For one thing, Hong Kong is a part of China since 1997 I believe. The court in Hong Kong was a high court. These two court rulings are lower courts and both rulings will be overturned on appeal.
If "Hong Kong is part of China", and if "the court in Hong Kong was a high court", then why is there any need to appeal the lower Chinese courts? According to what you laid out, the Hong Kong court has already over ruled them.
Or maybe the Hong Kong court is NOT a higher Chinese Court and DID NOT over rule the two lower court decisions?
Please. These International legal things are complicated. Trying to suss out what you think is right, even when it flies in the face of the facts, is not a good method.
And besides, didn't the Hong Kong court say that
Quote:
The China Country Assignment was accordingly ineffective in assigning the China Trademarks to IP Application
Apple seems to have bought the China trademark from a company that did not own it.
The situation is similar to a tourist who buys the Brooklyn Bridge from some guy on the street.
Nope, it's a tourist who buys the Brooklyn Bridge and the Manhattan Bridge from the guy that owns the Brooklyn Bridge and the Manhattan Bridge.
Then the guy that sold both the Brooklyn Bridge and the Manhattan Bridge then says, oops, you didn't buy the Brooklyn Bridge from my right hand, because I sold it to you on my left, so you don't own it.
I know you were being sarcastic, I got it. I was backing up your original intent. I'm also not sure where Zither is going with his current train of thought.
I've said the same thing over and over. If you are not sure what it all means, then reread it.
But just so that there is no mistake, I am saying that Apple bought the Chines mark from a company that never owned it. Accordingly, the original owner still owns the Chinese mark, and Apple does not.
Let's say you are right on the first point (which I assert you aren't ), may I repeat:
"Proview Electronics warranted that it was the unencumbered sole owner of the Subject Trademarks including the China Trademarks"
Perhaps they accidentally a whole written contract of the sale.
See email posted above as well.
So Apple has a right to sue them for breach of warranty. But Apple does not own the trademark just because they were defrauded.
If I warrant to you that I own the Brooklyn Bridge, and sign a contract of sale, does that mean you bought the Brooklyn Bridge from me? No. Why? Because I never owned it.
Why does the picture look like the original iMac in white. They even call it the original Internet computer. So this company makes a clone of an Apple design calls it an iPad instead of iMac or iPod for obvious reasons, then sells the name to Apple for a pretty penny then extorts them for more money. Apple should sue them for design infringement and make sure they close their doors for good.
Except ...
The product in question is no longer made and hasn't been for a while, it was basically a copy of the original iMac. The company in question is also not really in existence anymore for all intents and purposes but the banks that it owes millions to would rather like Apple to pay up. Even if this company are to win, the money would go to the banks. If it loses, it doesn't really lose anything as it's already in bankruptcy AFAIK.
Apple seems to have bought the China trademark from a company that did not own it.
The situation is similar to a tourist who buys the Brooklyn Bridge from some guy on the street.
Zithur,
You are absolutely clueless when it comes to both corporate and international law. You keep making up idiotic analogies and nonsensical law as you go along.
Both the mainland China companies PROVIEW TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD & YOKE TECHNOLOGY (SHENSHEN) CO LTD who now claim they own the iPad trademark, were Defendants in the HongKong case and were found to be subsidiaries, controlled by a third Defendant Proview Holdings, registered in Bermuda and listed on the HongKong Stock exchange (and now bankrupt)., which is why the HongKong Court had and has jurisdiction.
