Proview sues Apple over 'iPad' moniker in U.S.

2

Comments

  • charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,069member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by LighteningKid View Post


    Why would it be fraud to try to buy the trademark indirectly?



    Proview is claiming that they were tricked into underselling the trademark because they weren't being told that it was really Apple buying it (i.e. had they know it was Apple they would have demanded much more money and they are mad that they lost that chance).



    Trouble is that it is entirely possible that it isn't illegal to use a proxy company for such purposes and thus while it is perhaps a little tacky it wouldn't be something that would invalidate the sale. ESPECIALLY when they would have been aware of the 'bait and switch' 2 years ago when the iPad was announced and didn't bother to do anything about it at that time. Under US law they didn't try to defend the trademark against abuse and that combined with the fact that they did indeed sell the mark and are admitting it (perhaps also admitting that they did sell China as well) kind of blows their case to pieces in terms of getting sympathy from the courts as this will be seen as clearly just trying to get more money as the Hong Kong courts saw it
  • charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,069member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    US Courts do not have jurisdiction because Apple was not the party to the transaction involving Proview and Apple will get this thrown out quickly.



    According to Proview's arguments that is not true.



    They are claiming that IP Application Development was set up by Apple for this sale with the specific intent to get Proview to sell the mark at less than its value.



    And if one goes with that argument then Apple is involved and the US would be a valid jurisdiction to hear the case
  • rot'napplerot'napple Posts: 1,839member
    Psystar moved to China, but their name in Mandarin characters came out as an obsenity so they changed their name to Proview! </sarcasm>... wouldn't want to be sued by them for a light hearted post!

    /

    /

    /
  • suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,093member
    LOL. DESPERATION SETS IN AT PROVIEW.



    First they called it a mistake, now they're calling it fraud? Good luck winning with that argument in U.S. courts.

    It's not "fraud" at all to use proxy companies, unless you're asserting that the "fair" price for the trademark depended on how deep the pockets of the buyer is. That's Proview's position: we didn't get our king's ransom over the iPAD trademark because we didn't know it was Apple. Companies use proxy companies to get a fair market price when using their own brand would result in exactly what Proview is trying to pull.
  • jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,268member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


    According to Proview's arguments that is not true.



    They are claiming that IP Application Development was set up by Apple for this sale with the specific intent to get Proview to sell the mark at less than its value.



    And if one goes with that argument then Apple is involved and the US would be a valid jurisdiction to hear the case



    The buyer sets the value and Proview set the value at $55,000. Plus the iPad could have been a huge flop and disappeared quickly.
  • suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,093member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


    They are claiming that IP Application Development was set up by Apple for this sale with the specific intent to get Proview to sell the mark at less than its value.



    The value of the trademark is whatever the buyer and seller agreed to.

    All this BS about subsidiary's rights over China or now Apple's use of proxy companies is just a poorly disguised case sellers remorse. And no, I don't think their endgame is to win a lawsuit, but to get Apple to give them settlement money.



    The bottom line is: these douchers sold their trademark, and now they want to up the price after the sale. It's a scam.
  • diplicationdiplication Posts: 602member
    There is one other valid reason for apple to buy the trademark through a proxy company - secrecy. Why would any company want to let anyone know they were going to release a new type of product before the official product announcement? Apple wouldn't want to reveal its intentions of a new product line, so as to keep ahead of the competition, and the name "iPad" would reveal a basic nature of the yet unannounced product. You just don't want somebody to blab, "Hey guys, did you hear apple just bought the trademark 'iPad', wonder what's up with that?"



    Not saying they didn't use a go-between to save money, just that there's other considerations as well.
  • beastvincebeastvince Posts: 13member
    I'm just wondering if you have the rights to a name that starts with iAnything and somebody wants to buy it, why don't you start thinking this could be Apple? Not that I'm saying that this should influence the price, but it would be stupid to sell at a bargain.
  • spicedspiced Posts: 94member
    Hey dumb dumb, why sue Apple only over iPad when there is one other company, Fijitsu, using this name on one of their handheld product!



    http://search.yahoo.com/tablet/s?ei=.../s/tab/piv-001
  • applesauce007applesauce007 Posts: 1,305member
    Apple's hardware has made the iPad name famous not the other way around.



