Creditor request to liquidate Proview blocked due to iPad trademark potential

Posted:
in iPad edited January 2014


Proview's lawsuit against Apple over the iPad trademark in China will continue unobstructed now that a court has blocked one creditor's attempt to liquidate the company.



Fubon Insurance had filed multiple requests to have the Shenzhen subsidiary of Proview liquidated without waiting for the former monitor maker to resolve its complaint against Apple. The creditor had said it did not believe Proview would win enough money from Apple to cover its debts.



The Intermediate People's Court of Shenzhen rejected Fubon's request on Saturday, China Daily reports (via The Next Web). The court explained in its decision that the Chinese iPad trademark could provide the money needed to pay back what it owes.



"As it is too early to determine Proview lacks the ability to pay off its debts, the court does not accept Fubon's request to liquidate Proview," the court said.



According to the report, legal experts had suggested that Proview's complaint against Apple may have been brought to a halt if the court had approved the liquidation of the company.



Even with the recent court ruling, Proview isn't in the clear, though, as it still has several powerful creditors, including eight Chinese banks, looking to collect. The company is said to owe as much as 400 million U.S. dollars.



Apple used a third-party company to strike a deal with Proview in 2009 to purchase multiple countries' rights for the iPad trademark, but Proview argues that its Shenzhen subsidiary still owns the trademark because representatives from the Chinese branch were not present when the contract was signed.











A statement from Apple last month accused Proview of intentionally confusing the transaction in order to dodge creditors and get more money.



"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."



The legal dispute between Proview and Apple is occurring across the Chinese mainland, Hong Kong and even the U.S. Apple has won decisions in Shanghai and Hong Kong, but it is appealing a Guangdong ruling that sided with Proview.



The disagreement continues even as Apple is preparing to launch its third-generation iPad in China. The company has already received some of the required regulatory approvals for the device and is awaiting network licenses for its 3G-capable iPad.



[ View article on AppleInsider ]

«1

Comments

  • suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,082member
    So the mob came to collect on some debts and Joey says, "hey guys, don't break my legs, I'll pay you back, just gimme a little time is all I needs. I got me a sweet little scam going with a certain big name in the computah world. Gotta 'em by the balls. Listen, tell Don Vito when I get paid, he'll get paid."
  • (r)(r)(r)(r)(r)(r)(r)(r)(r)(r) Posts: 5member
    In short, they are relying on apple to pay off their debts
  • tylerk36tylerk36 Posts: 1,037member
    They are losing their shirts and the best they could come up with is a law suit against apple. And yet the truth is obvious now. I bet Apple execs are laughing their asses off.
  • realisticrealistic Posts: 1,111member
    Apple SHOULD easily win this but this is China's court system so I will wait for the final ruling.
  • macky the mackymacky the macky Posts: 4,621member
    While Proview only owes the banks $400 mill, the owner of Proview has signed personal notes for another 1.6 billion. That's why he's holding out for a $2 billion extortion from Apple because more then losing his company he doesn't want to lose his shirt too.



    In China, this means he will be planting rice by hand somewhere far far from electricity and telephones.
  • alienzedalienzed Posts: 393member
    I thought Apple proved that several members of the Chinese branch were in fact present. Regardless, why would that matter anyway, a contract is a contract, no? And if the contract was faulty, shouldn't Proview be suing the people from Proview who messed up? Doesn't seem like it would be Apple's responsibility to ensure that Proview wasn't defrauding Proview...
  • splash-reversesplash-reverse Posts: 648member
    Sounds like the judge already knew what's coming. Paid, much?
  • peter236peter236 Posts: 254member
    Apple should pay the owner of the iPad name, just to solve this infringement.
  • sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Ironic since many pro-Proview commentators said "the liquidators own the company", "to the creditors go the spoils", etc. Clearly some creditors just want to get their ******* money back and put this garbage lawsuits behind them. The slumcourts in China fancy stopping this from happening.
  • sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by peter236 View Post


    Apple should pay the owner of the iPad name, just to solve this infringement.



    Apple already paid the owner of the iPad name, and it has already been sold to Apple. The owner is the same guy, he has refused the name transfer for years now because he says, "Oh, you bought it from my left hand, actually I only promised to sell it to you from my right hand".



    Would you like to buy a car advertised for $20,000 by putting $20,000 in the salesman's left hand, then another $20,000 in the right hand, so you can, you know, actually drive the darn thing out of the lot?



