tiger" and other words. There are 200 trademarks containing "Tiger" but no OS named "Tiger". I think they did their research.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  32. Re:TigerDirect in the Wrong? by polysylabic+psudonym · · Score: 2, Informative

    Could I come out with an operating system called OS X?

    Try starting at OS I, then OS II... eventually OS IX then OS X. I distinctly remember something in US IP history that says you can't protect a number. X is just another number - I was going to say "just not in the common numerical system, then I realised that one place that system is commonly used is legal documents. Long story short, go ahead, market an Operating System X - just make sure you lead up to it appropriately.

  33. What's wrong with TigerDirect? by superdude72 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What's wrong with TigerDirect? I've bought stuff from them before. Cheap prices, good selection, everything shipped on time. No problems. BTW, the banner ad at the top of my screen right now is for TigerDirect.

  34. Re:Even the judiciary loves Apple. by SA+Stevens · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Apple deliberately prevented BeOS from working on their newer hardware.

    In effect, they forced Apple hardware users to use their OS, in a time period when a significant part of the 'leading' mindshare was defecting.

  35. Re:Wonder what would happen if I created AppleDire by Sheepdot · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No, but these guys might.

  36. Re:Beware TigerDirect by SacredNaCl · · Score: 3, Informative

    You are only asked the last 4 digits of your social security number if you are applying to buy something under their extended payment plans. In which case they use another company to extend the credit out and it is needed for the approval process (just like any other loan application) to verify your credit rating and help them make a decision on whether or not to extend credit.

    You will never be asked your SS number, or any part of your SS number if you are not applying to purchase on credit from them.

    --
    Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
  37. Usage by shoebert · · Score: 2, Funny

    I heard that TigerDirect is going to allow anyone free use of the word "tiger," but only after you pay in full for it and wait 4-6 weeks for the mail-in rebate.

  38. Re:Marketing budget by macpeep · · Score: 3, Informative

    The point in this thread was that FOSS has had very little to do with the development of 10.4. Not that FOSS has had very little to do with OS X as a whole.

    And while gcc and mach are significant, they are proportionally very small parts of OS X, and they could be replaced by something else. There are certainly other compilers out there than gcc - betters ones too - and there are certainly other kernels too. I mean, Apple could have potentially licensed the Solaris or BeOS kernels, maybe QNX, or whatever else. Hell, perhaps even WinCE or something. There *ARE* options. Some are better than others, of course. But to say that there would be no Apple without FOSS, and especially to suggest that 10.4 is largely developed by the open source community, well, that's just bull.

  39. Difficulty at the gas pump by Basehart · · Score: 3, Funny

    I hope they get this Tiger business sorted out soon.

    I was at an Esso gas station the other day and everyone was trying to force a copy of Apple's Tiger installer disk into their gas tanks.

  40. Tiger,tiger burning bright by panurge · · Score: 4, Funny
    In the forests of the night
    What immortal hand or eye
    Protects thy brand integrity?

    Under India's burning skies
    IP issues do not rise
    If you've passed on being shot
    You still can't sue the goddam lot

    Genus felis does not code
    Nor shifts boxes by the load
    Salesmen in expensive shirts
    Don't care if your image hurts

    Tiger,tiger burning bright
    In the forests of the night
    Though extinction faces you
    It faces all those brand-names, too

    With sincere apologies to William Blake.

    --
    Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
  41. Re:Wonder what would happen if I created AppleDire by justins · · Score: 3, Funny

    Come on man, it's not like Apple just sues random people willy-nilly with little provocation.

    Oh wait... Apple...

    --
    Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
  42. 80 year old man ... used to call me "Tiger" by runlvl0 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Old Man: Hey, muscly arm, why the long face?
    Chris: It's this girl. I can't talk to her. It's like girls are a different species or something.
    Old Man: Who needs them? You like Popsicles?
    Chris: Well, sure.
    Old Man: Then you need to come on down to the cellar. I got a whole freezer full of Popsicles.
    Chris: No, thanks. I gotta get going.
    Old Man: Don't make me beg now.
    Chris: You're funny. Bye.
    Old Man: Get your fat ass back here.

    --

    Carthago delenda est!
  43. Re:Bye Bye by technothrasher · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Mother Teresa's Name had good exposure.
    Bin Laden is even better known... but not good for his 'brand'.


    I dunno, did you ever see the episode of TV Nation with the segment called "Direct Mail"? Moore sent out two letter campaigns asking for money. One for "friends of Jeffery Dahmer" and one for an average young couple just trying to make ends meet. If you can't guess who got more money, you'll have to watch the show to find out.

  44. suing apple is fashionable by micromuncher · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Everyone that thinks they have a trademark whether it is registered or not believes that suing Apple is a good idea.

    Apple has a tendency to entertain the lawsuits, so every corporate lawyer thinks its a great make-work type project.

    Marketing types agree, because its free advertising.

    Even individuals, like Carl "Butthead Astronomer" Sagan love to sue Apple over the use of internal project code names, because suing Apple is both fun and profitable.

    Apple should have learned by now that using any word in the english language can result in a lawsuit, just like George Lucas has learned he can be sued by any writer thinking they own the notion of a hairy cute alien.

    Maybe Apple should start using H4xx0r for its project naming. Tiger could be T1gg3r, but then they'd probably be sued by Disney (who, btw, totally screwed the estate of Milne out of millions.)

    --
    /\/\icro/\/\uncher
  45. In other news, by ebbomega · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Tigerdirect sues Spiderman, the city of Detroit and Rudyard Kipling for similar use of the word.

    I used Tigerdirect.ca once for buying a Rio Karma. Never again. About a month after buying my Karma (20G HD mp3 player) it broke (nothing against td). So I call Tigerdirect for warranty information.

    First of all, they changed their website so that it no longer advertised the 1 year warranty I saw when I purchased the player and changed it to 90 days (the same as the manufacturer's warranty), and disavowed any knowledge of this mythical 1 year warranty (one of the reasons I picked TD over others). They just tried to refer me back to the manufacturer.

    So finally I say fine, take the 1-800 phone number.

    Phone number doesn't work in Canada. The web page did say .ca, right? Turns out all that means is they converted their prices to Canadian Dollars. That no-duty thing they advertised? Hah. I had to pay a $130 C.O.D. on the player when it showed up at my door because they shipped from Pennsylvania.

    So yeah, the toll free number doesn't work.

    I call back Tigerdirect. Complain that the number they gave me doesn't work in Canada. So the buddy tells me that they'll get in touch with me about it.

    That was a year and a fucking half ago. I still never heard back. Ultimately, after a week of waiting, I went to Rio's site, and after extensive digging I finally found a number in Toronto I could call. So I call Rio directly, they honour the warranty and in two months (ugh) I have a refurbished player. That one lasted a year (never buy Rio hard drive players, they suck. There's a reason iPods are more expensive).

    Tigerdirect is a horrible company that is out there for the same reasons microsoft is: Make a cheap buck out of people who don't know any better.

    --
    Karma: Non-Heinous
  46. Re:Trademarks are not bogus. These trademarks are. by scottv67 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    > I don't see any reason why common names are a problem when they apply to a narrow domain.

    Well, I do. Who gets the domain www.tiger.com?


    For an interesting twist on this question, point your browser at www.nissan.com.

    -s

  47. Re:I look forward to the day... by Alsee · · Score: 2, Funny

    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)

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.