or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple threatens Proview with defamation countersuit
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple threatens Proview with defamation countersuit - Page 2

post #41 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Sorry to be picky, but can you trademark anything in Mandarin (as opposed to Chinese)?

Sorry to be picky, but Mandarin IS Chinese (at least, it's one of the two most commonly spoken languages 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 #42 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Obviously, Hong Kong is part of the People's Republic of China (Communist China) and not the Republic of China (Taiwan).

Interestingly, a Hong Kong court issued an order some time ago which forbade Proview from claiming ownership of the trademarks in question. Seems to me that Proview is in contempt of court - and could suffer pretty severe penalties for that.

Taiwan is Taiwan, China is China, and Hong Kong is Hong Kong.

99 years of British influence didn't pass without making it's mark.

I have many Hong Kong friends (my girlfriend is from there) and the difference is like chalk and cheese. Many get insulted when you call them Chinese.

For the final verdict, we're all going to have to wait and see what the mainland Chinese courts say.
post #43 of 65
Reckon Proview will accept this as Apple's version of, "I'm sorry."?
post #44 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

Taiwan is Taiwan, China is China, and Hong Kong is Hong Kong.

99 years of British influence didn't pass without making it's mark.

I have many Hong Kong friends (my girlfriend is from there) and the difference is like chalk and cheese. Many get insulted when you call them Chinese.

For the final verdict, we're all going to have to wait and see what the mainland Chinese courts say.

I've eaten cheese that tasted like chalk... or, just a minute...
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #45 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

Taiwan is Taiwan, China is China, and Hong Kong is Hong Kong.

99 years of British influence didn't pass without making it's mark.

I have many Hong Kong friends (my girlfriend is from there) and the difference is like chalk and cheese. Many get insulted when you call them Chinese.

For the final verdict, we're all going to have to wait and see what the mainland Chinese courts say.

I really couldn't care less what your friends get insulted over. Your friends have apparently been asleep for the last decade.

Legally, Hong Kong is part of the People's Republic of 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 #46 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I really couldn't care less what your friends get insulted over. Your friends have apparently been asleep for the last decade.

Legally, Hong Kong is part of the People's Republic of China.

So if I were to ask China whose is Hong Kong they'd say China. CHECK!

Any wonder what they'd say if asked about Taiwan? Would Honk Kong courts differ?
post #47 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

There may be some repercussions if American and European businesses see Apple get screwed in the courts because of "homerism". It may not bode well for China's future as a business hub, although with 1.5 billion people they may be able to get by.

Except 1.45 billion of them are either in the army or poor as crap!
post #48 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Legally, Hong Kong is part of the People's Republic of China.

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People's Republic of China is officially part of the People's Republic of China but I don't know if it's legally, as in, laws of Hong Hong carry over to the whole, under China.

Didn't the whole 1997 agreement guarantee one country with two systems for 50 years? I recall it being primarily based on economic matters, which this Proview case clearly is about, so I'd think that Hong Kong's ruling it autonomous of what mainland China's verdict.

"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 #49 of 65
I dont get it, how can they ban exports of the iPad to other countries?

I understand how they could (if they won this battle) ban sales with-in China, but how can they ban exports to other countries?
nothing here, move along...
Reply
nothing here, move along...
Reply
post #50 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People's Republic of China is officially part of the People's Republic of China but I don't know if it's legally, s in laws of Hong Hong carry over to the whole, under China.

Didn't the whole 1997 agreement guarantee one country with two systems for 50 years? I recall it being primarily based on economic matters, which this Proview case clearly is about, so I'd think that Hong Kong's ruling it autonomous of what mainland China's verdict.

I believe that they are autonomous except for foreign relations and defense.
post #51 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Bullet points from the letter regarding false statements:

that Apple's affiliate "mistakenly" transacted with Proview Electronics Co., Ltd. ("Proview Taiwan", Proview's another subsidiary) who did not own the trademarks for IPAD in mainland China;

that "Proview Shenzhen had no knowledge of the trademark transfer";

that Apple's affiliates dealt only with representatieves of Proview Taiwan who "had nothing to do with Proview Shenzhen"; and

that the IPAD trademarks in mainland China "were not included in the package of trademarks under consideration" in the sale.

Well, that's what I've been posting about on these forums the past week.

Now do you believe me?
post #52 of 65
I hope Apple sues Proview to submission.
post #53 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul94544 View Post

Excuse me for pointing out something obvious

But how can a Chinese entity trademark anything in a foreign language?

I mean that would be like a big company in the China trademarking a series of Manderin characters, building said item in USA and exporting all over the world , and a USA company saying no we have the right to that name, HUH????

Also, The word "iPad" doesn't have an Chinese equivalent does it? by definiton it is they who are copying Apple right?

Do Chinese companies sell anything in China and use English words on the front?

if so why?

The disputed trademarks are for "iPad" in China. China has established trademark rules (albeit certainly with some issues) for use of trademarks in China. Given their global outlook, I'm sure it's not just for Chinese character trademarks.

Again, the dispute is the use of "iPad" in China alone, not anywhere else.