The HongKong Court found that AT ALL MATERIAL TIMES all three above companies, along with the Tawanese Proview company, were controlled by Yang Long San, Rowell (Yang) a Tawanese,
The HongKong Court found against all the above Defendants, including Mr Yang. and ordered that ALL WERE RESTRAINED from making any oral or written representation to any other person(s) to the effect that they are, or any one of them is, the proprietor(s) and/or owner(s) of the IPAD trade mark (Registration No. 1590557, registered in Class 9 of the Register of Trade Marks of the People’s Republic of China) and the IPAD stylised trade mark (Registration No. 1682310 rgistered in Class 9 of the Register Of Trade Marks of the People’s Republic of China) (hereafter referred to as the “Subject Trademarks) and/or have title, rights and/or interests in the Subject Trademarks, and or is in aposition to sell, transfer, assign, otherwise dispose of and/or give good title to the Subject Trademarks.
Yang, PROVIEW TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD & YOKE TECHNOLOGY (SHENSHEN) CO LTD are in breach of that order in taking the case against Apple.
Why did the lower mainland court not take into account the HongKong judgment? The Forbes article reveals the reason. Apple were not permitted to submit the HongKong judgment as evidence.
However, the HongKong Court has now specifically ruled that Apple can submit the Judgement (and presumably the evidence leading to that judgement) in Apple's appeal to a higher court in the People's Republic Of China.
Chinese Courts tend to do as the Government wishes.
So what does the Chinese government want? Are they going to side with some Taiwanese bankrupt and alleged fraudster trying to pull a fast one? Or are they going to side what is probably China's biggest customer? Are they really going to prevent Apple exporting iPads, throwing out of work hundreds of thousands of Chinese workers? Are they going to risk civil unrest and cut off billions of export dollars, just because of an alleged, fly by night fraudster?
Maybe Yang should reflect on the fact that Chinese Courts often mete out the harshest punishments to fraudsters, including execution. Is that really a risk he wants to continue to take?
What decision are you asking if we would defend? Apple bought the worldwide rights to iPad from Proview. There are emails from a lawyer at the Proview, Shenzen (the one that's suing now) saying that it is fine for the British company to make the payment to the Proview, Taiwan subsidiary for the trademarks. Saying that it didn't matter which one gets the money since they were all owned by the same parent company.
As the Hong Kong court ruled last year Yang, the owner of all the Proviews, is trying to screw with Apple. He didn't realize that the UK company was going to turn the name over to Apple (lots of companies buy land, other companies, or IP legally in this way) and now he's mad because he thinks he missed a bigger payday.
Exactly. Notice their compliant:
"Proview sued Apple in 2011, claiming that not only is Apple using the "iPad" moniker illegally in China, but allege that the company surreptitiously acquired the trademark through U.K. proxy company IP Application Development in 2010."
Read between the lines, particularly the bold part.
1. They are admitting that IP Application Development DID, in fact, acquire the trademark.
2. Part of their complaint is that Apple surreptitiously acquired the trademark. Apparently, even though this action is completely legal, they're upset because they would have asked for more money if they had known it was going to Apple.
Pure and simple seller's remorse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
Wrong. Apple never bought the Chinese rights to the name. They dealt with a Taiwanese subsidiary who did not own the rights in China.
Oops.
Really? So you know more than the Hong Kong court?
More importantly, you know more than Proview - who admitted that Apple bought the trademarks (see above)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
So what? A Hong Kong court deciding that a Chinese Company must do something in China? Two Chinese courts disagree.
Maybe you're still stuck in the 90's and don't realize that a Hong Kong court's rulings are valid in China - since Hong Kong is part of China.
There are two courts that disagree. It is not uncommon for these small, provincial courts to do stupid things, but it gets sorted out on appeals. Want to bet which way this one's going to go?
You are absolutely clueless when it comes to both corporate and international law. You keep making up idiotic analogies and nonsensical law as you go along.
...
Chinese Courts tend to do as the Government wishes.
So what does the Chinese government want? Are they going to side with some Taiwanese bankrupt and alleged fraudster trying to pull a fast one? Or are they going to side what is probably China's biggest customer? Are they really going to prevent Apple exporting iPads, throwing out of work hundreds of thousands of Chinese workers? Are they going to risk civil unrest and cut off billions of export dollars, just because of an alleged, fly by night fraudster?
