or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple in talks with Proview to settle iPad trademark dispute
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple in talks with Proview to settle iPad trademark dispute

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 
Discussions are underway between Apple and Proview as the two parties attempt to settle a dispute over ownership and use of the "iPad" name.

A lawyer representing Proview revealed on Friday to IDG News Service that the talks are currently happening. Neither Proview nor Apple would provide any additional details, but the news has sparked speculation that the matter could be resolved out of court.

Chinese law allows both parties in a dispute to engage in talks for a possible settlement before a ruling is issued. Those talks, however, are voluntary, and are not mandated by the court.

The talks began after the Chinese court recommended earlier this week that both sides attempt to mediate their dispute. If a resolution cannot be reached, a ruling will be issued by the Higher People's Court of Guandong Province.

Apple used a third-party company to purchase the rights to the iPad trademark from Proview in 2009. However, Proview has argued that its Shenzhen subsidiary still owns the iPad trademark, because representatives from the Chinese branch were not present when the contract was signed.

New iPad


Proview and Apple are involved in a number of lawsuits throughout China, as Proview is attempting to block sales of the iPad and even exportation of the device, which would effectively bring worldwide sales to a halt. Proview has even taken its legal action against Apple to the U.S., filing suit in California over the "iPad" trademark.

At its peak, Proview was the manufacturer of a stripped-down PC it called the Internet Personal Access Device, or iPAD. The company also found some success building monitors before the global financial crisis hit and pushed it into bankruptcy. Now, it's a near-dead company with its ownership of the "IPAD" name its only major asset.
post #2 of 29

Take them to the cleaners!

post #3 of 29

 

Quote:
 However, Proview has argued that its Shenzhen subsidiary still owns the iPad trademark, because representatives from the Chinese branch were not present when the contract was signed.

 

 

That is not Proview's argument.

 

It  is not a matter of who was present at the closing.  It is a matter of which company entered into the contract  of sale.  

 

The  Chinese subsidiary never signed the contract, despite being mentioned  in prior emails.  The Chinese owner of the Chinese trademark never signed the contract, and did not sell the Chinese trademark.

 

Even if representatives of the "Chinese branch" were present, it would have made no difference unless the Chinese company signed the  sales contract and thereby transferred the Chinese trademark. 


Edited by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz - 4/20/12 at 6:59am
post #4 of 29

Apple WILL write a check, now it's just a matter of how much. The is an amount that will be much easier to write then deal with the BS. NOW, if the case is REAL solid, then this meeting will be to tell them "Stick it up …"

 

Skip


Edited by ncee - 4/20/12 at 7:32am
post #5 of 29

Thanks for the correction on the detail but you're conclusion still seems faulty to me.  The Chinese company doesn't necessarily have to be present or even know about the sale of the trademark for it to be legal.  It depends on the relationship between the companies which I'm sure is complex.  

 

I'm not saying you are wrong, just that your conclusion (that because the Chinese company wasn't aware of the sale or agreeable to it, makes the sale void), is not proven.  

post #6 of 29

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Thanks for the correction on the detail but you're conclusion still seems faulty to me.  The Chinese company doesn't necessarily have to be present or even know about the sale of the trademark for it to be legal.  It depends on the relationship between the companies which I'm sure is complex.  

 

I'm not saying you are wrong, just that your conclusion (that because the Chinese company wasn't aware of the sale or agreeable to it, makes the sale void), is not proven.  

 

What you say is true.  It is possible that the Taiwanese company had been authorized to sell another company's (i.e, the Chinese company's) property.

 

There is no evidence that is the case.  If it were true, ISTM that Apple would have said so, as it would be the linchpin upon which its case rested.

 

All we know is that the Chinese company owned the Chinese trademark, and did not sign any documents whereby they sold their property.  Instead, the Taiwanese company purported to sell the Chinese trademark, but did  not own it.  It is as if you sold your brother's car.  Yeah - maybe you were authorized to do so, but there is no evidence of any such authorization signed by the Chinese company.

 

Edit:  And a small detail is that the Chinese company seems to have been aware of the purported sale by the Taiwanese company, given that they had employees in common.  Many of the emails  were sent by employees of the Chinese company.  The preliminary negotiations contemplated the sale of the Chinese trademark.  The problem for Apple is that the actual sale was not done by the owner of the Chinese trademark, but instead, by the Taiwanese company, who did not own it.


Edited by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz - 4/20/12 at 7:34am
post #7 of 29

 

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

 

 

 

That is not Proview's argument.

 

It  is not a matter of who was present at the closing.  It is a matter of which company entered into the contract  of sale.  

