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.
Obviously, that was a planned name. They wanted to give Proview a reason to think that the company wanted the name while allowing for other options (IPappdev) to make Proview think that they didn't have much leverage. It was obviously not a coincidence that Apple created a company with the initials 'iPad'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover
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?
Because Proview hasn't sold the product since Apple bought the name. That is one of Apple's arguments - that the trademark had been constructively abandoned since Proview had not used it for years.
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?
The I-PAD that you speak of was produced in the late 90's and is no longer produced or sold. Proview has not manufactured anything in a very long time.
ProView is just pissed off at their missed opportunity.
This is exactly what this is all about, they realize they could have made more money if they knew it was apple looking to buy the name. They obviously did not do a due diligence of the company who did in fact buy the name and then turned around and sold it to Apple. If they did do a due diligence they would have realize they were selling to a shell company and figure someone bigger was probably behind and actual purchase.
They are just now trying to extract the money which they thought they could have made if they had know up front it was actually Apple.
It probable went something like this, Proview management sell the iPad name and bragged they made money on a worthless name. Then the iPad comes out and Proview friends probably called them up and said, how much did you make on the name, are you a bunch of idiots. They now look like a bunch of baffoons and they are embarrass and they found some stupid lawyer who said they could sue and make money.
Obviously, that was a planned name. They wanted to give Proview a reason to think that the company wanted the name while allowing for other options (IPappdev) to make Proview think that they didn't have much leverage. It was obviously not a coincidence that Apple created a company with the initials 'iPad'.
Because Proview hasn't sold the product since Apple bought the name. That is one of Apple's arguments - that the trademark had been constructively abandoned since Proview had not used it for years.
They were still selling the units 3 years ago, ie 2009, the year that Apple claim to have purchased the rights. I can't see how apple can argue that Proview had not used the name for years.
Couple the above with the suggestions that apple paid Fujitsu $4m for the iPad name rights in the USA and we find ourselves having to ask why Apple's legal team are not consulted about products names, iPhone (Cisco) and iTV (UK terrestrial broadcaster) spring to mind. Apple could save bucket loads of money by dropping the "i" prefix.
Proview claim that IPAD Ltd had told them that they wanted the ipad name because of their initials.
When pressed about IPAD Ltd's use of the name, they were vague, with Graham Robinson of IPAD Ltd assuring Proview that "As I said in my last message, I can assure you that the company will not compete with Proview." Perhaps Mr Robinson was being honest in so far as IPAD Ltd would not be competing in the same industry but Robinson would probably have been aware what the name would be used for.
Proview also assert that Robinson used a false name (Jonathan Hargreaves).
If any of the above does prove to be true it does raise some very serious questions about the conduct of IPAD Ltd and the extent to which Apple were directing Robinson.
Of course, it is up to the courts to decide if Proview's claim holds any water. If not they deserve to be slapped with the mother of all fines, if however their claim is upheld then Apple had better prepare to dig deep into their pockets.
Proview claim that IPAD Ltd had told them that they wanted the ipad name because of their initials.
When pressed about IPAD Ltd's use of the name, they were vague, with Graham Robinson of IPAD Ltd assuring Proview that "As I said in my last message, I can assure you that the company will not compete with Proview." Perhaps Mr Robinson was being honest in so far as IPAD Ltd would not be competing in the same industry but Robinson would probably have been aware what the name would be used for.
Proview also assert that Robinson used a false name (Jonathan Hargreaves).
If any of the above does prove to be true it does raise some very serious questions about the conduct of IPAD Ltd and the extent to which Apple were directing Robinson.
Of course, it is up to the courts to decide if Proview's claim holds any water. If not they deserve to be slapped with the mother of all fines, if however their claim is upheld then Apple had better prepare to dig deep into their pockets.
The false name and false pretense of purchasing the trademark is a concern, and should be looked at. However, it would also have to be considered that Proview, in bankruptcy, promised the trademarks, signed a written contract, paid $55,000, transferred all the trademarks except the China Trademarks, and has been shown to conspire to defraud and injure from the moment of initial discussions all the way to today.
The false name and false pretense of purchasing the trademark is a concern, and should be looked at. However, it would also have to be considered that Proview, in bankruptcy, promised the trademarks, signed a written contract, paid $55,000, transferred all the trademarks except the China Trademarks, and has been shown to conspire to defraud and injure from the moment of initial discussions all the way to today.
says that IPAD Ltd (illegally) claimed their address to be Roydon, Essex and not the officially listed address in London. The suggestion being that they didn't want Proview to know that they were owned by a Farncombe International (an IP company).
In short I guess Proview should give the money back to IPAD Ltd, having voided the contract neither seem to have been particularly honest. This would of course leave Apple at a disadvantage and having learnt a lesson the hard way.
Comments
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.
Obviously, that was a planned name. They wanted to give Proview a reason to think that the company wanted the name while allowing for other options (IPappdev) to make Proview think that they didn't have much leverage. It was obviously not a coincidence that Apple created a company with 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?
Because Proview hasn't sold the product since Apple bought the name. That is one of Apple's arguments - that the trademark had been constructively abandoned since Proview had not used it for years.
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?