In any case this is all a Proview scam, as we can see Apple too is fed up of all the gobblededook of information crammed up the Chinese press and legal system ~ classic "bullet spray" business practice in Asia. Throw everything against the wall constantly and hope a brick falls out.
post #54 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stourque View Post

Apple needs to get a hold of Big Brother and let him know there are 400,000 jobs at stake and may have to be moved to Brazil. At least there the judges operate with 'integrity' - meaning that when they accept a bribe, they follow through and deliver.

It's already happening with / without Apple lobbying - thx in large part to the recent expose by the unions / labor right thugs. Foxconn already expressed interest in replacing some of those jobs with machine.
post #55 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Apple, go get 'em! Smash them! Destroy the corrupt and criminal buggers!

I want to see them crushed to smithereens. Show no mercy, and then move in for the kill. Don't threaten to do something, just go ahead and squash those nasty little maggots already.

And then do the same to Android, please.

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #56 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkalu View Post

I hope Apple sues Proview to submission.

Into oblivion would be good.
post #57 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronbo View Post

Time for that "one sided country" to decide if it believes in rule of law.

The rule of law?? You are referring to the rewritten as it suits pieces of paper made up by each country, state and town to achieve whatever feels important/might get a vote/might helps my friend.

Those rules? Big problem that one eh.

And We aren't quite at the one world government just yet so your rule, or your country's rule isn't china's and since the agreement was with Taiwan which (as far the media makes out) snubs china a bit.

I suppose to conclude, we do not have a clue
you only have freedom in choice when you know you have no choice
Reply
you only have freedom in choice when you know you have no choice
Reply
post #58 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People's Republic of China is officially part of the People's Republic of China but I don't know if it's legally, as in, laws of Hong Hong carry over to the whole, under China.

Didn't the whole 1997 agreement guarantee one country with two systems for 50 years? I recall it being primarily based on economic matters, which this Proview case clearly is about, so I'd think that Hong Kong's ruling it autonomous of what mainland China's verdict.

Yes you are right about the two systems. The legal system in HK is based on UK system (well England and Wales, Scotland has a slightly different legal system). In fact when the transfer completed the legal system was not frozen but has adopted most precedent set under UK law post 1997.

The Chinese legal system is very different (not saying it is better or worse, that will depend on your point of view).

A judgement in Hong Kong regarding a company in china could be over-ridden by a chinese judgement with a higher authority.

Some people in China feel that Hong Kong residents look down on them when doing business and I have seen first hand that happen. (My wife is Chinese I am a UK citizen so when we do business in HK we can be in similar meetings but definitely get treated very differently by the same company).

This has led to a certain amount of disdain from some mainland Chinese people about Hong Kong and so if it rules on a case that is then examined under Chinese law, the outcome may well be tainted by the very fact that a Hong Kong court has ruled!

This was always a risk that Apple was taking in having the case heard in HK - they had a much better chance of winning the battle but may have weakened their chance of winning the war.
post #59 of 65
By the way I am not making a judgement whether the above is fair or not, it is just how it is.

Personally I hope this gets resolved soon as I want to be able to buy the new iPad3 in China without having to pay scalpers fees or waiting till I am next abroad.
post #60 of 65
So many china bashers here.

Facts are actually pretty simple here.

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.
post #61 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannysiu View Post

So many china brasher here.

Don't worry, we have some China apologists too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dannysiu View Post

Facts are actually pretty simple here.

Indeed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dannysiu View Post

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.

Nope, they entered into the agreement all with the same guy, Mr. Yang.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dannysiu View Post

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

And that results in blocking iPad in China how exactly? As I mentioned before, who is the real trademark owner? Asset Protection Orders have been given to China Minsheng Bank and Apple itself in Shenzhen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dannysiu View Post

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.

Indeed, the evidence of the emails, the contracts and so on makes it pretty obvious Proview scammed Apple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dannysiu View Post

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.

Let's assume Apple was negligent. This makes authorities in China block the sale of iPads at the request of a bankrupt company how? BTW, since Proview Shenzen is under the Proview parent etc all represented by Mr. Yang, it could be shown that Apple knew about the registration under Proview Shenzhen and executed a ~collective~ purchase for efficiency. Proview may have to prove that the parent-subsidiary relationship was both made clear by Proview and that Apple ignored and/or and seriously misunderstood that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dannysiu View Post

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.

And this blocks iPad in China how? And why would Apple need to buy the same thing twice? If the creditors own the trademark, are they the ones trying to block the iPad?

Don't the creditors have the burden of proof to show that Apple acted negligently and illegally, before iPad sales are blocked? Also, isn't the trademark subject to lapsing because of bankruptcy of a company that already sold the trademark, and in fact applied for the trademark to be sold to another company [Proview Shenzen to Yoke Tech] all under the same person, while the company and that person is bankrupt?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dannysiu View Post

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.

Hmm, all I would say is that I disagree, thank goodness Western systems are ~not as~ malfunctioning as Asian legal systems.

