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

Proview is the Dissed Wife

[retroworks]

Ten years ago, Proview was one of the top 5 contract manufacturers, beside companies like Wistron, Foxconn, BenQ, Lenovo, etc. Where some (like Wistron's Acer and Foxconn and Lenovo) managed to grow larger than their contractors (Dell, Apple, Gateway, IBM, etc.), Proview was stuck in the CRT assembly market and never re-emerged. The company made a billion for awhile re-manufacruring and refurbishing old monitors for resale in India, Africa, etc., but that business was labelled "ewaste" and the company went bankrupt in 2007 I think. Now it's an angry wife and wants some of Apple hubbie's moola.

Re:Proview is the Dissed Wife

[jo_ham]

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.

Lawyers

[girlintraining]

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

Re:Lawyers

[symbolset]

Actually, trademark infringement, which makes it even more ironic.

Re:Lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Lawyers

[blind monkey 3]

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.

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

[Solandri]

AFAIK, all big companies do this. Microsoft did it when they bought a domain name from my friend. Harvard did it when they bought real estate to expand their campus.

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.

Prescient call by Vivek Wadhwa, eh?

[theodp]

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.