or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple accuses Proview of 'misleading Chinese courts' over iPad name
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple accuses Proview of 'misleading Chinese courts' over iPad name

post #1 of 52
Thread Starter 
In its most detailed public statement regarding the ongoing Proview iPad trademark dispute, Apple on Tuesday said that the Chinese company is purposely misleading courts in order to recoup massive debt and stave off impatient creditors.

A prepared statement read by Apple spokesperson Carolyn Wu alleges that Proview International Holding Ltd. fashioned the sale of the iPad name so that ownership of the Chinese trademark could later be questioned in court, and accuses the Hong Kong-based company of unfairly seeking more money for the same transaction, reports the Wall Street Journal.

"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."

Proview's Shenzhen arm, which is asserting ownership of the trademark, has accrued an estimated $400 million in debt after being part of a lucrative display-manufacturing business. At its peak Proview had 18,000 employees under its purview, though the global financial crisis has slowly edged the company toward bankruptcy.

Apple purchased the rights to the "iPAD" moniker in 2009 through a Taiwan affiliate of Proview, with the contract covering trademarks registered in a number of countries including two in China. At the time, the name was technically owned by Proview's Shenzhen subsidiary, Proview Technology Shenzhen Co.

Wu claims that Apple was urged to purchase the rights, but "didn't know the reasons at the time" as to why the deal had to be made through Proview's Taiwan affiliate.




In October 2010, Proview threatened to take legal action against Apple, claiming that the 2009 "global trademark" agreement did not include China. The Chinese company went on to pursue litigation against Apple in multiple courts, including a suit in California, claiming that it still owned the name.

Making the matter more confusing are fraud and unfair competition allegations from Proview claiming that Apple conducted its fair share of chicanery in buying the trademark through a U.K.-based proxy company for a reported $55,000.

Proview's attorney Xiao Caiyuan denies Apple's Tuesday claims and believes the computer giant knew exactly what it was doing.

"The fact is that Apple's former lawyer made a silly mistake," Xiao said. "Proview still thinks both sides can solve the dispute by peaceful talks."

The case continues to drag on in the shadow of the release of Apple's newest iPad, and is currently being argued in China's high court in Guangdong.

[ View article on AppleInsider ]
post #2 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Proview's attorney Xiao Caiyuan denies Apple's Tuesday claims and believes the computer giant knew exactly what it was doing.

"The fact is that Apple's former lawyer made a silly mistake," Xiao said. "Proview still thinks both sides can solve the dispute by peaceful talks."

Yeah, "Peaceful Talks"...right...more like a "Peaceful Billion-dollar settlement"
post #3 of 52
It's a silly mistake to be defrauded by a subsidiary? A silly mistake to think that executives of the CHINESE company were not liable for the assertions they made on behalf of the Hong Kong company? Really?

This is outright fraud, and pretty obviously so.

If the Chinese courts rule against Apple, then we know Chinese courts are corrupt.

IF they are just, ProView will end up with another creditor they owe in Apple, and of course, Apple will get the trademark clear.
post #4 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

It's a silly mistake to be defrauded by a subsidiary? A silly mistake to think that executives of the CHINESE company were not liable for the assertions they made on behalf of the Hong Kong company? Really?

This is outright fraud, and pretty obviously so.

If the Chinese courts rule against Apple, then we know Chinese courts are corrupt.

IF they are just, ProView will end up with another creditor they owe in Apple, and of course, Apple will get the trademark clear.

Assuming merits of the case and honesty are off the table, if it's about pride then Proview might win, but if it's about money (which I think it is) Apple will win. Apple does more for China in a week than Proview ever has*.



* This last statement is not meant to be taken literally and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #5 of 52
It is all about a moniker, and all Proview sees is $$$$ -- they just want to milk the cow, which is Apple, for all the cash they can.
post #6 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple purchased the rights to the "iPAD" moniker in 2009 through a Taiwan affiliate of Proview, with the contract covering trademarks registered in a number of countries including two in China. At the time, the name was technically owned by Proview's Shenzhen subsidiary, Proview Technology Shenzhen Co.

That is quite a "technicality" - They bought the trademark from a company which did not own it.

Quote:
"The fact is that Apple's former lawyer made a silly mistake,"

Sounds more like legal malpractice to me.
post #7 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

That is quite a "technicality" - They bought the trademark from a company which did not own it.

