Slashdot Mirror
Chinese iPad Trademark Battle Hits California Court
judgecorp writes "The Chinese company Proview is taking its trademark case against Apple's iPad to the Californian Courts. The company acknowledges it sold the IPAD name to Apple, but denies Apple has rights in China, and has accused Apple of underhand tactics." Says the article: "Any kind of ban in China would obviously be a major headache for Apple, since that is where most of the iPads are manufactured. If Proview is successful, it would effectively stop worldwide distribution of the tablet, and delay the launch of the iPad 3."
Actually, trademark infringement, which makes it even more ironic.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Translation: Look, we know we sold you the trademark and you legally have the right to use it and all but we're failing as a company, about to be de-listed from the stock exchange and _REALLY_ need the money so would you just shut the hell up and hand over some cash.
Yeah, a failing business certainly makes companies pull some stupid, desperate stunts...
OK, there are patents, there are copyrights, and there are trademarks. This is a trademark case. Let's be sure we get the nomenclature right because there are enough people confusing the three distinct parts of IP law as it is.
BusinessWeek, Jan. 10, 2011: China Could Game the U.S. in Intellectual Property: Now China may do with intellectual property what it did with capitalism: adapt our system and beat us at our own game.
Because if you knew anything about this situation, you wouldn't be so quick to judge. Facts not in dispute:
What is in dispute: Since Apple used a shell company, Proview says the sale is null and void. I don't know if the contract stipulates Proview had to know the buyer was or if Chinese law has clauses that can invalidate a contract under such conditions. Certainly in the US, it is not a standard clause as corporations buy things with shell companies all the time. For example, Disney was able to build DisneyWorld in Orlando by securing the land rights quietly otherwise if people knew a major corporation was buying the land, they would have raised their prices.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Not acurate at all from my understanding of the case:
Proview Electronics, a subsidiary of Proview International Holdings, agreed to sell the global iPad trademark in 2006. The rights were sold to a company called IP Application Development (‘IPAD’), for $55,104. The contracts were drawn up by Apple's legal team, listing all trademarks including the one for China, the list was supplied by Proview Electronics (taiwan).
In 2010, Proview Shenzhen (also a subsidiary of Proview International Holdings) began the process of suing Apple for trademark infringement over the ‘iPad’ brand. Proview Taiwan did not own the China trademark, Proview Shenzhen did and not sign over the rights to Proview Taiwan (which had no right to sell it) and did not enter into a contract with Apple to sell it.
Apple claim a mistake was made when the contract was drawn up listing the Trademark as owned by Taiwan but the chairman of both companies was the same person and was fully aware that the China trademark was included and gave permission to sell it, they also claim that they dealt with Shenzhen (it was the Proview Shenzhen people that told Apple Taiwan owned the trademarks).
Apple has had a couple of minor victories in Hong Kong and Taiwan that allows them to keep using the name till the ownership is dicided.
Apple’s own case against Proview that the company was infringing on its trademark with their own product was rejected at the end of last year by a court in Shenzen. Apple is appealing this decision.
The lawyer involved in the assignment of rights from Proview to Apple Inc didn't check the details deed of Assignment correctly and the trademark rights in China were not assigned.
I believe the owner's eyes lit up when he saw that Apple was the real purchaser of the name and is taking full advantage of "buyer beware".
Another twist is apparently Apple's shell company lawyers emailed Proview stipulating that the trademark will not be used in competition with Proview, it was needed only because it was the company name. Apple are not denying this, merely saying it doesn't matter what the lawyers said - this is part of the Proview lawsuit recently filed in the U.S.
BM3
I don't know - are you implying that Apple stole the IP?
They bought the rights to the trademark, and only later (years after the deal) has the original owner (who had full knowledge and participation in the original deal) decided that the rights don't cover China after all, right about the time when they're going through financial difficulty and need cash urgently. It's very convenient.