or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Lower Chinese court rules to halt iPad sales
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Lower Chinese court rules to halt iPad sales - Page 2

post #41 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

That's what Apple is arguing. Well that they sold it to the proxy who then sold it to Apple. But Proview is saying no, they sold the rights to the countries they had the rights to, which didn't include China.

That's right, and that beggars the question, how would Proview [again, just the same guy in charge of everything] block any iPad sales in China, when it promised that it would sell it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

But due to the weird court arrangement in China, that court's finding only applies in Hong Kong. And the Chinese courts don't agree with the ruling.

Given that Hong Kong was only handed back to China just over 10 years ago, luckily, it's not fully integrated with the mainland yet. The mainland is where the action is in any case.

Interestingly, a mainland Chinese court has sided with Apple, but again, even though a mainland Chinese court rules, it doesn't mean it can apply to the whole of China:

"On 24 May 2010, [Apple and IP Applications] instituted proceedings against Proview Shenzhen in the Shenzhen Intermediate Peoples Court and filed an application for APO (asset preservation order) in respect of the China Trademarks. The application was granted on 12 June 2010 but subject to the APOs obtained by some other Mainland banks"

Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

What is left is likely to sue the parent company for acting in bad faith by them claiming to be selling rights they didn't actually hold. Which comes off like they were fine with some little company having the rights and wouldn't have said anything had it not turned out that the UK company was working on Apple's behalf (meaning that Proview feels they undersold the 'mark and would have demanded more money if they had known it was Apple etc)

Bingo. Which beggars the question again, how would this lead to Chinese authorities confiscating iPads? That's the disconnect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

Until then, I think Apple should halt all official sales and demand that the Chinese government support the import ban. Focus on keeping the exports in place until the iPad can be moved out of China and then do it. Loss of those jobs might change the courts minds.

I think Apple should ignore the Chinese government, to be honest. Can't sell in China? Too bad, just continue manufacturing until like you say, they can move out [which the Chinese will never let].
post #42 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post

For one thing, Hong Kong is a part of China since 1997 I believe. The court in Hong Kong was a high court. These two court rulings are lower courts and both rulings will be overturned on appeal.

If "Hong Kong is part of China", and if "the court in Hong Kong was a high court", then why is there any need to appeal the lower Chinese courts? According to what you laid out, the Hong Kong court has already over ruled them.

Or maybe the Hong Kong court is NOT a higher Chinese Court and DID NOT over rule the two lower court decisions?

Please. These International legal things are complicated. Trying to suss out what you think is right, even when it flies in the face of the facts, is not a good method.

And besides, didn't the Hong Kong court say that
Quote:
The China Country Assignment was accordingly ineffective in assigning the China Trademarks to IP Application
post #43 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

Apple seems to have bought the China trademark from a company that did not own it.

The situation is similar to a tourist who buys the Brooklyn Bridge from some guy on the street.

Nope, it's a tourist who buys the Brooklyn Bridge and the Manhattan Bridge from the guy that owns the Brooklyn Bridge and the Manhattan Bridge.

Then the guy that sold both the Brooklyn Bridge and the Manhattan Bridge then says, oops, you didn't buy the Brooklyn Bridge from my right hand, because I sold it to you on my left, so you don't own it.
post #44 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman View Post

I know you were being sarcastic, I got it. I was backing up your original intent. I'm also not sure where Zither is going with his current train of thought.

I've said the same thing over and over. If you are not sure what it all means, then reread it.

But just so that there is no mistake, I am saying that Apple bought the Chines mark from a company that never owned it. Accordingly, the original owner still owns the Chinese mark, and Apple does not.
post #45 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman View Post

Let's say you are right on the first point (which I assert you aren't ), may I repeat:

"Proview Electronics warranted that it was the unencumbered sole owner of the Subject Trademarks including the China Trademarks"

Perhaps they accidentally a whole written contract of the sale.

See email posted above as well.


So Apple has a right to sue them for breach of warranty. But Apple does not own the trademark just because they were defrauded.

