TigerDirect vs. Tiger – Score 1 to Apple


By way of follow up to my earlier post, the news comes that the District Court of Florida has sided with Apple in TigerDirect’s suit against the company for use of the name ‘Tiger’ to market the latest iteration of the Mac OS X operating system. Of particular interest is the following:

Apple also entered into evidence a survey that revealed 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 — a result the Court found most interesting.

The article also notes that various other companies use the term ‘Tiger’ in either their name or for a product, and that whilst in this case both uses are computer-related, the scope for genuine confusion is not there. In any case, as I noted in my initial post, the timing of TigerDirect’s lawsuit can have done little to enhance its chances of success – as a vendor of Apple products (an iPod or two, as far as I can tell) and as a vendor of computing products, the idea that Apple’s ‘Tiger’ branding had only just come to their attention is obviously ridiculous.

Apple, of course, is no stranger to disputes over names. The ongoing clash with Apple Corp, the Beatles’ record company, will be fought out in an English court in just under a year’s time, the record company asserting that Apple Computer is encroaching on their line of business with iTMS etc. As The Register notes, by then, Apple will probably as good as own the music download business, likely having sold not far short of 2 billion songs.



I was a bit facetious in my comment about the under-thirty crowd. But not much…. As a Beatle fan of yore i cannot recall seeing the famous green apple (famous as well on this side of the pond) on any records for quite sometime now. Does Apple Corps have any _ACTIVE_ catalogue of music offered for sale? I thought that Jackson ahd a right to all the beatles catalogue?? In any event I agree with you. when it comes to mindshare, when one says _Apple_ …one thinks of the Computer maker. I would postulate that one in a hundred, of any age, can recall that there _once_ was an Apple Corps that published music!

“Can’t buy me love, love
Can’t buy me love

I’ll buy you a diamond ring my friend
If it makes you feel all right
I’ll get you anything my friend
If it makes you feel all right
‘Cause I don’t care too much for money
For money can’t buy me love ”

….yeah right ;-)…

PS thanks for the link to the applecorps web page. when i searched a few months back i was not able to fin it. I suspect that page is only up because of the upcoming court battle.;-^

Gareth Potter


I’ve done a little Googling and found this, which is Apple Corps’ home page. But save for that rather beautiful and (certainly in Britain; I don’t know about overseas) quite famous green apple, it offers little to the intrigued.

What is ominous is that you really have to want to find them to get any information. A Goole search for “Apple Corp” gives you Apple Computer; you must search for “Apple Corps” to get the desired result. A search for “Apple Records” is reasonably productive though, giving this unofficial discography and this Wikipedia entry.

I think your suggestion that no-one under thirty knows about Apple Records is a little extreme, but it certainly seems that Apple Computer has by a long way the greater mindshare. It will be interesting to see what an English court makes of iTMS and so on, but I think that the current obscurity that Apple Records has brought about by itself (i.e. through not having a decent web site, not releasing much/any new material, etc.) would give a court at least some pause for thought before ruling in their favour.

Time will tell.


I have never been able to find any public info on Apple Corps. Do they even have a web site? Does any one under thirty even _know_ of apple records? Is Sir pauli a wee bit greedy ;-)? I rest my case….

Comments are closed.