The entity that had sold iPad name to Apple's agent was Proview Taiwan, which held all rights to the iPad name for everywhere except China. The entity that did not sell iPad name to Apple's agent was Proview Shenzhen, located in China. Both entities are owned by the same person, but are legally two separate entities. But the original agreement between Proview Taiwan and Apple's agent was ambiguous enough that you can't really tell that Proview Shenzhen was not part of the deal. That gave Proview the opportunity to sue Apple when it started selling iPad in China.
It is refreshing to see a post with so few factual errors.
The only one I spotted was WRT ownership of the two subsidiaries.
Seemingly, Proview Hong Kong had an interest, and perhaps a controlling interest, in each of them. However, we don't know if Hong Kong was the sole owner, or whether each of the three had somewhat different ownership and creditor structures.
So in China Proview says that they don't have an agreement - but in the US they say they do have an agreement ?? Which is it going to be ?
Seems they just lost their own argument in one country or another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xsu
The entity that had sold iPad name to Apple's agent was Proview Taiwan, which held all rights to the iPad name for everywhere except China. The entity that did not sell iPad name to Apple's agent was Proview Shenzhen, located in China. Both entities are owned by the same person, but are legally two separate entities. But the original agreement between Proview Taiwan and Apple's agent was ambiguous enough that you can't really tell that Proview Shenzhen was not part of the deal. That gave Proview the opportunity to sue Apple when it started selling iPad in China.
So it's a fine muddled mess as to who was trying to defraud who when they signed the original agreement.
Who was trying to defraud who? You missed the part where Proview Taiwan very unambiguously implied they were authorized to sell the "global" rights which specifically included China, as referenced by emails. And they took the money, which was based on the assumption that China was included. Oh, and the same guy is behind both companies. Pretty clear cut fraud, not a "muddled mess".
Who was trying to defraud who? You missed the part where Proview Taiwan very unambiguously implied they were authorized to sell the "global" rights which specifically included China, as referenced by emails. And they took the money, which was based on the assumption that China was included. Oh, and the same guy is behind both companies. Pretty clear cut fraud, not a "muddled mess".
While "the same guy" is presumably involved with the three companies, it is far from clear that ownership of the three was solely in "the same guy".
Often there are more than one owner, with bits and pieces owned by various companies and individuals. In this situation, I have seen no clear statements regarding ownership. Most importantly, I have seen no indication that any of the Proview entities were sole proprietorships. Additionally, there are indications that the creditors of the three are not identical.
New York based trademark attorney Martin Scwhimmer said Apple's approach was a "level of ruse" he has "never encountered."
Have to agree with Mr. Schwimmer here... Though I find Apple's penchant for Hollywood style derring do amusing, if true Apple's little charade strikes me as downright deceptive.
Somehow I am guessing Mr. Schwimmer is being portrayed incorrectly here. He didn't really say anything that was indicative of lending credibility to Proview's case. A dummy corporation isn't anything new. What would be the actual basis for reversing ownership here? His complaint is based around not having known the true net worth of the buyer. Had he wanted to, he could have walked on the deal at that time if they wouldn't disclose who was funding it.
While "the same guy" is presumably involved with the three companies, it is far from clear that ownership of the three was solely in "the same guy".
Often there are more than one owner, with bits and pieces owned by various companies and individuals. In this situation, I have seen no clear statements regarding ownership. Most importantly, I have seen no indication that any of the Proview entities were sole proprietorships. Additionally, there are indications that the creditors of the three are not identical.
I'm not addressing any of that. I am saying who committed fraud. As a presumably authorized agent of the companies in question, the "same guy" committed fraud.
Because according to them they were taken by the fraud and the mark is worth much more than they were tricked into taking for it. So the sale should be voided as unfair so they can demand more money.
I say let them have it. And Apple simply refuse to change the product name and thus refuse to sell in those areas. and when the various countries refuse to block smugglers from bringing in the product to sell themselves, sue etc
Oh and move all iPad production out of China. Foxconn does have factories in Brazil etc. Let them have the iPad.