    Remember how everybody started calling the tablets Slate PC when they thought that Apple was going to use the name iSlate. That name would have been famous as well if it had been used.



    This US case was probably taken on contingency. Some ambulance chasers will try anything for a buck.
  • applesauce007applesauce007 Posts: 1,305member
    Apple's hardware has made the iPad name famous not the other way around.



    Remember how everybody started calling their tablets "Slate PC" when they thought that Apple was going to use the name iSlate because it held the Trademark? Where are the "Slate PCs" now? iSlate's name would have been famous as well if it had been used and the iPad name would still be worth about what Apple paid for it if anything.



    This US case was probably taken on contingency. Some ambulance chasers will try anything for a buck.
  • f1ferrarif1ferrari Posts: 223member
    Is there a Chinese phrase for 'grasping at straws'?
  • adefowleradefowler Posts: 29member
    I absolutely hated the name iPad when Steve announced it, but today it rolls off the tongue as easily as iPod or iTunes. When Proview sold the name, they got a lot more than it was worth at the time.
  • sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by A Grain of Salt View Post


    Hail Mary



    Yup, the equivalent here is Flying Buddha
  • jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


    According to Proview's arguments that is not true.



    They are claiming that IP Application Development was set up by Apple for this sale with the specific intent to get Proview to sell the mark at less than its value.



    And if one goes with that argument then Apple is involved and the US would be a valid jurisdiction to hear the case



    They can claim whatever they want. Legally, that argument holds no merit.



    The fact that Apple created a subsidiary is irrelevant. The transaction was done by a British company and was done either in the UK or in Asia. The need a lot stronger argument than that to pierce the corporate veil.
  • aaarrrggghaaarrrgggh Posts: 1,525member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by winstein2010 View Post


    Lawsuits takes money. It looks like Proview still has some greedy, naive supporters.



    They have powerful creditors trying to recover money in Bank of China.
  • aaarrrggghaaarrrgggh Posts: 1,525member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by spiced View Post


    Hey dumb dumb, why sue Apple only over iPad when there is one other company, Fijitsu, using this name on one of their handheld product!



    http://search.yahoo.com/tablet/s?ei=.../s/tab/piv-001



    And Apple bought Fujitsu's rights to the name. Presumably there was no overlap in countries for the trademark.
  • manictoshmanictosh Posts: 19member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


    According to Proview's arguments that is not true.



    They are claiming that IP Application Development was set up by Apple for this sale with the specific intent to get Proview to sell the mark at less than its value.



    And if one goes with that argument then Apple is involved and the US would be a valid jurisdiction to hear the case





    That is my understanding of this case as well. I still believe Proview has no case here in the U.S. regardless of whether Apple created IP Application Development. However, I do find it interesting that the initials for IP Application Development are IPAD. Either Apple owns IP Application Development or it is simply coincidental that Apple chose a company to procure the iPad name that bears the initials IPAD.
  • hungoverhungover Posts: 565member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Manictosh View Post


    That is my understanding of this case as well. I still believe Proview has no case here in the U.S. regardless of whether Apple created IP Application Development. However, I do find it interesting that the initials for IP Application Development are IPAD. Either Apple owns IP Application Development or it is simply coincidental that Apple chose a company to procure the iPad name that bears the initials IPAD.



    I suspect that there is much that has not yet been disclosed by both parties. By way of illustration- does any one know why apple didn't sue Proview for continuing to sell their iPad in China if Apple believed that they owned the rights to the name?
  • irnchrizirnchriz Posts: 1,420member
    This is rather hilarious, talk about crying because you didn't get the opportunity to milk the Apple cash cow. Its for this reason that large companies use smaller firms to act as a proxy in purchases such as these.
Sign In or Register to comment.