Apple accuses Proview of 'misleading Chinese courts' over iPad name

Posted:
in iPad edited January 2014


In its most detailed public statement regarding the ongoing Proview iPad trademark dispute, Apple on Tuesday said that the Chinese company is purposely misleading courts in order to recoup massive debt and stave off impatient creditors.



A prepared statement read by Apple spokesperson Carolyn Wu alleges that Proview International Holding Ltd. fashioned the sale of the iPad name so that ownership of the Chinese trademark could later be questioned in court, and accuses the Hong Kong-based company of unfairly seeking more money for the same transaction, reports the Wall Street Journal.



"Proview clearly made that arrangement so they wouldn't have to give the money to their creditors in" mainland China, Wu said. "Because they still owe a lot of people a lot of money, they are now unfairly trying to get more from Apple for a trademark we already paid for."



Proview's Shenzhen arm, which is asserting ownership of the trademark, has accrued an estimated $400 million in debt after being part of a lucrative display-manufacturing business. At its peak Proview had 18,000 employees under its purview, though the global financial crisis has slowly edged the company toward bankruptcy.



Apple purchased the rights to the "iPAD" moniker in 2009 through a Taiwan affiliate of Proview, with the contract covering trademarks registered in a number of countries including two in China. At the time, the name was technically owned by Proview's Shenzhen subsidiary, Proview Technology Shenzhen Co.



Wu claims that Apple was urged to purchase the rights, but "didn't know the reasons at the time" as to why the deal had to be made through Proview's Taiwan affiliate.











In October 2010, Proview threatened to take legal action against Apple, claiming that the 2009 "global trademark" agreement did not include China. The Chinese company went on to pursue litigation against Apple in multiple courts, including a suit in California, claiming that it still owned the name.



Making the matter more confusing are fraud and unfair competition allegations from Proview claiming that Apple conducted its fair share of chicanery in buying the trademark through a U.K.-based proxy company for a reported $55,000.



Proview's attorney Xiao Caiyuan denies Apple's Tuesday claims and believes the computer giant knew exactly what it was doing.



"The fact is that Apple's former lawyer made a silly mistake," Xiao said. "Proview still thinks both sides can solve the dispute by peaceful talks."



The case continues to drag on in the shadow of the release of Apple's newest iPad, and is currently being argued in China's high court in Guangdong.



[ View article on AppleInsider ]

«13

Comments

  • wardcwardc Posts: 150member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Proview's attorney Xiao Caiyuan denies Apple's Tuesday claims and believes the computer giant knew exactly what it was doing.



    "The fact is that Apple's former lawyer made a silly mistake," Xiao said. "Proview still thinks both sides can solve the dispute by peaceful talks."



    Yeah, "Peaceful Talks"...right...more like a "Peaceful Billion-dollar settlement"
  • jessijessi Posts: 302member
    It's a silly mistake to be defrauded by a subsidiary? A silly mistake to think that executives of the CHINESE company were not liable for the assertions they made on behalf of the Hong Kong company? Really?



    This is outright fraud, and pretty obviously so.



    If the Chinese courts rule against Apple, then we know Chinese courts are corrupt.



    IF they are just, ProView will end up with another creditor they owe in Apple, and of course, Apple will get the trademark clear.
  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jessi View Post


    It's a silly mistake to be defrauded by a subsidiary? A silly mistake to think that executives of the CHINESE company were not liable for the assertions they made on behalf of the Hong Kong company? Really?



    This is outright fraud, and pretty obviously so.



    If the Chinese courts rule against Apple, then we know Chinese courts are corrupt.



    IF they are just, ProView will end up with another creditor they owe in Apple, and of course, Apple will get the trademark clear.



    Assuming merits of the case and honesty are off the table, if it's about pride then Proview might win, but if it's about money (which I think it is) Apple will win. Apple does more for China in a week than Proview ever has*.







    * This last statement is not meant to be taken literally and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental.
  • wardcwardc Posts: 150member
    It is all about a moniker, and all Proview sees is $$$$ -- they just want to milk the cow, which is Apple, for all the cash they can.
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Apple purchased the rights to the "iPAD" moniker in 2009 through a Taiwan affiliate of Proview, with the contract covering trademarks registered in a number of countries including two in China. At the time, the name was technically owned by Proview's Shenzhen subsidiary, Proview Technology Shenzhen Co.



    That is quite a "technicality" - They bought the trademark from a company which did not own it.



    Quote:

    "The fact is that Apple's former lawyer made a silly mistake,"



    Sounds more like legal malpractice to me.
  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    That is quite a "technicality" - They bought the trademark from a company which did not own it.



    I'm glad you agree that a subsidiary of Proview in accordance with Proview's CEO has defrauded Apple.
  • correctionscorrections Posts: 1,091member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    That is quite a "technicality" - They bought the trademark from a company which did not own it.



    It's not a "technicality," it's just poor writing by AI. And why the picture of the "new iPad" instead of a graphic of the documents Proview filed in the case, such as their assurances that they were selling global rights to the name, signed by the same person who runs both subsidiaries?



