Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Judge Denies TigerDirect's Request for Injunction
- Thread starter GFLPraxis
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sirus The Virus said:
No, they were just after the publicity. The legal action didn't cost them much but it did get them a _lot_ of free publicity which drives buyers to their web site. It also drives informed buyers away. I won't buy from SleezeDir..., er, I mean TigerDirect.
azdude said:Huh?
I think we're missing something about this survey.
TigerDirect is a company.
6% of 517 is 31.
31 is not 4.
It said 6% of the people associated the word tiger with diger direct, and that 4 people associated the word tiger to another business, not tiger direct
From the referenced article:
"To lessen the harm to Apple, the retailer said Apple could still use previously paid for advertising and promotion materials, but requested the Cupertino, Calif-based computer maker cease from using the Tiger mark anywhere on its web site or in any new advertising, signage, or packing; except when pertaining specifically to Mac OS X 10.4."
When on earth would Apple use "Tiger" if not when pertaining specifically to Mac OS X 10.4?! Gotta love lawyers.
-K
"To lessen the harm to Apple, the retailer said Apple could still use previously paid for advertising and promotion materials, but requested the Cupertino, Calif-based computer maker cease from using the Tiger mark anywhere on its web site or in any new advertising, signage, or packing; except when pertaining specifically to Mac OS X 10.4."
When on earth would Apple use "Tiger" if not when pertaining specifically to Mac OS X 10.4?! Gotta love lawyers.
-K
No, you missed the story
Actually, it was a team in Canada which is owned by someone from Red Had (Linux) [the founder I beleive, but I don't recall for sure]. And they didn't want to sue Apple.
They offered to let Apple use their service mark, which dates back to the 1890's, if desired, to pre-empt Tiger Direct. One feels that perhaps he sided with many of the forum members here in thinking the Tiger Direct case was without merit but the US legal system is frequently without common sense.
edenwaith said:
Actually, it was a team in Canada which is owned by someone from Red Had (Linux) [the founder I beleive, but I don't recall for sure]. And they didn't want to sue Apple.
They offered to let Apple use their service mark, which dates back to the 1890's, if desired, to pre-empt Tiger Direct. One feels that perhaps he sided with many of the forum members here in thinking the Tiger Direct case was without merit but the US legal system is frequently without common sense.
As far as I can see, this was only about the injunction, and so far the case hasn't been dropped. A preliminary injunction is near the beginning of the process. Systemax can still go ahead with a court case, if they still believe they could be awarded damages.finalcoolman said:
I suspect that the company already got what they wanted, namely a little publicity for a forgotten division. At this point they could quit while they're ahead, write a check to Apple for legal expenses so they don't countersue, and leave it at that. It depends on how nice everyone feels like being.
4 thought of Tiger Direct. 6% of 517 thought of a business (any business), the other 94% (give or take the I-don't-knows) were thinking of the animal by the same name.azdude said:6% of 517 is 31.
31 is not 4.
Heh. I read about this on engadget, they had a funny picture to go with it. Enjoy.
Now that we know right?
Now that we know right?
No clue?
You're the one with no clue.
McDonald's did research with their customers and found that their customers LIKE the coffee as hot as possible - certainly 180 or more. They were providing the coffee the way most customers wanted it.
You're just proving the point - that common sense has fled from this country. Since I was a tiny baby, my mother steered me away from hot cups of coffee with 'Watch out - you'll get burned'. Everyone knows that hot coffee will burn you - and everyone who drinks McDonald's coffee knows that it's hot. Can you think of a time when your mother DIDN'T steer you away from hot coffee? Did your mother ever tell you 'Don't worry about spilling that hot coffee on your skin because it's not hot enough to burn you'? Of course not. Case closed. Or, at least, it should be 'case closed' other than an idiot judge and jury.
NEENAHBOY said:
You're the one with no clue.
McDonald's did research with their customers and found that their customers LIKE the coffee as hot as possible - certainly 180 or more. They were providing the coffee the way most customers wanted it.
You're just proving the point - that common sense has fled from this country. Since I was a tiny baby, my mother steered me away from hot cups of coffee with 'Watch out - you'll get burned'. Everyone knows that hot coffee will burn you - and everyone who drinks McDonald's coffee knows that it's hot. Can you think of a time when your mother DIDN'T steer you away from hot coffee? Did your mother ever tell you 'Don't worry about spilling that hot coffee on your skin because it's not hot enough to burn you'? Of course not. Case closed. Or, at least, it should be 'case closed' other than an idiot judge and jury.
Marketing gimmick?
That could be, but if so, it backfired.