I'm glad you agree that a subsidiary of Proview in accordance with Proview's CEO has defrauded Apple.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #8 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

That is quite a "technicality" - They bought the trademark from a company which did not own it.

It's not a "technicality," it's just poor writing by AI. And why the picture of the "new iPad" instead of a graphic of the documents Proview filed in the case, such as their assurances that they were selling global rights to the name, signed by the same person who runs both subsidiaries?

This is such a badly reported story that it's pointless to keep regurgitating it in a way that lends some suggestion of credence to Proview. It's like covering a trial against evolution or global climate change, and taking islamic and christian "scientists" seriously as sources
post #9 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I'm glad you agree that a subsidiary of Proview in accordance with Proview's CEO has defrauded Apple.

There is no question as to that, but the difference between fraud and mistake is one of intent.

The Taiwan company gave warranties and reps that they owned the Chinese trademark. That most certainly was false, and was either fraud or mistake.

I don't think that has ever been in question.

But tell me this - do you think it is fair to the owners of the Chinese company to make them transfer the trademark when they were not a party to the Taiwan company's contract of sale?
post #10 of 52
Just drag this court battle long enough and proview would just die before anything can be done. Chinese court is and has been corrupted. From the moment I heard about China having a court, I laughed so hard my stomach hurts. There is no justice in China. Just money!
post #11 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

It's not a "technicality," it's just poor writing by AI. And why the picture of the "new iPad" instead of a graphic of the documents Proview filed in the case, such as their assurances that they were selling global rights to the name, signed by the same person who runs both subsidiaries?

This is such a badly reported story that it's pointless to keep regurgitating it in a way that lends some suggestion of credence to Proview. It's like covering a trial against evolution or global climate change, and taking islamic and christian "scientists" seriously as sources

Um, it's really quite uninformed and bigoted to claim that a scientist with a Christian (or Islamic) worldview shouldn't be taken seriously on a subject they may be well educated in simply because you disagree with their worldview...
post #12 of 52
As I have said before, right or wrong, it is hard to imagine the Chinese government (not necessarily the courts) letting this suit idle the thousands of workers that would be affected at Foxconn and its suppliers at the very time its economy is cooling off. They might try some face-saving maneuver but is Proview such a national treasure to risk future foreign investment which is likely what would happen should the courts find in Proview's favor. Again, for better or worse, China's economy is currently tied to Western companies, not a company like Proview.
post #13 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

That is quite a "technicality" - They bought the trademark from a company which did not own it.

a company which claimed to control something they don't. Apple says they have documents etc proving what they said they were told. So Proview is the bad guy on that one.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #14 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeromeus View Post

Just drag this court battle long enough and proview would just die before anything can be done.

That's not true. This could go on nearly indefinitely.

Proview is nothing but a shell. All the employees are gone, so there's no reason that the company can't be kept alive for years while this issue is settled. The creditors certainly have the ability to keep it going.
"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 #15 of 52
Along with the JOKES...("Apple releases a new feminine hygiene product!") the name everybody thought Apple's Tablet was going to be called was iSlate. I don't even remember if iPad even made the Top 3 list that people voted on?

I still feel that the Chinese Government is allowing this lawsuit to stick around because of how much MONEY the Bank of China will lose if Proview gets nothing from Apple! Hopefully the ITC would be able to overrule any Kangaroo Court judgement if somehow this is not thrown out.

Unfortunately with Apple being the Worlds biggest tech company, they are going to have plenty of deadbeats looking to make some money off their successes. Actually Proview should be glad that Apple didn't SUE THEM over their computer that was a rip-off of the original iMac design!

2 Days until my NEW iPad arrives!
post #16 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That's not true. This could go on nearly indefinitely.

Proview is nothing but a shell. All the employees are gone, so there's no reason that the company can't be kept alive for years while this issue is settled. The creditors certainly have the ability to keep it going.

True! But Proview is already in trouble with creditors as some of them aren't willing to wait... only way is for SOME of the creditors to pay off other creditors to drag this on and on.... and that's a risk they can't take because it's likely Proview will lose.
post #17 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

a company which claimed to control something they don't. Apple says they have documents etc proving what they said they were told. So Proview is the bad guy on that one.