Maybe Yang should reflect on the fact that Chinese Courts often mete out the harshest punishments to fraudsters, including execution. Is that really a risk he wants to continue to take?
You base your conclusions on personal guesswork as to "what the Chinese government" might "want".
Not soon enough! Unfortunately his trolling is so ineffectual that he'll likely to go unnoticed.
Well, he always was more amusing than anything. Sort of like one of those little dogs that runs circles around you yapping its head off. But even that gets annoying after the first 30 seconds or so.
Edit: It's probably worth dusting off and updating this old tekstud joke:
The parent company never sold anything. Had they been the seller, the outcome might be different.
This is what's been boggling me for a while now. How could have Apple missed the part of due diligence where they ascertain who actually owns the thing they're trying to buy.
But, if Yang speaks for Proview Holdings (being the sole owner), then he <is> the [parent] company. The subsidiary relationship between Proview Holdings and Proview Shenzhen means Yang has the authority to make a deal that will compel Proview Shenzhen to transfer that trademark as well.
Now, my only question is what the actual wording on the agreement says. If it's Yang's name on the agreement and if it says "worldwide" rights (insofar as they were held by a company owned directly or indirectly by Yang), it would seem Apple is in the clear, and it's just Chinese politics at play. The alternative is that the agreement explicitly specifies all the countries that Proview (or it's subsidiaries) owned except in China, then Apple is over a proverbial barrel.
Either way, it still seems like Proview is trying to pull a fast one. The specific wording I wonder about will tell whether they actually meant to do it up front, or if it was after the fact (as in, after they realized IP Application Development was making the deal so Apple could get the rights), when they thought they might be able to squeeze a bit more out of the deal.
This is what's been boggling me for a while now. How could have Apple missed the part of due diligence where they ascertain who actually owns the thing they're trying to buy.
My guess is that it was a combination of sloppy due diligence, active misrepresentation and a poor indexing system for Chinese trademarks.
Great. So instead of proper due diligence, Apple got bamboozled by the Taiwanese subsidiary.
Apple can sue them based upon the misrepresentation. But they are destitute, so good luck with that one, Apple.
And did you ignore the conclusion of the Hong Kong Court?
So even the Hong Cong court has ruled that Apple does NOT own the trademark in China?
So let me see if you think what I think;
Apple's agents was actually taken for a ride by Proview Hong Kong, paid for a license that really wasn't covered the Mainland but the people who do the negotiation didn't read it through. Cupertino office didn't though something was amiss either. Until now...
So, was it a simple lack of due diligent on Apple's part, or Proview set the trap all along? Kind of Proview office on Mainland, Hong Kong and Taipei knew this all along it wasn't a complete license and there is a big omission in it. And now Proview springs the trap...
Apple's agents was actually taken for a ride by Proview Hong Kong, paid for a license that really wasn't covered the Mainland but the people who do the negotiation didn't read it through. Cupertino office didn't though something was amiss either. Until now...
So, was it a simple lack of due diligent on Apple's part, or Proview set the trap all along? Kind of Proview office on Mainland, Hong Kong and Taipei knew this all along it wasn't a complete license and there is a big omission in it. And now Proview springs the trap...
It is very unlikely that Apple had a due diligence mistake of this magnitude. Far more likely that Proview is lying.
Comments
For one thing, Hong Kong is a part of China since 1997 I believe. The court in Hong Kong was a high court. These two court rulings are lower courts and both rulings will be overturned on appeal.
If "Hong Kong is part of China", and if "the court in Hong Kong was a high court", then why is there any need to appeal the lower Chinese courts? According to what you laid out, the Hong Kong court has already over ruled them.
Or maybe the Hong Kong court is NOT a higher Chinese Court and DID NOT over rule the two lower court decisions?
Please. These International legal things are complicated. Trying to suss out what you think is right, even when it flies in the face of the facts, is not a good method.