If I warrant to you that I own the Brooklyn Bridge, and sign a contract of sale, does that mean you bought the Brooklyn Bridge from me? No. Why? Because I never owned it.
post #46 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

What is left is likely to sue the parent company for acting in bad faith by them claiming to be selling rights they didn't actually hold.

The parent company never sold anything. Had they been the seller, the outcome might be different.
post #47 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by genovelle View Post

Why does the picture look like the original iMac in white. They even call it the original Internet computer. So this company makes a clone of an Apple design calls it an iPad instead of iMac or iPod for obvious reasons, then sells the name to Apple for a pretty penny then extorts them for more money. Apple should sue them for design infringement and make sure they close their doors for good.

Except ...

The product in question is no longer made and hasn't been for a while, it was basically a copy of the original iMac. The company in question is also not really in existence anymore for all intents and purposes but the banks that it owes millions to would rather like Apple to pay up. Even if this company are to win, the money would go to the banks. If it loses, it doesn't really lose anything as it's already in bankruptcy AFAIK.
post #48 of 78
The short-term answer to this is to have Foxconn announce that they are evaluating sites in other countries for potential new factories.

The long-term answer is to have them carry through on that process and add manufacturing capacity in countries other than China.
post #49 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

Apple seems to have bought the China trademark from a company that did not own it.

The situation is similar to a tourist who buys the Brooklyn Bridge from some guy on the street.

Zithur,

You are absolutely clueless when it comes to both corporate and international law. You keep making up idiotic analogies and nonsensical law as you go along.

Both the mainland China companies PROVIEW TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD & YOKE TECHNOLOGY (SHENSHEN) CO LTD who now claim they own the iPad trademark, were Defendants in the HongKong case and were found to be subsidiaries, controlled by a third Defendant Proview Holdings, registered in Bermuda and listed on the HongKong Stock exchange (and now bankrupt)., which is why the HongKong Court had and has jurisdiction.

The HongKong Court found that AT ALL MATERIAL TIMES all three above companies, along with the Tawanese Proview company, were controlled by Yang Long San, Rowell (Yang) a Tawanese,

The HongKong Court found against all the above Defendants, including Mr Yang. and ordered that ALL WERE RESTRAINED from making any oral or written representation to any other person(s) to the effect that they are, or any one of them is, the proprietor(s) and/or owner(s) of the IPAD trade mark (Registration No. 1590557, registered in Class 9 of the Register of Trade Marks of the People’s Republic of China) and the IPAD stylised trade mark (Registration No. 1682310 rgistered in Class 9 of the Register Of Trade Marks of the People’s Republic of China) (hereafter referred to as the “Subject Trademarks) and/or have title, rights and/or interests in the Subject Trademarks, and or is in aposition to sell, transfer, assign, otherwise dispose of and/or give good title to the Subject Trademarks.

Yang, PROVIEW TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD & YOKE TECHNOLOGY (SHENSHEN) CO LTD are in breach of that order in taking the case against Apple.

Why did the lower mainland court not take into account the HongKong judgment? The Forbes article reveals the reason. Apple were not permitted to submit the HongKong judgment as evidence.

However, the HongKong Court has now specifically ruled that Apple can submit the Judgement (and presumably the evidence leading to that judgement) in Apple's appeal to a higher court in the People's Republic Of China.

Chinese Courts tend to do as the Government wishes.

So what does the Chinese government want? Are they going to side with some Taiwanese bankrupt and alleged fraudster trying to pull a fast one? Or are they going to side what is probably China's biggest customer? Are they really going to prevent Apple exporting iPads, throwing out of work hundreds of thousands of Chinese workers? Are they going to risk civil unrest and cut off billions of export dollars, just because of an alleged, fly by night fraudster?

Maybe Yang should reflect on the fact that Chinese Courts often mete out the harshest punishments to fraudsters, including execution. Is that really a risk he wants to continue to take?
post #50 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post

What decision are you asking if we would defend? Apple bought the worldwide rights to iPad from Proview. There are emails from a lawyer at the Proview, Shenzen (the one that's suing now) saying that it is fine for the British company to make the payment to the Proview, Taiwan subsidiary for the trademarks. Saying that it didn't matter which one gets the money since they were all owned by the same parent company.

