Court Denies TigerDirect’s Injunction in Tiger Lawsuit Against Apple   - 1,406 Views,

Summary: The Federal Court in Florida has denied a request for an injunction by computer retailer TigerDirect in their lawsuit against Apple over the name for their latest version of OS X, "Tiger". It seems that, like Aunty, the court believes that TigerDirect's claims about ...

Previous Article « VoIP SPIT: Even Plain Old Telephone Users Need to Worry About It
Read Next Article » McAfee Foundstone Security Expert to Host Webcast to Help Organizations Improve Their Government Scorecard Rankings

  Follow Anne on Twitter

The Federal Court in Florida has denied a request for an injunction by computer retailer TigerDirect in their lawsuit against Apple over the name for their latest version of OS X, “Tiger”.

It seems that, like Aunty, the court believes that TigerDirect’s claims about the tiger in their tank is more of a tempest in a teapot.

TigerDirect’s claim, embodied in a lawsuit which was filed just hours before Apple’s Tiger OS X went on sale to the public, was that by using the term “tiger” in the name of the new version of their popular Mac operating system, Apple was likely to cause confusion in the minds of the consumer public, and somehow lead the public who was looking for TigerDirect to Apple instead.

Uh huh.

Tidbits which the court found compelling included a survey that revealed that “only 6% of consumers associated the name “Tiger” with TigerDirect. Meanwhile, the survey of 517 people showed that only 4 people associated the name “Tiger” with a company,” and that “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.”

In the end the court denied TigerDirect’s request for an injunction (although the lawsuit will still go forward), opining that “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.”

Perhaps now would be a good time for TigerDirect to slink away with their tail tucked firmly between their legs.

Court Denies TigerDirect’s Injunction in Tiger Lawsuit Against Apple

 Follow Anne on Twitter

 Twitter Explained in Plain English

Previous Article « VoIP SPIT: Even Plain Old Telephone Users Need to Worry About It
Read Next Article » McAfee Foundstone Security Expert to Host Webcast to Help Organizations Improve Their Government Scorecard Rankings

Read more:

»  Tiger Direct Directly Grabs Tiger by the Tail with Lawsuit Against Apple

»  Tiger in Your Tank, or Tiger Tanked?

»  News Flash: SpamCop and King of Spam Settle Lawsuit

»  Supreme Court Declines RIM Job in Blackberry’s Research in Motion v NTP Case

For additional similar stories check out our archives on Apple & Mac, Internet Law

NOTE: We never, ever, ever will recommend any product or service on this site that we have not regularly used ourselves and do not wholeheartedly believe in. That said, in some cases after being very pleased with a product or service, we may enter into a relationship with the provider of that product or service such that if someone purchases that product or service based on our recommendation, we may get a small payment. Such payments go towards the upkeep of the Internet Patrol.

 

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Warning! All comments which contain URLs and are clearly just spam to generate a link back to the URL will be deleted on sight. Don't bother wasting your time!

If you are going to include a URL in your comment,
please keep it under 25 characters in length,
or use TinyURL to shorten it before including it in your comment.

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic, your email address is never displayed.
HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)


If you have not posted a comment here before, we apologize for having to ask you to enter the letters and numbers you see in the image above to validate your comment, but we are being attacked by thousands of comment form spams every day! You only need to do this once; once you have successfuly posted a comment here you will not be asked to do this again. Thank you for your understanding!

 
 This article first appeared on 5/14/2005
The Internet Patrol
Patrolling the Internet for You!