Again, in Western countries, if say Apple screwed up in this way, how would a bankrupt company force the state and local government to confiscate goods on the basis of trademarks that they already sold, with said confiscation only affecting secondary dealers?

This is the big scam. Hide behind supposed "legal documents", exploit them at will, one moment saying the rules apply, then the next saying, oh, but we left out one bit.
post #62 of 65
The purpose of law and order is not that it is a tool for personal gain or a game that people play for fun and profit.

It might seem that way in the developed world, but I think in Asia it's taken to a whole new level.
post #63 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman View Post


Nope, they entered into the agreement all with the same guy, Mr. Yang.

- You need a lecture on company law on this. Yang is not a party to the agreement. He signed his name but he signed the name only in his capacity as the legal representative of the entity called Proview Electronics only. An act made by this entity will neither be legally binding on Yang, nor binding on another entity called Shenzhen Proview, despite that Yang also serves as the legal representative there, unless Apple can prove the Shenzhen Proview authorized Proview Electronics to do so.

Examples of this can be found everywhere. British monarch is the head of state of many states. In the past sometimes two states wage wars against each other, despite that a single monarch represent both. Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, in which George VI, as head of state of both warring nations, was, in a legal sense, at war with himself.




Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman View Post

And that results in blocking iPad in China how exactly? As I mentioned before, who is the real trademark owner? Asset Protection Orders have been given to China Minsheng Bank and Apple itself in Shenzhen.

Before the actual transfer (to complete a transfer, you have to be granted with a trademark certificate with your own name on it ), the owner is still Proview Shenzhen. Even if there was a binding contract between Proview Shenzhen and Apple, before the transfer, Apple only has a contractual right to claim the trademark but is still not the owner. The actual contract, however, is very likely to be held not binding given that Proview Electronics may be deemed to lack the apparent authority to enter into a contract on behalf of Proview Shenzhen. Proview Shenzhen as the real owner, can thus request law enforcement authority to halt sales of infringement products.



Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman View Post

Indeed, the evidence of the emails, the contracts and so on makes it pretty obvious Proview scammed Apple.

These may be real. But Apple has to prove it, otherwise they won't be admitted as evidence. If I am an random guy working for this company and have a corporate Email account. I can forge an Email signature and claim that I am the chief operating officer and execute contracts. If the other company sue my company, these contracts will not be binding, unless they can prove they actually examined an authorization letter from my company which led them believe I have the authority. Apple is unable to submit any evidence other than the emails themselves, which, according to the court ruling, bear a disclaimer that it cannot be used as formal contract. Not to mention Apple failed to obtain any formal written evidence with signature or company seal that Shenzhen Proview authorized anyone to act on its behalf


Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman View Post

Let's assume Apple was negligent. This makes authorities in China block the sale of iPads at the request of a bankrupt company how? BTW, since Proview Shenzen is under the Proview parent etc all represented by Mr. Yang, it could be shown that Apple knew about the registration under Proview Shenzhen and executed a ~collective~ purchase for efficiency. Proview may have to prove that the parent-subsidiary relationship was both made clear by Proview and that Apple ignored and/or and seriously misunderstood that.


And this blocks iPad in China how? And why would Apple need to buy the same thing twice? If the creditors own the trademark, are they the ones trying to block the iPad?

If Apple can't prove the contract is binding on Proview Shenzhen. Proview Shenzhe remains as the owner and can sue Apple for infringement, and can block sales and exports of iPads...etc (the latter measure against infringement was the result of long term effort and lobby by western companies )


Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman View Post

Don't the creditors have the burden of proof to show that Apple acted negligently and illegally, before iPad sales are blocked? Also, isn't the trademark subject to lapsing because of bankruptcy of a company that already sold the trademark, and in fact applied for the trademark to be sold to another company [Proview Shenzen to Yoke Tech] all under the same person, while the company and that person is bankrupt?

no, creditors do not bear any the burden of proof. Apple is the one who initiated the lawsuit to claim the iPad trademark, and Apple alone bears the burden of proof that it purchased the trademark from someone with the authority to do so, since all public information shows the owner is someone else
post #64 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

Taiwan is Taiwan, China is China, and Hong Kong is Hong Kong.

99 years of British influence didn't pass without making it's mark.

I have many Hong Kong friends (my girlfriend is from there) and the difference is like chalk and cheese. Many get insulted when you call them Chinese.

For the final verdict, we're all going to have to wait and see what the mainland Chinese courts say.


Too bad your friends are self haters. Taiwan remains to be Republic of China and HK remains to be a special administrative region China. They can hate it as they want but those facts remain unchanged.
post #65 of 65
[QUOTE=sunilraman;2051573]The disputed trademarks are for "iPad" in China.

I still don't understand

as an abstraction: if a USA company sued a Chinese company in U.S. for a set of Manderin glyphs in the US , how is this possible. The USA court would say " That's not English" and throw it out as frivoulous

How can a company trademark a foreign name? It is meaningless to me. Now if instead they translated the characters into English and trademarked that well that makes sense
so what then is the translation of iPad into Manderin?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple threatens Proview with defamation countersuit