As the Hong Kong court ruled last year Yang, the owner of all the Proviews, is trying to screw with Apple. He didn't realize that the UK company was going to turn the name over to Apple (lots of companies buy land, other companies, or IP legally in this way) and now he's mad because he thinks he missed a bigger payday.

Exactly. Notice their compliant:
"Proview sued Apple in 2011, claiming that not only is Apple using the "iPad" moniker illegally in China, but allege that the company surreptitiously acquired the trademark through U.K. proxy company IP Application Development in 2010."

Read between the lines, particularly the bold part.

1. They are admitting that IP Application Development DID, in fact, acquire the trademark.
2. Part of their complaint is that Apple surreptitiously acquired the trademark. Apparently, even though this action is completely legal, they're upset because they would have asked for more money if they had known it was going to Apple.

Pure and simple seller's remorse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

Wrong. Apple never bought the Chinese rights to the name. They dealt with a Taiwanese subsidiary who did not own the rights in China.

Oops.

Really? So you know more than the Hong Kong court?
More importantly, you know more than Proview - who admitted that Apple bought the trademarks (see above)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

So what? A Hong Kong court deciding that a Chinese Company must do something in China? Two Chinese courts disagree.

Maybe you're still stuck in the 90's and don't realize that a Hong Kong court's rulings are valid in China - since Hong Kong is part of China.

There are two courts that disagree. It is not uncommon for these small, provincial courts to do stupid things, but it gets sorted out on appeals. Want to bet which way this one's going to go?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #51 of 78
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #52 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

Wrong. Apple never bought the Chinese rights to the name. They dealt with a Taiwanese subsidiary who did not own the rights in China.

Oops.

How long will it take to ban tekstud this time I wonder.
post #53 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

Wrong. Apple never bought the Chinese rights to the name. They dealt with a Taiwanese subsidiary who did not own the rights in China.

Oops.

Gosh! You better let the Lower Chinese Courts know that you can clean this mess up right away.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #54 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

how long will it take to ban tekstud this time i wonder.

Not soon enough! Unfortunately his trolling is so ineffectual that he'll likely to go unnoticed.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #55 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Secular Investor View Post

Zithur,

You are absolutely clueless when it comes to both corporate and international law. You keep making up idiotic analogies and nonsensical law as you go along.

...

Chinese Courts tend to do as the Government wishes.

So what does the Chinese government want? Are they going to side with some Taiwanese bankrupt and alleged fraudster trying to pull a fast one? Or are they going to side what is probably China's biggest customer? Are they really going to prevent Apple exporting iPads, throwing out of work hundreds of thousands of Chinese workers? Are they going to risk civil unrest and cut off billions of export dollars, just because of an alleged, fly by night fraudster?

Maybe Yang should reflect on the fact that Chinese Courts often mete out the harshest punishments to fraudsters, including execution. Is that really a risk he wants to continue to take?

You base your conclusions on personal guesswork as to "what the Chinese government" might "want".
post #56 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Not soon enough! Unfortunately his trolling is so ineffectual that he'll likely to go unnoticed.

Well, he always was more amusing than anything. Sort of like one of those little dogs that runs circles around you yapping its head off. But even that gets annoying after the first 30 seconds or so.

Edit: It's probably worth dusting off and updating this old tekstud joke:

select * from zzz_knowledge
0 row(s) in set [< 1 sec]
post #57 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

The parent company never sold anything. Had they been the seller, the outcome might be different.

This is what's been boggling me for a while now. How could have Apple missed the part of due diligence where they ascertain who actually owns the thing they're trying to buy.

But, if Yang speaks for Proview Holdings (being the sole owner), then he <is> the [parent] company. The subsidiary relationship between Proview Holdings and Proview Shenzhen means Yang has the authority to make a deal that will compel Proview Shenzhen to transfer that trademark as well.