The Taiwan company said they owned the Chinese trademark. They did not. The Taiwan company is seemingly guilty of fraud or mistake.

Apple has no documents proving that the Taiwan company owned the Chinese trademark. None exist.
post #18 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

The Taiwan company said they owned the Chinese trademark. They did not. The Taiwan company is seemingly guilty of fraud or mistake.

Apple has no documents proving that the Taiwan company owned the Chinese trademark. None exist.

Try to keep up.
post #19 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

Try to keep up.

I have no idea what you are trying to say, or how your response relates to my post.
post #20 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

I have no idea what you are trying to say, or how your response relates to my post.

The entire universe aside from you and Proview knows that what you have said is wrong.

Again, try to keep up.
post #21 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

That is quite a "technicality" - They bought the trademark from a company which did not own it.



Sounds more like legal malpractice to me.

I read the legal submissions and the evidence that was available online and Apple bought the trademark free and clear. They did not make any mistake,other than perhaps dealing with these jerks in the first place.
post #22 of 52
Quote:
"The fact is that Apple's former lawyer made a silly mistake," Xiao said. "Proview still thinks both sides can solve the dispute by peaceful talks."

Is "peaceful talks" the new term for extortion scheme?

"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 #23 of 52
The interesting piece to me is if they sold something they did not own. Not meaning the foolery of which subsidiary owned what. But was the Chinese subsidiary selling something even they did not own because they were legally bankrupt? It's the only argument that remotely makes sense for the creditors who lost a lot of $.

Either way, a nuisance for Apple. They have 100 times the cash of the worst case scenario.
post #24 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeromeus View Post

True! But Proview is already in trouble with creditors as some of them aren't willing to wait... only way is for SOME of the creditors to pay off other creditors to drag this on and on.... and that's a risk they can't take because it's likely Proview will lose.

That's not the way bankruptcy works.

There are no other assets. The creditors lose nothing by keeping the bankruptcy case open as long as it takes. It doesn't matter whether Proview is in trouble or not. Nor does it matter if the creditors are impatient or not. There's no money to divide, so no reason to force the issue now.

And even if there were money to divide, they could divide the existing money and still keep the case open in case Proview wins.

The statement that Proview can't survive long enough for this to be settled is just plain wrong. Proview 'surviving' is no more than getting the judge to not close the bankruptcy case - and any judge in his right mind would agree to that.
"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 #25 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

The entire universe aside from you and Proview knows that what you have said is wrong.

Again, try to keep up.

What have I said which is wrong? Be specific.
post #26 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

What have I said which is wrong? Be specific.

You are wrong about too many things, and I think it's not worth the effort to list them here.
post #27 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

What have I said which is wrong? Be specific.

Specifically? Every post you have made here at AI is wrong.
post #28 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

The creditors certainly have the ability to keep it going.

The creditors in this case are large Chinese banks (AKA the Chinese government). So yes, the Chinese government has the ability and motive to keep this going. I would not be surprised if the zombie/puppet company is kept alive on paper to extract ongoing rent from Apple for use of the trademark.

Such is life in a country without rule of law.
post #29 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post

This is such a badly reported story that it's pointless to keep regurgitating it in a way that lends some suggestion of credence to Proview. It's like covering a trial against evolution or global climate change, and taking islamic and christian "scientists" seriously as sources
Um, it's really quite uninformed and bigoted to claim that a scientist with a Christian (or Islamic) worldview shouldn't be taken seriously on a subject they may be well educated in simply because you disagree with their worldview...

I have a different objection
Equating skepticism about global climate change with Christians who don't believe in evolution is silly.

The predictions of the IPCC have clearly been wrong - they do not stand up to basic scientific scrutiny - see the following submission to the British Parliament
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...s_2148505a.pdf

What the poster should have done is placed climate change alarmists in the same category as the the christian anti evolutionists - that would have been a more logical connection
post #30 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

But tell me this - do you think it is fair to the owners of the Chinese company to make them transfer the trademark when they were not a party to the Taiwan company's contract of sale?

The same officer was representing both the Chinese and Taiwanese entity. It was a common practice to go around the political systems where Chinese and Taiwanese governments "technically" don't recognize each other. In fact, Foxconn is setup the same way. All contracts and negotiations are done via Taiwan affiliate, while the actual manufacturing is done in China.