And besides, didn't the Hong Kong court say that
The China Country Assignment was accordingly ineffective in assigning the China Trademarks to IP Application
Apple seems to have bought the China trademark from a company that did not own it.
The situation is similar to a tourist who buys the Brooklyn Bridge from some guy on the street.
Nope, it's a tourist who buys the Brooklyn Bridge and the Manhattan Bridge from the guy that owns the Brooklyn Bridge and the Manhattan Bridge.
Then the guy that sold both the Brooklyn Bridge and the Manhattan Bridge then says, oops, you didn't buy the Brooklyn Bridge from my right hand, because I sold it to you on my left, so you don't own it.
I know you were being sarcastic, I got it. I was backing up your original intent. I'm also not sure where Zither is going with his current train of thought.
I've said the same thing over and over. If you are not sure what it all means, then reread it.
But just so that there is no mistake, I am saying that Apple bought the Chines mark from a company that never owned it. Accordingly, the original owner still owns the Chinese mark, and Apple does not.
Let's say you are right on the first point (which I assert you aren't
"Proview Electronics warranted that it was the unencumbered sole owner of the Subject Trademarks including the China Trademarks"
Perhaps they accidentally a whole written contract of the sale.
See email posted above as well.
So Apple has a right to sue them for breach of warranty. But Apple does not own the trademark just because they were defrauded.
If I warrant to you that I own the Brooklyn Bridge, and sign a contract of sale, does that mean you bought the Brooklyn Bridge from me? No. Why? Because I never owned it.
What is left is likely to sue the parent company for acting in bad faith by them claiming to be selling rights they didn't actually hold.
The parent company never sold anything. Had they been the seller, the outcome might be different.
Why does the picture look like the original iMac in white. They even call it the original Internet computer. So this company makes a clone of an Apple design calls it an iPad instead of iMac or iPod for obvious reasons, then sells the name to Apple for a pretty penny then extorts them for more money. Apple should sue them for design infringement and make sure they close their doors for good.
Except ...
The product in question is no longer made and hasn't been for a while, it was basically a copy of the original iMac. The company in question is also not really in existence anymore for all intents and purposes but the banks that it owes millions to would rather like Apple to pay up. Even if this company are to win, the money would go to the banks. If it loses, it doesn't really lose anything as it's already in bankruptcy AFAIK.
The long-term answer is to have them carry through on that process and add manufacturing capacity in countries other than China.
Apple seems to have bought the China trademark from a company that did not own it.
The situation is similar to a tourist who buys the Brooklyn Bridge from some guy on the street.
Zithur,
You are absolutely clueless when it comes to both corporate and international law. You keep making up idiotic analogies and nonsensical law as you go along.
Both the mainland China companies PROVIEW TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD & YOKE TECHNOLOGY (SHENSHEN) CO LTD who now claim they own the iPad trademark, were Defendants in the HongKong case and were found to be subsidiaries, controlled by a third Defendant Proview Holdings, registered in Bermuda and listed on the HongKong Stock exchange (and now bankrupt)., which is why the HongKong Court had and has jurisdiction.
The HongKong Court found that AT ALL MATERIAL TIMES all three above companies, along with the Tawanese Proview company, were controlled by Yang Long San, Rowell (Yang) a Tawanese,
The HongKong Court found against all the above Defendants, including Mr Yang. and ordered that ALL WERE RESTRAINED from making any oral or written representation to any other person(s) to the effect that they are, or any one of them is, the proprietor(s) and/or owner(s) of the IPAD trade mark (Registration No. 1590557, registered in Class 9 of the Register of Trade Marks of the People’s Republic of China) and the IPAD stylised trade mark (Registration No. 1682310 rgistered in Class 9 of the Register Of Trade Marks of the People’s Republic of China) (hereafter referred to as the “Subject Trademarks) and/or have title, rights and/or interests in the Subject Trademarks, and or is in aposition to sell, transfer, assign, otherwise dispose of and/or give good title to the Subject Trademarks.