Now, my only question is what the actual wording on the agreement says. If it's Yang's name on the agreement and if it says "worldwide" rights (insofar as they were held by a company owned directly or indirectly by Yang), it would seem Apple is in the clear, and it's just Chinese politics at play. The alternative is that the agreement explicitly specifies all the countries that Proview (or it's subsidiaries) owned except in China, then Apple is over a proverbial barrel.

Either way, it still seems like Proview is trying to pull a fast one. The specific wording I wonder about will tell whether they actually meant to do it up front, or if it was after the fact (as in, after they realized IP Application Development was making the deal so Apple could get the rights), when they thought they might be able to squeeze a bit more out of the deal.
post #58 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodGrief View Post

This is what's been boggling me for a while now. How could have Apple missed the part of due diligence where they ascertain who actually owns the thing they're trying to buy.

My guess is that it was a combination of sloppy due diligence, active misrepresentation and a poor indexing system for Chinese trademarks.
post #59 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by logic368 View Post

Yeah, I'm Chinese American and this kinda shit makes me embarrassed. What assholes.

Your American, not Chinese. Nothing to be embarrassed about.

If you still feel embarrassed, then I question your allegiance.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #60 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

Great. So instead of proper due diligence, Apple got bamboozled by the Taiwanese subsidiary.

Apple can sue them based upon the misrepresentation. But they are destitute, so good luck with that one, Apple.

And did you ignore the conclusion of the Hong Kong Court?

So even the Hong Cong court has ruled that Apple does NOT own the trademark in China?

So let me see if you think what I think;

Apple's agents was actually taken for a ride by Proview Hong Kong, paid for a license that really wasn't covered the Mainland but the people who do the negotiation didn't read it through. Cupertino office didn't though something was amiss either. Until now...

So, was it a simple lack of due diligent on Apple's part, or Proview set the trap all along? Kind of Proview office on Mainland, Hong Kong and Taipei knew this all along it wasn't a complete license and there is a big omission in it. And now Proview springs the trap...
post #61 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fairthrope View Post

So let me see if you think what I think;

Apple's agents was actually taken for a ride by Proview Hong Kong, paid for a license that really wasn't covered the Mainland but the people who do the negotiation didn't read it through. Cupertino office didn't though something was amiss either. Until now...

So, was it a simple lack of due diligent on Apple's part, or Proview set the trap all along? Kind of Proview office on Mainland, Hong Kong and Taipei knew this all along it wasn't a complete license and there is a big omission in it. And now Proview springs the trap...

It is very unlikely that Apple had a due diligence mistake of this magnitude. Far more likely that Proview is lying.

In fact:
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente...ml#tk.rss_news
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #62 of 78
Pull out of China and leave them to rot behind the rest of the world.
post #63 of 78
So what on earth does it mean when a Chinese court advises a course of action? Is that a judgement of some kind, or just a threat of a visit from some uniformed friends of the plaintiff if they don't follow the advice?
post #64 of 78
Did it really win another victory? Or is this Proview's Lawyers acting under the direction of the CEO with more miss leading stories of victory. Apple is only concerned with one mainland China high court as to who has really won this case. Apple has said it bought the rights from Proview for the iPad trademark and is waiting for the high court to rule on this. Proview is hoping for a win because they're in Bankruptcy right now. Apple has tens of thousands of chinese workers in manufacturing plants. If China doesn't side with Apple, I'm sure Apple will move there manufacturing somewhere else which would mean a major loss in jobs in that country. I don't honestly think that Apple would have made a product with the name iPad if they didn't make sure the name was secure as best as they could. One company thinks they can get around this and I hope they will Fail!
post #65 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by b9bot View Post

If China doesn't side with Apple, I'm sure Apple will move there manufacturing somewhere else

Not much chance of that. Apple is joined at the hip to China. At least for now.
post #66 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

You base your conclusions on personal guesswork as to "what the Chinese government" might "want".

No, with regard to your inane comments, I based my conclusions on the actual Court records!