    This is such a badly reported story that it's pointless to keep regurgitating it in a way that lends some suggestion of credence to Proview. It's like covering a trial against evolution or global climate change, and taking islamic and christian "scientists" seriously as sources
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    I'm glad you agree that a subsidiary of Proview in accordance with Proview's CEO has defrauded Apple.



    There is no question as to that, but the difference between fraud and mistake is one of intent.



    The Taiwan company gave warranties and reps that they owned the Chinese trademark. That most certainly was false, and was either fraud or mistake.



    I don't think that has ever been in question.



    But tell me this - do you think it is fair to the owners of the Chinese company to make them transfer the trademark when they were not a party to the Taiwan company's contract of sale?
  • zeromeuszeromeus Posts: 177member
    Just drag this court battle long enough and proview would just die before anything can be done. Chinese court is and has been corrupted. From the moment I heard about China having a court, I laughed so hard my stomach hurts. There is no justice in China. Just money!
  • greginpraguegreginprague Posts: 408member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Corrections View Post


    It's not a "technicality," it's just poor writing by AI. And why the picture of the "new iPad" instead of a graphic of the documents Proview filed in the case, such as their assurances that they were selling global rights to the name, signed by the same person who runs both subsidiaries?



    This is such a badly reported story that it's pointless to keep regurgitating it in a way that lends some suggestion of credence to Proview. It's like covering a trial against evolution or global climate change, and taking islamic and christian "scientists" seriously as sources



    Um, it's really quite uninformed and bigoted to claim that a scientist with a Christian (or Islamic) worldview shouldn't be taken seriously on a subject they may be well educated in simply because you disagree with their worldview...
  • penchantedpenchanted Posts: 1,070member
    As I have said before, right or wrong, it is hard to imagine the Chinese government (not necessarily the courts) letting this suit idle the thousands of workers that would be affected at Foxconn and its suppliers at the very time its economy is cooling off. They might try some face-saving maneuver but is Proview such a national treasure to risk future foreign investment which is likely what would happen should the courts find in Proview's favor. Again, for better or worse, China's economy is currently tied to Western companies, not a company like Proview.
  • charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,068member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    That is quite a "technicality" - They bought the trademark from a company which did not own it.



    a company which claimed to control something they don't. Apple says they have documents etc proving what they said they were told. So Proview is the bad guy on that one.
  • jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zeromeus View Post


    Just drag this court battle long enough and proview would just die before anything can be done.



    That's not true. This could go on nearly indefinitely.



    Proview is nothing but a shell. All the employees are gone, so there's no reason that the company can't be kept alive for years while this issue is settled. The creditors certainly have the ability to keep it going.
  • john541john541 Posts: 7member
    Along with the JOKES...("Apple releases a new feminine hygiene product!") the name everybody thought Apple's Tablet was going to be called was iSlate. I don't even remember if iPad even made the Top 3 list that people voted on?



    I still feel that the Chinese Government is allowing this lawsuit to stick around because of how much MONEY the Bank of China will lose if Proview gets nothing from Apple! Hopefully the ITC would be able to overrule any Kangaroo Court judgement if somehow this is not thrown out.



    Unfortunately with Apple being the Worlds biggest tech company, they are going to have plenty of deadbeats looking to make some money off their successes. Actually Proview should be glad that Apple didn't SUE THEM over their computer that was a rip-off of the original iMac design!



    2 Days until my NEW iPad arrives!
  • zeromeuszeromeus Posts: 177member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    That's not true. This could go on nearly indefinitely.



    Proview is nothing but a shell. All the employees are gone, so there's no reason that the company can't be kept alive for years while this issue is settled. The creditors certainly have the ability to keep it going.



    True! But Proview is already in trouble with creditors as some of them aren't willing to wait... only way is for SOME of the creditors to pay off other creditors to drag this on and on.... and that's a risk they can't take because it's likely Proview will lose.
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


    a company which claimed to control something they don't. Apple says they have documents etc proving what they said they were told. So Proview is the bad guy on that one.



    The Taiwan company said they owned the Chinese trademark. They did not. The Taiwan company is seemingly guilty of fraud or mistake.



    Apple has no documents proving that the Taiwan company owned the Chinese trademark. None exist.
  • adonissmuadonissmu Posts: 1,722member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    The Taiwan company said they owned the Chinese trademark. They did not. The Taiwan company is seemingly guilty of fraud or mistake.



    Apple has no documents proving that the Taiwan company owned the Chinese trademark. None exist.



    Try to keep up.
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post


    Try to keep up.



    I have no idea what you are trying to say, or how your response relates to my post.
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 39,887member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    I have no idea what you are trying to say, or how your response relates to my post.



    The entire universe aside from you and Proview knows that what you have said is wrong.



    Again, try to keep up.
  • williamhwilliamh Posts: 242member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    That is quite a "technicality" - They bought the trademark from a company which did not own it.







    Sounds more like legal malpractice to me.



    I read the legal submissions and the evidence that was available online and Apple bought the trademark free and clear. They did not make any mistake,other than perhaps dealing with these jerks in the first place.
Sign In or Register to comment.