Slashdot Mirror


Apple Loses Exclusive Rights To 'iPhone' Trademark For Non-Smartphone Products In China (appleinsider.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from AppleInsider: Adding to the company's problems in the region, Apple has lost exclusivity on the use of the "iPhone" trademark in China, and must now share it with Beijing-based leather products maker Xintong Tiandi Technology, reports said on Tuesday. On March 31, the Beijing Municipal High People's Court rejected an Apple appeal of an earlier ruling, according to Quartz. Xintong Tiandi is already selling a number of "IPHONE" products, including purses, passport cases, and most notably phone cases. The company registered its trademark in China in 2007, the same year as the Apple iPhone launched in the United States. That was, however, still five years after Apple registered the iPhone name in China for computer products, something which formed the basis of a 2012 complaint to the country's trademark authorities. In 2013 the government ruled that because Apple couldn't prove the name "IPHONE" was well-known prior to Xintong Tiandi's registration, the public wouldn't link its use in a way that would harm Apple interests. In rejecting Apple's appeal, the High People's Court further noted that the company didn't sell the iPhone in mainland China until 2009. This comes after Apple reported its first earnings decline in more than a decade.

1 of 89 comments (clear)

  1. It proves what I've known for years. by Mal-2 · · Score: 3, Informative

    This has been known forever, though Apple probably just wanted to make their point although they knew they ultimately could not win.

    In a legal battle between a Chinese entity and a foreign entity, Chinese courts always rule on the side of the Chinese entity. Always. Even if they have to come up with the most convoluted legal logic possible to do so. This is one of the warnings we used to give clients when they were considering joint ventures with Chinese companies. "Do you trust them?" (The answer was inevitably "no".) "Can you survive when -- not if -- they screw you over? Because you'll have no recourse when it happens." The only hope of ever seeing legal ramifications is if a company can get another Chinese JV to do the suing.

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.