    The Chinese slumcourts are simply jerking Apple about to prove their supposed legitimacy.
  • sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Splash-reverse View Post


    Sounds like the judge already knew what's coming. Paid, much?



    Of course. In Asia there is no real such thing as separation of church/temple/mosque, state, government, judiciary, business, recreation etc. It's one big gooey Katamari. Luckily the "church/temple/mosque" part of China is not that big yet because it has been suppressed to this day by communist ideology... It's coming, when the oligarchy decides what opiate to use...



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post


    While Proview only owes the banks $400 mill, the owner of Proview has signed personal notes for another 1.6 billion. That's why he's holding out for a $2 billion extortion from Apple because more then losing his company he doesn't want to lose his shirt too.



    In China, this means he will be planting rice by hand somewhere far far from electricity and telephones.



    If he isn't sleeping with the fishes somewhere at the bottom of the Yangtze. Not that I want that to happen, I want to see him brought to an international court of justice. Not these China slum courts (can you tell I'm proud of this term I made up? :smokey).



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tylerk36 View Post


    They are losing their shirts and the best they could come up with is a law suit against apple. And yet the truth is obvious now. I bet Apple execs are laughing their asses off.



    He who laughs last... laughs best.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


    So the mob came to collect on some debts and Joey says, "hey guys, don't break my legs, I'll pay you back, just gimme a little time is all I needs. I got me a sweet little scam going with a certain big name in the computah world. Gotta 'em by the balls. Listen, tell Don Vito when I get paid, he'll get paid."



    Bingo. The mafia didn't die, they just spiritually moved to Asia. It's not that hilarious when Mafia-equivalent behaviour is how most Asian businesses of all sizes operate.
  • tcaseytcasey Posts: 199member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by peter236 View Post


    apple should pay the owner of the ipad name, just to solve this infringement.



    apple is the owner.
  • ranreloadedranreloaded Posts: 397member
    You can't charge someone based on who they are. You must charge them based on what they are purchasing.
  • sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ranReloaded View Post


    You can't charge someone based on who they are. You must charge them based on what they are purchasing.



    In Asia (no offense to Japan) I notice a common practice is you charge someone based on as much money you can make. At least in Malaysia, Thailand and China.



    This is why in Malaysia for example, bargaining is a very common custom, distilled in modern 21st Century form to someone asking, "Best price Bro?" as you will notice from LowYat Forums online. This of course extends to real-world bargaining for everything from a pair of socks through to a 50 billion ringgit contract.



    Price enquiry is done not as a formal estimation process in most transactions, but to test the waters (also used colloquially as "test water" [sic]).



    This is why outside of major department chains and more formal food franchises, a "price list" of any sort is mostly irrelevant (yes some food stalls have price lists but they don't show you the array of options available, even when they do have an extensive list it is still hard to cover everything that's available in such a diverse and wide food culture).



    If you ever go to Petaling Street in Kuala Lumpur for souvenirs and stuff or Low Yat Plaza for gadgetry bargaining is expected, but keep in mind there are incidences of harassment and/or violence if you don't go through with the purchase. The situation is complex because sometimes, like in Low Yat, certain things like the latest GPU cards are as low as others are willing to sell it, so you can't get that much of a discount, but cameras vary a lot in their pricing.



    The criminal element though is always a concern, and shameful for some locals (that care about these things) who see tourists/foreigners getting cheated or even beaten up (as is the case with foreign workers from the Indian subcontinent, for example).



    Interestingly all the above do not apply to food hawkers, food and drink items are normally not bargained. Funny that, just realised it.
  • lightknightlightknight Posts: 2,255member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sunilraman View Post


    Of course. In Asia there is no real such thing as separation of church/temple/mosque, state, government, judiciary, business, recreation etc. It's one big gooey Katamari. Luckily the "church/temple/mosque" part of China is not that big yet because it has been suppressed to this day by communist ideology... It's coming, when the oligarchy decides what opiate to use...







    If he isn't sleeping with the fishes somewhere at the bottom of the Yangtze. Not that I want that to happen, I want to see him brought to an international court of justice. Not these China slum courts (can you tell I'm proud of this term I made up? :smokey).







    He who laughs last... laughs best.







    Bingo. The mafia didn't die, they just spiritually moved to Asia. It's not that hilarious when Mafia-equivalent behaviour is how most Asian businesses of all sizes operate.





    "What opiate to use". Interesting choice of words. The phrase about the Mafia is also interesting. Do you really believe that australian or american or british or german or french business is morally superior?