I'm glad you're not running Apple. Corporations that act on emotion do not succeed.
While "the same guy" is presumably involved with the three companies, it is far from clear that ownership of the three was solely in "the same guy".
Often there are more than one owner, with bits and pieces owned by various companies and individuals. In this situation, I have seen no clear statements regarding ownership. Most importantly, I have seen no indication that any of the Proview entities were sole proprietorships. Additionally, there are indications that the creditors of the three are not identical.
That's certainly a possibility.
BUT, it is impossible for Yang to say that Apple did the wrong thing when Apple did what Yang wanted him to do and Yang agreed to transfer the trademark in all 10 countries. Clearly, Yang was acting fraudulently.
I'm still trying to figure out how you could honestly think that Apple was in the wrong here. *shakes head*
The mark is only worth more because of what Apple subsequently invested in it. Proview accepted what the mark was worth at the time. That's how agreements are made.
The Taiwan company has no parent company in China. Instead, the parent company is from Hong Kong.
And, coincidentally, the Hong Kong court stated that Proview was guilty of fraud and should complete the transfer of the trademark to Apple. If the HK company is the parent, they have all the authority they need to do that.
The Taiwan company has no parent company in China. Instead, the parent company is from Hong Kong.
Therefore, the Taiwan company made no such "admission". It is difficult to come to valid conclusions when one is mistaken as to the facts.
That makes it even more interesting, in that it's the Hong Kong court that ruled for Apple, and criticized Proview for selling the Chinese rights to the name, but failing to register it.
I wish my company was a client of the PR firm Powell-Tate as it would give me great pleasure to fire them for being so stupid in taking on this extortionist. Anyone else out there that can kick them to the curb? If they are an ethical company why would they take on such an unethical client? They should be punished in the marketplace as any 6 year old could see from the evidence that Proview is clearly engaged in extortion.
That makes it even more interesting, in that it's the Hong Kong court that ruled for Apple, and criticized Proview for selling the Chinese rights to the name, but failing to register it.
If ever there was a definition of frivolous, ProView's suit takes the prize (from PsyStar?).
And, coincidentally, the Hong Kong court stated that Proview was guilty of fraud and should complete the transfer of the trademark to Apple. If the HK company is the parent, they have all the authority they need to do that.
I'm not sure that would necessarily be the case. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the U.S. at least, but just because a company is a subsidiary doesn't mean a court's ruling can affect one through the other, especially is the mix of ownership is different. If ABC did something illegal, is Viacom always affected, for instance?
I wish it was binding, because the spirit of the law should certainly be on Apple' side.
I've had this happen to me. Yahoo used a disguise company to purchase a domain from me. I could have got much more, but you know what? That's how the cookie crumbles. If it was worth more to me, no matter who wanted it, I would have requested a higher number, no matter who is on the other end.
If you look at what is Apple's core business, Apple is not in the business of negotiating and purchasing trademarked names. So, it is right and proper for them to hire an outside company with such skills to act as their agent to do so.
I, myself, am an independent agent for several manufacturers. I am not employed by the manufacturers, I an contracted by them to do certain things on their behalf. If I break any laws while going about conducting any business on their behalf, they are not liable; I am.
I'm not addressing any of that. I am saying who committed fraud. As a presumably authorized agent of the companies in question, the "same guy" committed fraud.
He may be personally liable. I can't argue with that.
BUT, it is impossible for Yang to say that Apple did the wrong thing when Apple did what Yang wanted him to do and Yang agreed to transfer the trademark in all 10 countries. Clearly, Yang was acting fraudulently.
I'm still trying to figure out how you could honestly think that Apple was in the wrong here. *shakes head*
Apple failed to check the public records and "bought" the Chinese trademark from a company that did not own it.
Other than that, I don't think that "Apple was in the wrong here". Given that, Apple might be fucked.
I think that Apple may have a good equitable arguement, but legally, they're in deep trouble.
Comments
Also Proview Taiwan is the parent, not China.
Proview Taiwan is not the parent. Proview Schenzen is not the parent. Each of them are subsidiaries of a company incorporated in Hong Kong.