I bought over $10 K from Tiger last year - and won't buy anything from them any more. I sent them an email to that effect and haven't received a response.
Their account person called last week to offer to set us up as a 'preferred corporate customer'. I haven't returned his call, but I'm tempted to do so specifically to tell him that I'm not going to buy anything else from them because their corporate management is made up of slimeball extortionists.
~Shard~ said:
That could be, but if so, it backfired.
I bought over $10 K from Tiger last year - and won't buy anything from them any more. I sent them an email to that effect and haven't received a response.
Their account person called last week to offer to set us up as a 'preferred corporate customer'. I haven't returned his call, but I'm tempted to do so specifically to tell him that I'm not going to buy anything else from them because their corporate management is made up of slimeball extortionists.
Edit: Moved over to McD's thread...didn't see it before.jragosta said:
God help me, but I can't help but jump in.
What specific source(s) are you quoting here that shows McDonald's did that research and got those results?
On topic: Even given our legal system, I don't think many people gave TigerDirect any chance of winning this suit. What a stupid, stupid decision on their part to file.
No, no thank you
No high five for bringing the forum off topic!!!
Law is applicable to a "given responsibilty" - meaning that the majority of the people are going to obey the law, a minority are going to break the law, and fewer still are going to exploit the law.
Slightly on topic: Tiger Direct exploited the law.
The person you quoted said this:
Now let me requote it to you:
"Sure it's easy to think that if a lady spills hot coffee on her self its her fault."
It's not just easy - it's the facts. She spilled on herself and she was DOING something that could be considered HAZARDOUS driving!!!
HERE ARE FACTS:
She shouldn't be drinking hot coffee while driving. She didn't spill it immediately at the drive through, she drove out of the parking lot, hit a bump and the coffee spilled on her cooter! Where was the cup holder? Why was she holding the coffee between her legs?
Your logic says, that if a person buys a pack of paper from Walmart, the pack is just slightly opened, and one sheet is slightly out of line with the rest and the buyer receives a papercut, that Walmart is liable for not monitoring their inventory.
Slightly on topic again it's frivolous lawsuits that raise our prices as consumers - it was estimated that average prices went up 1.2% after this case at McDonald's. Don't think that the Tiger direct defense and the equally ridiculous Think Secret and Reseller lawsuits don't have an effect on Apple's prices!
[insert just joking mumble] people with understanding like the two of you make lawyers necessary - we hate you! [/insert just joking mumble]
dr_lha said:
No high five for bringing the forum off topic!!!
Law is applicable to a "given responsibilty" - meaning that the majority of the people are going to obey the law, a minority are going to break the law, and fewer still are going to exploit the law.
Slightly on topic: Tiger Direct exploited the law.
The person you quoted said this:
Now let me requote it to you:
"Sure it's easy to think that if a lady spills hot coffee on her self its her fault."
It's not just easy - it's the facts. She spilled on herself and she was DOING something that could be considered HAZARDOUS driving!!!
HERE ARE FACTS:
She shouldn't be drinking hot coffee while driving. She didn't spill it immediately at the drive through, she drove out of the parking lot, hit a bump and the coffee spilled on her cooter! Where was the cup holder? Why was she holding the coffee between her legs?
Your logic says, that if a person buys a pack of paper from Walmart, the pack is just slightly opened, and one sheet is slightly out of line with the rest and the buyer receives a papercut, that Walmart is liable for not monitoring their inventory.
Slightly on topic again it's frivolous lawsuits that raise our prices as consumers - it was estimated that average prices went up 1.2% after this case at McDonald's. Don't think that the Tiger direct defense and the equally ridiculous Think Secret and Reseller lawsuits don't have an effect on Apple's prices!
[insert just joking mumble] people with understanding like the two of you make lawyers necessary - we hate you! [/insert just joking mumble]
That is the way consumer-ism works best, and let'm know why!jragosta said:
When we fly our jet to different cities we don' typically use a terminal like passenger airlines, we part at what is called an "FBO". They offer us services like fuel, catering, cars, hotels, ........
There are different franchises with Names like Millionaire, Signature, Atlantic Aviation,........
Well Signature has been the Ritz of FBO's in general, but have been increasing their demands on min fuel, handling fees, and other "junk" and way higher than normal fees. We just started going to other FBO's this week and when we have to go to a Signature FBO we let them know why we don't go to them if we have a choice (today at Signature MSP fuel is $4.57 but they will give us a .25 disc per gallon with a 300 gal purchase, and if we purchase 300 gal they will waive the $325 "handling" fee.