The final part of my reply was questions, not conclusions. (Can't you read?)

Its up to each reader to come to their own conclusions regarding the questions.
post #67 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by b9bot View Post

Did it really win another victory? Or is this Proview's Lawyers acting under the direction of the CEO with more miss leading stories of victory. Apple is only concerned with one mainland China high court as to who has really won this case. Apple has said it bought the rights from Proview for the iPad trademark and is waiting for the high court to rule on this. Proview is hoping for a win because they're in Bankruptcy right now. Apple has tens of thousands of chinese workers in manufacturing plants. If China doesn't side with Apple, I'm sure Apple will move there manufacturing somewhere else which would mean a major loss in jobs in that country. I don't honestly think that Apple would have made a product with the name iPad if they didn't make sure the name was secure as best as they could. One company thinks they can get around this and I hope they will Fail!

This is incredibly naive - in several respects.

1. Even if the judgment were to cost Apple $1 B (not likely, btw), Apple is not going to move production out of China any time soon. Maybe some trial balloons like Brazil, but the cost advantage to being in China is more than you can imagine.

2. China is not going to be bullied by threats of loss of jobs. While Apple (indirectly) employs hundreds of thousands of people, that's only a very tiny fraction of total manufacturing work. China can not be seen as forcing the court to rule on the basis of politics. The High Court in China and the Chinese government are working very hard to respect intellectual property and to join the rest of the world in recognizing legal processes. They're not going to throw that out simply for one case - even for a large customer. Plus, of course, they recognize that Apple can't simply pull out any time soon, as well.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #68 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodGrief View Post

This is what's been boggling me for a while now. How could have Apple missed the part of due diligence where they ascertain who actually owns the thing they're trying to buy.

Now, my only question is what the actual wording on the agreement says. If it's Yang's name on the agreement and if it says "worldwide" rights (insofar as they were held by a company owned directly or indirectly by Yang), it would seem Apple is in the clear, and it's just Chinese politics at play. The alternative is that the agreement explicitly specifies all the countries that Proview (or it's subsidiaries) owned except in China, then Apple is over a proverbial barrel.

Either way, it still seems like Proview is trying to pull a fast one. The specific wording I wonder about will tell whether they actually meant to do it up front, or if it was after the fact (as in, after they realized IP Application Development was making the deal so Apple could get the rights), when they thought they might be able to squeeze a bit more out of the deal.

I don't think you have to worry about the exact wording. The Judge will have seen all the evidence and the arguments of both side, before he came to the firm and unequivocal conclusion siding with Apple and rejecting Yang's and Proview's defence.

I agree with you: it appears very evident from the Judgment that Yang is trying to pull a fast one!
post #69 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fairthrope View Post

So let me see if you think what I think;

Apple's agents was actually taken for a ride by Proview Hong Kong, paid for a license that really wasn't covered the Mainland but the people who do the negotiation didn't read it through. Cupertino office didn't though something was amiss either. Until now...

So, was it a simple lack of due diligent on Apple's part, or Proview set the trap all along? Kind of Proview office on Mainland, Hong Kong and Taipei knew this all along it wasn't a complete license and there is a big omission in it. And now Proview springs the trap...


Just read the judgement carefully rather than making up your own facts and arriving at baseless conclusions about Apple's lack of due diligence.

The judge clearly believes that Apple were victims of a conspiracy to breach the agreement. Think about this (page 11):

"The conduct of all the defendants demonstrate that they have combined together with the common intention of injuring Apple and IP Application by acting in breach of the AgreementProview Holdings, Proview Electronics and Proview Shenzhen, all clearly under Yangs control, have refused to take any steps to ensure compliance with the agreement so that the China trademarks are properly assigned. Instead, they attempted to exploit the situation as a business opportunity for the the Proview Group by seeking an amount of US$10,000,000 from Apple

The Judge, who saw all the evidence and heard all the arguments, found in favour of Apple and against all the Defendants including Yang and in Judgment in his order he:

