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."

Comments

Lawyers

[girlintraining]

Well... this is ironic. A company in China is suing one in the US for copyright infringement.

Re:Lawyers

[stanlyb]

In this case, i vote for the copyright. Let them eat the same cake. Is it not ironic, China to defend the copyright, and USA to ignore it!

Re:Lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

The irony works both ways. Why are Americans suddenly so dismissive of IP now that an American corporation is accused of infringing a foreign IP?

We even hold in high regard movies like The Lion King, which is little better than a Hong Kong bootleg of Kimba the White Lion.

from what I've read already

[v1]

Apple has a long-standing tactic of creating shells to do their brand and part buying, to make it difficult for the rumor mills and competitors to figure out what Apple is up to. And it sounds like they're complaining that they sold the iPad name to a company they didn't realize was buying for Apple.. (otherwise they'd have no doubt have tried to charge them more for it)

Too bad. I have no pity for people that like to scheme with "you have more money, so I'm going to charge you more!" getting beat at their own game. These people are only upset at themselves for not recognizing the value of what they were selling, and want someone to cover their loss as a result.

This is no different than a buyer trying to go after a seller for overcharging them for something after they realize they paid too much for it. Just the shoe's on the other foot.

Re:from what I've read already

[Trahloc]

Wait wait, let me get this straight. An *anonymous coward* is saying it is unethical to hide ones identity?! Oh man talk about the pot and the kettle.... There is nothing wrong with creating a company to either A target a specific market or B do your purchasing. Hell that was the *original* purpose behind these things. You incorporated with a charter to get ABC goods to XYZ shore and that's it. The company ceased to exist thereafter.