Yang, PROVIEW TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD & YOKE TECHNOLOGY (SHENSHEN) CO LTD are in breach of that order in taking the case against Apple.
Why did the lower mainland court not take into account the HongKong judgment? The Forbes article reveals the reason. Apple were not permitted to submit the HongKong judgment as evidence.
However, the HongKong Court has now specifically ruled that Apple can submit the Judgement (and presumably the evidence leading to that judgement) in Apple's appeal to a higher court in the People's Republic Of China.
Chinese Courts tend to do as the Government wishes.
So what does the Chinese government want? Are they going to side with some Taiwanese bankrupt and alleged fraudster trying to pull a fast one? Or are they going to side what is probably China's biggest customer? Are they really going to prevent Apple exporting iPads, throwing out of work hundreds of thousands of Chinese workers? Are they going to risk civil unrest and cut off billions of export dollars, just because of an alleged, fly by night fraudster?
Maybe Yang should reflect on the fact that Chinese Courts often mete out the harshest punishments to fraudsters, including execution. Is that really a risk he wants to continue to take?
What decision are you asking if we would defend? Apple bought the worldwide rights to iPad from Proview. There are emails from a lawyer at the Proview, Shenzen (the one that's suing now) saying that it is fine for the British company to make the payment to the Proview, Taiwan subsidiary for the trademarks. Saying that it didn't matter which one gets the money since they were all owned by the same parent company.
As the Hong Kong court ruled last year Yang, the owner of all the Proviews, is trying to screw with Apple. He didn't realize that the UK company was going to turn the name over to Apple (lots of companies buy land, other companies, or IP legally in this way) and now he's mad because he thinks he missed a bigger payday.
Exactly. Notice their compliant:
"Proview sued Apple in 2011, claiming that not only is Apple using the "iPad" moniker illegally in China, but allege that the company surreptitiously acquired the trademark through U.K. proxy company IP Application Development in 2010."
Read between the lines, particularly the bold part.
1. They are admitting that IP Application Development DID, in fact, acquire the trademark.
2. Part of their complaint is that Apple surreptitiously acquired the trademark. Apparently, even though this action is completely legal, they're upset because they would have asked for more money if they had known it was going to Apple.
Pure and simple seller's remorse.
Wrong. Apple never bought the Chinese rights to the name. They dealt with a Taiwanese subsidiary who did not own the rights in China.
Oops.
Really? So you know more than the Hong Kong court?
More importantly, you know more than Proview - who admitted that Apple bought the trademarks (see above)?
So what? A Hong Kong court deciding that a Chinese Company must do something in China? Two Chinese courts disagree.
Maybe you're still stuck in the 90's and don't realize that a Hong Kong court's rulings are valid in China - since Hong Kong is part of China.
There are two courts that disagree. It is not uncommon for these small, provincial courts to do stupid things, but it gets sorted out on appeals. Want to bet which way this one's going to go?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQQdSwFgSec
Wrong. Apple never bought the Chinese rights to the name. They dealt with a Taiwanese subsidiary who did not own the rights in China.
Oops.
How long will it take to ban tekstud this time I wonder.
Wrong. Apple never bought the Chinese rights to the name. They dealt with a Taiwanese subsidiary who did not own the rights in China.
Oops.
Gosh! You better let the Lower Chinese Courts know that you can clean this mess up right away.
how long will it take to ban tekstud this time i wonder.
Not soon enough! Unfortunately his trolling is so ineffectual that he'll likely to go unnoticed.
Zithur,
You are absolutely clueless when it comes to both corporate and international law. You keep making up idiotic analogies and nonsensical law as you go along.
...
Chinese Courts tend to do as the Government wishes.