RESTRAINS ALL OF THEM from making any oral or written representation to any other person(s) to the effect that they are, or any one of them is, the proprietor(s) and/or owner(s) of the IPAD trade mark (Registration No. 1590557, registered in Class 9 of the Register of Trade Marks of the Peoples Republic of China) and the IPAD stylised trade mark (Registration No. 1682310 rgistered in Class 9 of the Register Of Trade Marks of the Peoples Republic of China) (hereafter referred to as the Subject Trademarks) and/or have title, rights and/or interests in the Subject Trademarks, and or is in aposition to sell, transfer, assign, otherwise dispose of and/or give good title to the Subject Trademarks.

There is no ambiguity about the above.
post #70 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post

I guess I shouldn't bother adding the "sarcasm off" symbol if people are going to ignore it...

Try using "/sarcasm" instead of "/s"

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #71 of 78
Quote:
won a small legal victory on Friday as the Intermediate People's Court in Huizhou handed down a ruling against the sale of Apple's ubiquitous tablet.

LOL...The People's Court? So Apple's loser ex-boyfriend is suing her for the trademark after she kicked him out for not getting a job and paying his share of the rent?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #72 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I think it's time for the WTO to get involved. If China wants to enjoy the privileges of being a player in the world economy, it's time they stop acting like some adolescent 3rd-world country, accept their responsibilities and put an end to this sort of mickey mouse shit.

This is a pure greed from a bankrupted Taiwanese company who tried to play with games. The creditors include some Chinese banks who have access to influence the lower court judge and local officials. That Taiwanese CEO should fail and go to hell.
post #73 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

This is incredibly naive - in several respects.

1. Even if the judgment were to cost Apple $1 B (not likely, btw), Apple is not going to move production out of China any time soon. Maybe some trial balloons like Brazil, but the cost advantage to being in China is more than you can imagine.

2. China is not going to be bullied by threats of loss of jobs. While Apple (indirectly) employs hundreds of thousands of people, that's only a very tiny fraction of total manufacturing work. China can not be seen as forcing the court to rule on the basis of politics. The High Court in China and the Chinese government are working very hard to respect intellectual property and to join the rest of the world in recognizing legal processes. They're not going to throw that out simply for one case - even for a large customer. Plus, of course, they recognize that Apple can't simply pull out any time soon, as well.

Heck, there are other choices in Vietnam or Thailand.
post #74 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

If "Hong Kong is part of China", and if "the court in Hong Kong was a high court", then why is there any need to appeal the lower Chinese courts? According to what you laid out, the Hong Kong court has already over ruled them.

Or maybe the Hong Kong court is NOT a higher Chinese Court and DID NOT over rule the two lower court decisions?

Please. These International legal things are complicated. Trying to suss out what you think is right, even when it flies in the face of the facts, is not a good method.

And besides, didn't the Hong Kong court say that

Chinese court uses "relationship" law
post #75 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Proview, the Shenzhen company that is claiming trademark rights to the 'iPad' name, said it won a small legal victory on Friday as the Intermediate People's Court in Huizhou handed down a ruling against the sale of Apple's ubiquitous tablet.

Citing a statement by Proview's lawyer Xie Xianghui, the Associated Press reported on Monday that the court in China's Guangdong province advised distributors to halt sales of the iPad, though it is unclear what effect the judgment will have on the ongoing dispute.

The ruling further muddies the already complex trademark battle that has seen Proview file suits against Apple in numerous courts; asking commercial authorities to block iPad sales in 40 cities.

Recent reports from customs officials in the country note that such a ban would be difficult to enforce, however, because of the popularity of the device.

There has been no official move to ban Apple's tablet in mainland China, though local authorities in select areas have seized at least 45 units.

Adding to the confusion are conflicting decisions from a December ruling in Proview's favor that is currently under appeal at the High Court in Guangdong, and an earlier ruling from a Hong Kong court that sided with Apple.

Perhaps most difficult is jurisdiction as the suit revolves around claims that Apple made an unauthorized transaction when it purchased the "iPad" name from a Taiwanese affiliate of Shenzhen's Proview Technology, which itself is a subsidiary of Hong Kong-based Proview International Holdings.