Proview Taiwan is not the parent. Proview Schenzen is not the parent. Each of them are subsidiaries of a company incorporated in Hong Kong.
It's hard to imagine that anyone is the parent they way Proview is acting.
The entity that had sold iPad name to Apple's agent was Proview Taiwan, which held all rights to the iPad name for everywhere except China. The entity that did not sell iPad name to Apple's agent was Proview Shenzhen, located in China. Both entities are owned by the same person, but are legally two separate entities. But the original agreement between Proview Taiwan and Apple's agent was ambiguous enough that you can't really tell that Proview Shenzhen was not part of the deal. That gave Proview the opportunity to sue Apple when it started selling iPad in China.
It is refreshing to see a post with so few factual errors.
The only one I spotted was WRT ownership of the two subsidiaries.
Seemingly, Proview Hong Kong had an interest, and perhaps a controlling interest, in each of them. However, we don't know if Hong Kong was the sole owner, or whether each of the three had somewhat different ownership and creditor structures.
So in China Proview says that they don't have an agreement - but in the US they say they do have an agreement ?? Which is it going to be ?
Seems they just lost their own argument in one country or another.
The entity that had sold iPad name to Apple's agent was Proview Taiwan, which held all rights to the iPad name for everywhere except China. The entity that did not sell iPad name to Apple's agent was Proview Shenzhen, located in China. Both entities are owned by the same person, but are legally two separate entities. But the original agreement between Proview Taiwan and Apple's agent was ambiguous enough that you can't really tell that Proview Shenzhen was not part of the deal. That gave Proview the opportunity to sue Apple when it started selling iPad in China.
So it's a fine muddled mess as to who was trying to defraud who when they signed the original agreement.
Who was trying to defraud who? You missed the part where Proview Taiwan very unambiguously implied they were authorized to sell the "global" rights which specifically included China, as referenced by emails. And they took the money, which was based on the assumption that China was included. Oh, and the same guy is behind both companies. Pretty clear cut fraud, not a "muddled mess".
[insult removed]
That was fast. Thank you Mr. H!
Who was trying to defraud who? You missed the part where Proview Taiwan very unambiguously implied they were authorized to sell the "global" rights which specifically included China, as referenced by emails. And they took the money, which was based on the assumption that China was included. Oh, and the same guy is behind both companies. Pretty clear cut fraud, not a "muddled mess".
While "the same guy" is presumably involved with the three companies, it is far from clear that ownership of the three was solely in "the same guy".
Often there are more than one owner, with bits and pieces owned by various companies and individuals. In this situation, I have seen no clear statements regarding ownership. Most importantly, I have seen no indication that any of the Proview entities were sole proprietorships. Additionally, there are indications that the creditors of the three are not identical.
New York based trademark attorney Martin Scwhimmer said Apple's approach was a "level of ruse" he has "never encountered."
Have to agree with Mr. Schwimmer here... Though I find Apple's penchant for Hollywood style derring do amusing, if true Apple's little charade strikes me as downright deceptive.
Somehow I am guessing Mr. Schwimmer is being portrayed incorrectly here. He didn't really say anything that was indicative of lending credibility to Proview's case. A dummy corporation isn't anything new. What would be the actual basis for reversing ownership here? His complaint is based around not having known the true net worth of the buyer. Had he wanted to, he could have walked on the deal at that time if they wouldn't disclose who was funding it.
While "the same guy" is presumably involved with the three companies, it is far from clear that ownership of the three was solely in "the same guy".
Often there are more than one owner, with bits and pieces owned by various companies and individuals. In this situation, I have seen no clear statements regarding ownership. Most importantly, I have seen no indication that any of the Proview entities were sole proprietorships. Additionally, there are indications that the creditors of the three are not identical.
I'm not addressing any of that. I am saying who committed fraud. As a presumably authorized agent of the companies in question, the "same guy" committed fraud.
Because according to them they were taken by the fraud and the mark is worth much more than they were tricked into taking for it. So the sale should be voided as unfair so they can demand more money.