So what does the Chinese government want? Are they going to side with some Taiwanese bankrupt and alleged fraudster trying to pull a fast one? Or are they going to side what is probably China's biggest customer? Are they really going to prevent Apple exporting iPads, throwing out of work hundreds of thousands of Chinese workers? Are they going to risk civil unrest and cut off billions of export dollars, just because of an alleged, fly by night fraudster?
Maybe Yang should reflect on the fact that Chinese Courts often mete out the harshest punishments to fraudsters, including execution. Is that really a risk he wants to continue to take?
You base your conclusions on personal guesswork as to "what the Chinese government" might "want".
Not soon enough! Unfortunately his trolling is so ineffectual that he'll likely to go unnoticed.
Well, he always was more amusing than anything. Sort of like one of those little dogs that runs circles around you yapping its head off. But even that gets annoying after the first 30 seconds or so.
Edit: It's probably worth dusting off and updating this old tekstud joke:
select * from zzz_knowledge
0 row(s) in set [< 1 sec]
The parent company never sold anything. Had they been the seller, the outcome might be different.
This is what's been boggling me for a while now. How could have Apple missed the part of due diligence where they ascertain who actually owns the thing they're trying to buy.
But, if Yang speaks for Proview Holdings (being the sole owner), then he <is> the [parent] company. The subsidiary relationship between Proview Holdings and Proview Shenzhen means Yang has the authority to make a deal that will compel Proview Shenzhen to transfer that trademark as well.
Now, my only question is what the actual wording on the agreement says. If it's Yang's name on the agreement and if it says "worldwide" rights (insofar as they were held by a company owned directly or indirectly by Yang), it would seem Apple is in the clear, and it's just Chinese politics at play. The alternative is that the agreement explicitly specifies all the countries that Proview (or it's subsidiaries) owned except in China, then Apple is over a proverbial barrel.
Either way, it still seems like Proview is trying to pull a fast one. The specific wording I wonder about will tell whether they actually meant to do it up front, or if it was after the fact (as in, after they realized IP Application Development was making the deal so Apple could get the rights), when they thought they might be able to squeeze a bit more out of the deal.
This is what's been boggling me for a while now. How could have Apple missed the part of due diligence where they ascertain who actually owns the thing they're trying to buy.
My guess is that it was a combination of sloppy due diligence, active misrepresentation and a poor indexing system for Chinese trademarks.
Yeah, I'm Chinese American and this kinda shit makes me embarrassed. What assholes.
Your American, not Chinese. Nothing to be embarrassed about.
If you still feel embarrassed, then I question your allegiance.
Great. So instead of proper due diligence, Apple got bamboozled by the Taiwanese subsidiary.
Apple can sue them based upon the misrepresentation. But they are destitute, so good luck with that one, Apple.
And did you ignore the conclusion of the Hong Kong Court?
So even the Hong Cong court has ruled that Apple does NOT own the trademark in China?
So let me see if you think what I think;
Apple's agents was actually taken for a ride by Proview Hong Kong, paid for a license that really wasn't covered the Mainland but the people who do the negotiation didn't read it through. Cupertino office didn't though something was amiss either. Until now...
So, was it a simple lack of due diligent on Apple's part, or Proview set the trap all along? Kind of Proview office on Mainland, Hong Kong and Taipei knew this all along it wasn't a complete license and there is a big omission in it. And now Proview springs the trap...
So let me see if you think what I think;
Apple's agents was actually taken for a ride by Proview Hong Kong, paid for a license that really wasn't covered the Mainland but the people who do the negotiation didn't read it through. Cupertino office didn't though something was amiss either. Until now...
So, was it a simple lack of due diligent on Apple's part, or Proview set the trap all along? Kind of Proview office on Mainland, Hong Kong and Taipei knew this all along it wasn't a complete license and there is a big omission in it. And now Proview springs the trap...
It is very unlikely that Apple had a due diligence mistake of this magnitude. Far more likely that Proview is lying.
In fact:
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente...ml#tk.rss_news