News 

A Florida Judge ruled that granting an injunction would do far more harm to Apple than Apple's use of the Tiger name can potentially do to Tiger Direct's business.

Tiger Direct had originally sought a complete ban on Apple using the Tiger brand, but later narrowed its sights to preventing its use in relation to OS X. The retailer argued that Apple was causing 'confusion, mistake and deception' for consumers.

During the court hearing Apple VP Philip Schiller said that Apple had not sought to exploit Tiger Direct's reputation

ADVERTISEMENT

when it decided upon the Tiger branding for 10.4, pointing out that Apple had used other big cats - Jaguar and Panther - to identify previous OS releases. Apple also submitted the results of a survey which found that only six per cent link Tiger Direct with name Tiger.

Tiger Direct failed to demonstrate that it had a valid Tiger trademark for computer goods. Apple, on the other hand, registered it for use with its OS in 2003. Apple added that there are over 200 registered companies in the US which use the brand, including 26 who use it for computer products and services.

'Turning to the overall impression created by the marks, in the context of each party's use thereof, the Court finds that the marks are distinctly different,' Judge Joan Lenard concluded, adding that, 'any given customer who cross-shops Tiger Direct 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.'