    Come on. Not to even think of the cases where occidental business actively aids dictators



    Little reminder: the Ivy League Universities were funded on money gained from OPIATE TRADE. This trade was imposed on China by a military alliance of France, UK and the USA. River of Pearls etc...

    On top of this, big banks, weapon makers and railroads (if you don't see the link, check out JP Morgan's life) used their tremendous weight to force legislation in their interest rather than that of the people, not to mention they exploited the world and caused two world wars by their greediness.

    Hence, "chinese slumcourts" might be true, or not. What is sure, is that Americans have absolutely no legitimity to say "hey, we're morally superior". As to Australians...I don't know. I'm sure you can dig some dirt on your own, there always is (which is my point, really). Maybe look at oil conflicts in the north (Spratleys, Indonesia)... No country has yet proven moral superiority

    Acts, not words.
  • nancyvas01nancyvas01 Posts: 1member
    WOwwwwwwwwww! this is very beautiful ipad. this look very wonderful and nice color. I am very excited or this ipad................................I really really like this!





    event management delhi
  • haarhaar Posts: 504member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post


    While Proview only owes the banks $400 mill, the owner of Proview has signed personal notes for another 1.6 billion. That's why he's holding out for a $2 billion extortion from Apple because more then losing his company he doesn't want to lose his shirt too.



    In China, this means he will be planting rice by hand somewhere far far from electricity and telephones.



    worst that that, because china already has enough people doing that.

    on second thought he will be assembling Amazon Fire's
  • haarhaar Posts: 504member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lightknight View Post


    "What opiate to use". Interesting choice of words. The phrase about the Mafia is also interesting. Do you really believe that australian or american or british or german or french business is morally superior?

    Come on. Not to even think of the cases where occidental business actively aids dictators



    Little reminder: the Ivy League Universities were funded on money gained from OPIATE TRADE. This trade was imposed on China by a military alliance of France, UK and the USA. River of Pearls etc...

    On top of this, big banks, weapon makers and railroads (if you don't see the link, check out JP Morgan's life) used their tremendous weight to force legislation in their interest rather than that of the people, not to mention they exploited the world and caused two world wars by their greediness.

    Hence, "chinese slumcourts" might be true, or not. What is sure, is that Americans have absolutely no legitimity to say "hey, we're morally superior". As to Australians...I don't know. I'm sure you can dig some dirt on your own, there always is (which is my point, really). Maybe look at oil conflicts in the north (Spratleys, Indonesia)... No country has yet proven moral superiority

    Acts, not words.



    political much



    so where is the wikipedia article on "ivy league" being once funded by the OPIATE TRADE
  • jollypauljollypaul Posts: 328member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by alienzed View Post


    ...a contract is a contract, no?



    Chinese banks and courts are tools of the Chinese government. Proview is controlled by its creditors, the Chinese government. The Chinese government does not want to lose money on bad loans made to Proview and sees a way to cover losses through Apple.



    A contract is only worth something when there is a neutral third party to adjudicate disputes. In this case, the outcome will be decided by the claimant. \
  • charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,069member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by alienzed View Post


    I thought Apple proved that several members of the Chinese branch were in fact present. Regardless, why would that matter anyway, a contract is a contract, no?



    A contract is only a contract based on what it says and what rights each side has to give away.



    I don't think Apple had proof either way about people but they claim they have proof that they were told that China was included in the deal so they don't need to buy it again.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by peter236 View Post


    Apple should pay the owner of the iPad name, just to solve this infringement.



    They did, and according to them, he claimed ownership of China and led them to believe that he could rightly make that claim and sell the rights.



    If this were the US they would either tell Proview to kick rocks out right or would tell Apple to pay, another $55k same as the first payment and Proview has to take it as full payment. In regards to the 'fraud' damages, they would definitely tell Proview to kick rocks. THey were just as guilty of fraud as they claim Apple to be (actually more cause there's nothing illegal about using a 3rd party in such a way).



    The only way China would possibly act the same way 100% is if Apple could pull their assembly business out of China within a heartbeat. Once Foxconn has working lines in Brazil etc the heat will really start. Apple will be in a position to yank their business out of China. And that would hurt big time. And with the threats of stopping assembled iPads from leaving China to be sold elsewhere, Apple would have a valid reason to move. Lost of a million jobs or so would be a better bribe than all the cash Apple has in the bank thanks to the negative PR when Apple publicly declares why they are making the move
Sign In or Register to comment.