I kind of thought that if a trait is just a line trait or is still unproven you can call it what you want and if there is another unproven similar trait called the same thing so be it..
However if one of those proves genetic they kind of get the name.
A line trait, otherwise properly known as a polygenic trait, is generally a heritable trait, or as you called them "genetic", traits. It's just that that these types of traits are derived from more than one gene unlike simple Mendelian traits such as Recessive and Dominant traits which makes them far more difficult to reproduce, almost kind of like a double or triple Recessive trait animal, it takes a lot of genes to combine together to create the desired complex morph. So, if someone creates a complex polygenic trait animal, for example, an "Extreme" Red Albino (since we are talking about a certain individual), then, IMHO, that individual has the right to name that specific line bred trait. After all, creating such line bred traits are often more time consuming, requiring selective breeding and years of narrowing down wanted traits whether for color, pattern or any other heritable trait that pops up.
However, it is in fact ridiculous and unwarranted to "coin" names for non-heritable or yet unproven traits. While it might be acceptable to identify a particular line as an "Extreme" Red Albino for that specific line, one has to come to terms that there are going to be other lines of Red Albinos that are going to be fairly identical or perhaps even better looking. While said individual might hold the title of "Extreme" for his line of Red Albinos, it's without merit to think that he also "owns" the label of Red for describing such an Albino that would match the color of his line.
As far as the whole "Tiger" issue goes, this trait, as far as I know, has yet to be proven by the offended party and only until now has he even argued that he believes he's the first to have coined this name for this particular pattern. Maybe he was the first to call these types of patterned hognose Tigers, but the fact is, he still hasn't proven what type of trait they are if his are even heritable to a degree. What's even more interesting is that there are a lot of these "Tiger" traits popping up in a lot of unrelated collections, my own collection included!
I have a particular female who seems to have passed this on to 2 separate clutches from different males, one being an Anaconda male and the other a PPA, so I know they are coming from two different sperm deposits as one group is het PPA and the other consists of Anacondas but both groups exhibit this type of striping. So far, mine is showing up in the F1 generation. It will be interesting to see what pops up in the F2's. Is my line a heritable trait? Time will tell. But I'm in no hurry nor do I have an ego to feed to preemptively start coining names, trying to secure my name in the spotlight. If they prove out, they prove out and only then will I announce what I have spent the time learning from my line and try and get a consensus with my peers, should anybody else have the same type of genetics, what might be an appropriate name for them. But that's just me...
Anyways, as far as I know, nobody has yet proven out this side striping pattern as being a simple trait such as a Dominant or Recessive one or whether it's a complex line trait. Even if JM did coin the term Tiger to describe this pattern, big deal! He should be content that it caught on and that people are still using it. Does he think he's entitled to a royalty or something every time someone uses that description? If so, perhaps he should think about paying the money to trademark his own lines and then the rest of us can just come up with our own public terms, something like an industry standard, and once again leave him to his own devices.
Sorry for the rant... 
-----
Troy Rexroth
Rextiles