Proview's 'iPAD' computer. | Source: The Wall Street Journal


Proview sued Apple in 2011, claiming that not only is Apple using the "iPad" moniker illegally in China, but allege that the company surreptitiously acquired the trademark through U.K. proxy company IP Application Development in 2010.

The Chinese company is seeking $38 million in damages and an apology from the iPad maker.

[ View article on AppleInsider ]

Hello, short seller
post #76 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Secular Investor View Post

Just read the judgement carefully rather than making up your own facts and arriving at baseless conclusions about Apple's lack of due diligence.

The judge clearly believes that Apple were victims of a conspiracy to breach the agreement. Think about this (page 11):

"The conduct of all the defendants demonstrate that they have combined together with the common intention of injuring Apple and IP Application by acting in breach of the AgreementProview Holdings, Proview Electronics and Proview Shenzhen, all clearly under Yangs control, have refused to take any steps to ensure compliance with the agreement so that the China trademarks are properly assigned. Instead, they attempted to exploit the situation as a business opportunity for the the Proview Group by seeking an amount of US$10,000,000 from Apple

The Judge, who saw all the evidence and heard all the arguments, found in favour of Apple and against all the Defendants including Yang and in Judgment in his order he:

RESTRAINS ALL OF THEM from making any oral or written representation to any other person(s) to the effect that they are, or any one of them is, the proprietor(s) and/or owner(s) of the IPAD trade mark (Registration No. 1590557, registered in Class 9 of the Register of Trade Marks of the Peoples Republic of China) and the IPAD stylised trade mark (Registration No. 1682310 rgistered in Class 9 of the Register Of Trade Marks of the Peoples Republic of China) (hereafter referred to as the Subject Trademarks) and/or have title, rights and/or interests in the Subject Trademarks, and or is in aposition to sell, transfer, assign, otherwise dispose of and/or give good title to the Subject Trademarks.

There is no ambiguity about the above.

I wonder what the penalties are for Contempt of Court in China?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #77 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman View Post

Incorrect, see above. There is no brother, father, mother, sister, uncle. It's all one guy.

ignore zzz, he is a troll pure and simple.

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

 

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete...

Reply

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

 

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete...

Reply
post #78 of 78
Apple's case doesn't seem to be very strong, from legal perspective


Apple entered into a contract on the transfer of the trademark with someone who doesn't actually own the trademark. But this guy is actually an affiliate of the actual owner.

The real trademark owner is on the brink of bankruptcy and is controlled by its creditors.

To win the trademark, Apple has to bear the burden of proof and establish to the mainland china court that the contractual party has led apple to believe that it has the apparent authority to sell the trademark. But Since who owns a trademark is public information and anyone with Internet access can get that info within a few mins from China's trademark office website. It is exeedingly difficult for apple to prove that the entity who sold the trademark led Apple believe it has the authority. Even if Apple wasn't actually aware of this, court may hold that apple shall be responsible for its negligence.

Further, even if Apple did manage to establish the "apparent authority" argument and is supported by the court, and the court found the agreement on trademark transfer binding on the actual owner, Proview Shenzhen. Apple faces another huge obstacle:

Since Proview is on the brink of bankruptcy. Apple's claim against Proview would be as useless as any ordinary creditor. Yes, Proview may owe Apple a trademark, but it also owes other creditors millions of dollars. When the trademark is Proview's only asset, there is no legal basis to liquidate the company by satisfying only one creditor, Apple. If the creditors and Apple can't reach an agreement, the trademark will have to be sold through public auction and then every creditor and apple get a slice. Alternatevely, apple has to offer to other creditors big sums of money in exchange for the trademark.

I simply do not think any of the above legal framework is exclusive to China. Should this happen in any western jurisdiction, Apple may still have a huge proble. Apple's legal team is the one to blame for its total ignorance and stupidity when they enter into that contract.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Lower Chinese court rules to halt iPad sales