I really don't believe Apple made a mistake or not knowing what was really going on. It is most likely Proview's creditors are pushing to get as much money from Apple as possible.
post #31 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omegalink View Post

You are wrong about too many things, and I think it's not worth the effort to list them here.

Just as I suspected.

Mindless, spineless insults, with no basis in fact.
post #32 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by winstein2010 View Post

The same officer was representing both the Chinese and Taiwanese entity. It was a common practice to go around the political systems where Chinese and Taiwanese governments "technically" don't recognize each other. In fact, Foxconn is setup the same way. All contracts and negotiations are done via Taiwan affiliate, while the actual manufacturing is done in China.

I really don't believe Apple made a mistake or not knowing what was really going on. It is most likely Proview's creditors are pushing to get as much money from Apple as possible.

The sales contract was signed on behalf of the Taiwanese entity. But they did not own the Chinese trademark.
post #33 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

The sales contract was signed on behalf of the Taiwanese entity. But they did not own the Chinese trademark.

Try to keep up. These guys are on the take.
post #34 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

Apple has no documents proving that the Taiwan company owned the Chinese trademark. None exist.

They have documents that the company made that claim to them. Apple, or rather IP App Develop Ltd, acted on those claims in good faith.

What is interesting to me is that Proview or even the creditors didn't act right off when they found out it was Apple behind this IPAD company. Clearly they didn't care about the trademark at that point because they didn't know if the device would be a success. I don't know what IP law in Chinese is like but in the US that stunt would run the risk of back firing due to them not caring for almost two years. US law says you defend from day one or you can find it yanked from you.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #35 of 52
Is there any way to block comments from another user on this site. I feel an increasingly desperate need to do so.

Anyone who isn't a monomaniacal troglodyte should understand the need.

Thanks for any tips you might be able to offer and thanks in general to all the folks who contribute useful information and sane, well-considered, reality-based opinions here.
post #36 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post

Um, it's really quite uninformed and bigoted to claim that a scientist with a Christian (or Islamic) worldview shouldn't be taken seriously on a subject they may be well educated in simply because you disagree with their worldview...

When talking about science I don't see how non-scientific views should be lumped in there. Nothing in post stated that a belief system was wrong. Personally, I don't care if one believes in a flying spaghetti monster but if they tell me that we all evolved from macaroni I'm not going to give credence to that in a scientific sense without something to back it up.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #37 of 52
Is there a way to get I am a Zither Zather Zuzz banned from AI? He spouts his slanted BS to incent the same arguments over and over.

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

Reply

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

Reply
post #38 of 52
Hardly. These sites rely on eyeballs and traffic to lure advertisers. Spin doctoring, sensationalism and of course, recalcitrants or self-proclaimed "devil's advocate" or self-appointed messiahs tend to bump up those precious numbers.

So who really cares about providing news? (sarcasm) It is all about the ads.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic View Post

Is there a way to get I am a Zither Zather Zuzz banned from AI? He spouts his slanted BS to incent the same arguments over and over.
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
post #39 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

They have documents that the company made that claim to them. Apple, or rather IP App Develop Ltd, acted on those claims in good faith.

What is interesting to me is that Proview or even the creditors didn't act right off when they found out it was Apple behind this IPAD company. Clearly they didn't care about the trademark at that point because they didn't know if the device would be a success. I don't know what IP law in Chinese is like but in the US that stunt would run the risk of back firing due to them not caring for almost two years. US law says you defend from day one or you can find it yanked from you.

If you had a document from a con man claiming he owned the Brooklyn Bridge, and you bought it from him in good faith, you would not own the Brooklyn Bridge. Think about it.

And your understanding of Trademark Law is inaccurate. You are thinking of a trademark becoming a generic term. Waiting a couple of years does not result in your trademark being "yanked" .
post #40 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic View Post

You are nothing but a pain in the ass troll, YOU JERK. Considering the same guy was in charge of both companies obviously ProView was being dishonest at 'best'.

"The same guy" may be guilty of fraud. The Taiwanese company is most certainly in breach of their warranty of ownership.

But the Chinese company never signed any bill of sale, and they still own the trademark.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Apple accuses Proview of 'misleading Chinese courts' over iPad name
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple accuses Proview of 'misleading Chinese courts' over iPad name