Apple (AAPL)

Tiger Direct, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc.

Plaintiff Tiger Direct, Inc. filed this trademark infringement action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 26, 2005 alleging infringement of the word mark TIGER. Plaintiff claims to have a valid registration in the mark TIGER and alleges that the Company’s use of TIGER in reference to the latest version of Mac OS X infringes the mark allegedly owned by Plaintiff. Plaintiff attempted to obtain an ex parte preliminary injunction barring the Company’s use of the TIGER mark on April 27, 2005 but the motion was denied. Plaintiff served the Company on April 27, 2005 and again moved for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff’s motion was heard on May 3, 2005. On May 11, 2005, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion. The Company filed a response to the complaint on May 17, 2005, denying all material allegations and asserting counterclaims for cancellation of certain marks registered to Tiger Direct. On June 10, 2005, Plaintiff filed an appeal, but subsequently withdrew it. Plaintiff filed a response to the Company’s counterclaims. The parties have reached a settlement. Settlement of this matter did not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operation.

23

Tiger Direct, Inc.
v. Apple Computer, Inc.

Plaintiff Tiger Direct, Inc.
filed this trademark infringement action in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida on April 26, 2005 alleging
infringement of the word mark TIGER. Plaintiff claims to have a valid
registration in the mark TIGER and alleges that the Company’s use of TIGER in
reference to the latest version of Mac OS X infringes the mark allegedly owned
by Plaintiff. Plaintiff attempted to obtain an ex parte preliminary injunction
barring the Company’s use of the TIGER mark on April 27, 2005 but the
motion was denied. Plaintiff served the Company on April 27, 2005 and
again moved for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff’s motion was heard on May 3,
2005. On May 11, 2005, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion. The Company
filed a response to the complaint on May 17, 2005, denying all material
allegations and asserting counterclaims for cancellation of certain marks
registered to Tiger Direct. On June 10, 2005, Plaintiff filed an appeal,
but subsequently withdrew it. Plaintiff filed a response to the Company’s
counterclaims. The parties have reached a settlement. Settlement of this matter
did not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or results
of operation.

23

Tiger Direct, Inc. v Apple Computer, Inc.

Plaintiff Tiger Direct, Inc. filed this trademark infringement action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 26, 2005 alleging infringement of the word mark TIGER.  Plaintiff claims to have a valid registration in the mark TIGER and alleges that the Company’s use of TIGER in reference to the latest version of Mac OS X infringes the mark allegedly owned by Plaintiff.  Plaintiff attempted to obtain an ex parte preliminary injunction barring the Company’s use of the TIGER mark on April 27, 2005 but the motion was denied.  Plaintiff served the Company on April 27, 2005 and again moved for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff’s motion was heard on May 3, 2005. On May 11, 2005 the court denied Plaintiff’s motion. The Company filed a response to the complaint on May 17, 2005, denying all material allegations and asserting counterclaims for cancellation of certain marks registered to Tiger Direct. On June 10, 2005, Plaintiff filed an appeal and its response to the Company’s counterclaims. A mediation is set for September 6, 2005.

Tiger Direct, Inc. v Apple Computer, Inc.

Plaintiff Tiger Direct, Inc. filed this trademark infringement action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 26, 2005 alleging infringement of the word mark TIGER.  Plaintiff claims to have a valid registration in the mark TIGER and alleges that the Company’s use of TIGER in reference to the latest version of Mac OS X infringes the mark allegedly owned by Plaintiff.  Plaintiff attempted to obtain an ex parte preliminary injunction barring the Company’s use of the TIGER mark on April 27, 2005 but the motion was denied.  Plaintiff served the Company on April 27, 2005 and again moved for a preliminary injunction which was heard on May 3, 2005.  The Company denied all allegations and vigorously opposed Plaintiff’s motion. On May 3, 2005 the court heard the matter and has not yet issued a ruling.  The Company will continue investigating this claim.  The Company’s response to the Complaint is not yet due.