The most powerful vote you can make is the one with your $$$$.
edit: I was thinking of a new kids treat, Shards of Glass Freeze Pops !
Two things. First off, this isn't really a "smackdown". The judge refused to grant a preliminary injunction. The case is still going to go to trial if the parties don't choose to settle first.
Second, I find Tiger Direct's claims to be laughable. They want to claim "damage" because of their ranking in search engines:
On Yahoo, the first hit is a "Yahoo Kids" page about the animal. Apple is second. Third is a charity page for saving tigers. Fourth is the TIGER map server by the US Census bureau. Fifth is Tiger Woods. Sixth is Diger Direct.
On MSN, the first hit is Tiger Woods. Second is the US Census bureau. Third is Apple. Fourth is a carpet company called Karastan. Fifth is Tiger electronics (a division of Hasbro). Then tiger.gov.uk (a UK government human-rights site.) Then a MacFixit article about Tiger (the OS). Then "The Tiger" (Clemson University's newspaper). Then another site about the animal. I couldn't Find Tiger Direct anywhere on the first two pages of hits.
So, if search engines are going to be the basis of their suit, they're going to be in for quite a challenge. What are they going to do? Sue Tiger Woods for his name? Sue the US and UK governments? Sue Hasbro? Sue Karastan? Sue several "save the tigers" charities?
BTW, if they try this, they may lose their own trademark. Tiger Electronics has been around far longer than Tiger Direct. As a matter of fact, the first time I got a Tiger Direct catalog, I mistakenly assumed it was from the toy company. If they try to go ape suing companies over this trademark, they may (easily) find themselves losing their own trademark to Hasbro.
I would find that a delicious irony.
Second, I find Tiger Direct's claims to be laughable. They want to claim "damage" because of their ranking in search engines:
Well, I just did a Google search for the word "tiger". The first hit refers to the animal. The second is Tiger Direct. The third is Apple.
On Yahoo, the first hit is a "Yahoo Kids" page about the animal. Apple is second. Third is a charity page for saving tigers. Fourth is the TIGER map server by the US Census bureau. Fifth is Tiger Woods. Sixth is Diger Direct.
On MSN, the first hit is Tiger Woods. Second is the US Census bureau. Third is Apple. Fourth is a carpet company called Karastan. Fifth is Tiger electronics (a division of Hasbro). Then tiger.gov.uk (a UK government human-rights site.) Then a MacFixit article about Tiger (the OS). Then "The Tiger" (Clemson University's newspaper). Then another site about the animal. I couldn't Find Tiger Direct anywhere on the first two pages of hits.
So, if search engines are going to be the basis of their suit, they're going to be in for quite a challenge. What are they going to do? Sue Tiger Woods for his name? Sue the US and UK governments? Sue Hasbro? Sue Karastan? Sue several "save the tigers" charities?
BTW, if they try this, they may lose their own trademark. Tiger Electronics has been around far longer than Tiger Direct. As a matter of fact, the first time I got a Tiger Direct catalog, I mistakenly assumed it was from the toy company. If they try to go ape suing companies over this trademark, they may (easily) find themselves losing their own trademark to Hasbro.
I would find that a delicious irony.
snkTab said:
As a sidenote, that whole "million dollar victory" was thrown out on appeal. Good to remember that, in all this stuff, one verdict is hardly EVER the end.
I'm not loving it!
Have any of you actually had McDonald's coffee? I recall it being awful the one time I had it. The woman deserved what she got for buying it. I bet McDonald's researched showed that people go to Starbucks for coffee and there's a very good reason for that ...
jragosta said:
Have any of you actually had McDonald's coffee? I recall it being awful the one time I had it. The woman deserved what she got for buying it. I bet McDonald's researched showed that people go to Starbucks for coffee and there's a very good reason for that ...
Where is AppleTurn's amusing response?
I thought that the folks at www.appleturns.com would
be all over this story, but no. They haven't uptaded since
April 28th, and it's ususual for them to take more than
two weeks off. Does anyone know what's up with them?
Btw, their April 28th episode features their sarcastic
take (pre-injunction, of course) on this story, if you
haven't seen it.
(I posted something similar to this to another forum thread,
but it turned out it had already been archived. opps.)
I thought that the folks at www.appleturns.com would
be all over this story, but no. They haven't uptaded since
April 28th, and it's ususual for them to take more than
two weeks off. Does anyone know what's up with them?
Btw, their April 28th episode features their sarcastic
take (pre-injunction, of course) on this story, if you
haven't seen it.
(I posted something similar to this to another forum thread,
but it turned out it had already been archived. opps.)