The I-PAD that you speak of was produced in the late 90's and is no longer produced or sold. Proview has not manufactured anything in a very long time.
It's not fraud.
ProView is just pissed off at their missed opportunity.
This is exactly what this is all about, they realize they could have made more money if they knew it was apple looking to buy the name. They obviously did not do a due diligence of the company who did in fact buy the name and then turned around and sold it to Apple. If they did do a due diligence they would have realize they were selling to a shell company and figure someone bigger was probably behind and actual purchase.
They are just now trying to extract the money which they thought they could have made if they had know up front it was actually Apple.
It probable went something like this, Proview management sell the iPad name and bragged they made money on a worthless name. Then the iPad comes out and Proview friends probably called them up and said, how much did you make on the name, are you a bunch of idiots. They now look like a bunch of baffoons and they are embarrass and they found some stupid lawyer who said they could sue and make money.
Obviously, that was a planned name. They wanted to give Proview a reason to think that the company wanted the name while allowing for other options (IPappdev) to make Proview think that they didn't have much leverage. It was obviously not a coincidence that Apple created a company with the initials 'iPad'.
Because Proview hasn't sold the product since Apple bought the name. That is one of Apple's arguments - that the trademark had been constructively abandoned since Proview had not used it for years.
Thanks for the reply.
According to the WSJ
http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2...ad-looks-like/
They were still selling the units 3 years ago, ie 2009, the year that Apple claim to have purchased the rights. I can't see how apple can argue that Proview had not used the name for years.
Couple the above with the suggestions that apple paid Fujitsu $4m for the iPad name rights in the USA and we find ourselves having to ask why Apple's legal team are not consulted about products names, iPhone (Cisco) and iTV (UK terrestrial broadcaster) spring to mind. Apple could save bucket loads of money by dropping the "i" prefix.
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
Hmm... Because two years ago Fujitsu transferred the name to Apple?
http://allthingsd.com/20100326/apple...-from-fujitsu/
The following however shows things in a completely different light.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...12+PRN20120227
Proview claim that IPAD Ltd had told them that they wanted the ipad name because of their initials.
When pressed about IPAD Ltd's use of the name, they were vague, with Graham Robinson of IPAD Ltd assuring Proview that "As I said in my last message, I can assure you that the company will not compete with Proview." Perhaps Mr Robinson was being honest in so far as IPAD Ltd would not be competing in the same industry but Robinson would probably have been aware what the name would be used for.
Proview also assert that Robinson used a false name (Jonathan Hargreaves).
If any of the above does prove to be true it does raise some very serious questions about the conduct of IPAD Ltd and the extent to which Apple were directing Robinson.
Of course, it is up to the courts to decide if Proview's claim holds any water. If not they deserve to be slapped with the mother of all fines, if however their claim is upheld then Apple had better prepare to dig deep into their pockets.
Like many others I had thought that Proview were pulling a fast one, whining because they lost out on a opportunity to milk apple.
The following however shows things in a completely different light.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...12+PRN20120227
Proview claim that IPAD Ltd had told them that they wanted the ipad name because of their initials.
When pressed about IPAD Ltd's use of the name, they were vague, with Graham Robinson of IPAD Ltd assuring Proview that "As I said in my last message, I can assure you that the company will not compete with Proview." Perhaps Mr Robinson was being honest in so far as IPAD Ltd would not be competing in the same industry but Robinson would probably have been aware what the name would be used for.
Proview also assert that Robinson used a false name (Jonathan Hargreaves).
If any of the above does prove to be true it does raise some very serious questions about the conduct of IPAD Ltd and the extent to which Apple were directing Robinson.
Of course, it is up to the courts to decide if Proview's claim holds any water. If not they deserve to be slapped with the mother of all fines, if however their claim is upheld then Apple had better prepare to dig deep into their pockets.
The false name and false pretense of purchasing the trademark is a concern, and should be looked at. However, it would also have to be considered that Proview, in bankruptcy, promised the trademarks, signed a written contract, paid $55,000, transferred all the trademarks except the China Trademarks, and has been shown to conspire to defraud and injure from the moment of initial discussions all the way to today.
The false name and false pretense of purchasing the trademark is a concern, and should be looked at. However, it would also have to be considered that Proview, in bankruptcy, promised the trademarks, signed a written contract, paid $55,000, transferred all the trademarks except the China Trademarks, and has been shown to conspire to defraud and injure from the moment of initial discussions all the way to today.
According to
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...pe=companyNews
Apple discovered a week after announcing the iPad that they did not own the Chinese rights.
It looks as though Proview then tried to transfer the rights to another subsidiary whilst threatening to sell the rights.
May 20, Apple began legal action against Proview in Shenzhen.
So Proview Taiwan knew that they were only selling the non-china rights or incorrectly told IPAD Ltd that they were getting China?
Additionally
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17152957
says that IPAD Ltd (illegally) claimed their address to be Roydon, Essex and not the officially listed address in London. The suggestion being that they didn't want Proview to know that they were owned by a Farncombe International (an IP company).
In short I guess Proview should give the money back to IPAD Ltd, having voided the contract neither seem to have been particularly honest. This would of course leave Apple at a disadvantage and having learnt a lesson the hard way.