I say let them have it. And Apple simply refuse to change the product name and thus refuse to sell in those areas. and when the various countries refuse to block smugglers from bringing in the product to sell themselves, sue etc
Oh and move all iPad production out of China. Foxconn does have factories in Brazil etc. Let them have the iPad.
I'm glad you're not running Apple. Corporations that act on emotion do not succeed.
While "the same guy" is presumably involved with the three companies, it is far from clear that ownership of the three was solely in "the same guy".
Often there are more than one owner, with bits and pieces owned by various companies and individuals. In this situation, I have seen no clear statements regarding ownership. Most importantly, I have seen no indication that any of the Proview entities were sole proprietorships. Additionally, there are indications that the creditors of the three are not identical.
That's certainly a possibility.
BUT, it is impossible for Yang to say that Apple did the wrong thing when Apple did what Yang wanted him to do and Yang agreed to transfer the trademark in all 10 countries. Clearly, Yang was acting fraudulently.
I'm still trying to figure out how you could honestly think that Apple was in the wrong here. *shakes head*
The mark is only worth more because of what Apple subsequently invested in it. Proview accepted what the mark was worth at the time. That's how agreements are made.
Score: 5 (Insightful)
The Taiwan company has no parent company in China. Instead, the parent company is from Hong Kong.
And, coincidentally, the Hong Kong court stated that Proview was guilty of fraud and should complete the transfer of the trademark to Apple. If the HK company is the parent, they have all the authority they need to do that.
Does ProView make tablet computers? Or anything remotely resembling any Apple products or services?
I think I read that they used to make an iMac look-alike.
The Taiwan company has no parent company in China. Instead, the parent company is from Hong Kong.
Therefore, the Taiwan company made no such "admission". It is difficult to come to valid conclusions when one is mistaken as to the facts.
That makes it even more interesting, in that it's the Hong Kong court that ruled for Apple, and criticized Proview for selling the Chinese rights to the name, but failing to register it.
That makes it even more interesting, in that it's the Hong Kong court that ruled for Apple, and criticized Proview for selling the Chinese rights to the name, but failing to register it.
If ever there was a definition of frivolous, ProView's suit takes the prize (from PsyStar?).
And, coincidentally, the Hong Kong court stated that Proview was guilty of fraud and should complete the transfer of the trademark to Apple. If the HK company is the parent, they have all the authority they need to do that.
I'm not sure that would necessarily be the case. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the U.S. at least, but just because a company is a subsidiary doesn't mean a court's ruling can affect one through the other, especially is the mix of ownership is different. If ABC did something illegal, is Viacom always affected, for instance?
I wish it was binding, because the spirit of the law should certainly be on Apple' side.
I've had this happen to me. Yahoo used a disguise company to purchase a domain from me. I could have got much more, but you know what? That's how the cookie crumbles. If it was worth more to me, no matter who wanted it, I would have requested a higher number, no matter who is on the other end.
If you look at what is Apple's core business, Apple is not in the business of negotiating and purchasing trademarked names. So, it is right and proper for them to hire an outside company with such skills to act as their agent to do so.
I, myself, am an independent agent for several manufacturers. I am not employed by the manufacturers, I an contracted by them to do certain things on their behalf. If I break any laws while going about conducting any business on their behalf, they are not liable; I am.
That's common law.
I'm not addressing any of that. I am saying who committed fraud. As a presumably authorized agent of the companies in question, the "same guy" committed fraud.
He may be personally liable. I can't argue with that.
That's certainly a possibility.
BUT, it is impossible for Yang to say that Apple did the wrong thing when Apple did what Yang wanted him to do and Yang agreed to transfer the trademark in all 10 countries. Clearly, Yang was acting fraudulently.
I'm still trying to figure out how you could honestly think that Apple was in the wrong here. *shakes head*
Apple failed to check the public records and "bought" the Chinese trademark from a company that did not own it.
Other than that, I don't think that "Apple was in the wrong here". Given that, Apple might be fucked.
I think that Apple may have a good equitable arguement, but legally, they're in deep trouble.