 

The  Chinese subsidiary never signed the contract, despite being mentioned  in prior emails.  The Chinese owner of the Chinese trademark never signed the contract, and did not sell the Chinese trademark.

 

Even if representatives of the "Chinese branch" were present, it would have made no difference unless the Chinese company signed the  sales contract and thereby transferred the Chinese trademark. 

 


If what you say is true then there wouldn't be mediation right now and the judges wouldn't be deliberating 7 weeks after the trial.  The court would have simply ruled in favor of Proview, fined Apple for their infringement and banned iPad sales in China.  So, we can know by the current circumstances that some significant part of your statement isn't correct.

post #8 of 29

Apple counsel commenting on talks to settle with Proview = actual settlement talks in progress.

 

Proview counsel commenting on talks to settle with Apple = desperate attempt to keep possibility of settlement alive in headlines of tech blogs.

Snarky Mac commentary, occasionally using bad words.
themacadvocate.com
Reply
Snarky Mac commentary, occasionally using bad words.
themacadvocate.com
Reply
post #9 of 29

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post

 

 


If what you say is true then there wouldn't be mediation right now and the judges wouldn't be deliberating 7 weeks after the trial.  The court would have simply ruled in favor of Proview, fined Apple for their infringement and banned iPad sales in China.  So, we can know by the current circumstances that some significant part of your statement isn't correct.

 

There are many possible reasons why the court may have not yet issued a decision.  Political pressure alone may explain it.

post #10 of 29

This has been beat to death before. Proview will get squat compared to the "criminal" demands of $1 billion plus they were seeking.

 

Proview thinks they have Apple by the balls because they could threaten to stop all import/export of iPads from China, thereby cutting off Apple's ability to sell anywhere in the world by preventing iPads from leaving China. So they think their China trademark is a worldwide trademark.

 

Apple can easily get around this by removing all iPad branding from iPads made at Foxconn, shipping them out of China "barebones", and applying trademarks in another factory. This is common practice in manufacturing today. As for China, Apple could come up with a new name for the iPad in China. Not something Apple would like to do, but they would if Proview was ever successful in getting an injunction before agreeing to paying the ridiculous amounts Proview seeks.

 

Proview is playing with the big boys, and they'll soon find out companies like Apple don't bow down to every single mosquito that comes buzzing around.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #11 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

 

Quote:
 However, Proview has argued that its Shenzhen subsidiary still owns the iPad trademark, because representatives from the Chinese branch were not present when the contract was signed.

 

 

That is not Proview's argument.

 

It  is not a matter of who was present at the closing.  It is a matter of which company entered into the contract  of sale....


As I understand it, Apple were dealing with the parent company, not a Taiwan subsidiary.

Because of the intricacies of Chinese law, this may not necessarily bind the Chinese subsidiaries-- the subsidiary would have to be compelled by the parent company to transfer the trademark in accordance with the parent's legal system.
post #12 of 29

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post

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

 

Quote:
 However, Proview has argued that its Shenzhen subsidiary still owns the iPad trademark, because representatives from the Chinese branch were not present when the contract was signed.

 

 

That is not Proview's argument.

 

It  is not a matter of who was present at the closing.  It is a matter of which company entered into the contract  of sale....


As I understand it, Apple were dealing with the parent company, not a Taiwan subsidiary.

Because of the intricacies of Chinese law, this may not necessarily bind the Chinese subsidiaries-- the subsidiary would have to be compelled by the parent company to transfer the trademark in accordance with the parent's legal system.

 

 

The sales contract was signed by the Taiwan subsidiary.  The preliminary negotiations,  via email,  may have been with the Hong Kong parent, but I would have to look it up to be certain.

 

 

post #13 of 29

"Because of the intricacies of Chinese law, this may not necessarily bind the Chinese subsidiaries-- the subsidiary would have to be compelled by the parent company to transfer the trademark in accordance with the parent's legal system."

 

I say foul.  The problem is that people and companies around the world lie cheat and steal for their own profit.  

 

If people in the company (that legally should have done the signing) allowed others to sign knowing it was an illegal deal, then its fraud.  A crime. 

 

If the people left in the company just want more money, then its a crime. 

 

While knowing the local law is important, the locals should have full knowledge of the law and if they are making claims that they know are false then its a crime. 

 

Sadly, lawyers of all countries happily support the crime of their client for money.  Which before the fact would make them partners in the crime. 

 

Its getting to be a very sad world.  

 

Just a thought.

en

post #14 of 29

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post


As I understand it, Apple were dealing with the parent company, not a Taiwan subsidiary.
Because of the intricacies of Chinese law, this may not necessarily bind the Chinese subsidiaries-- the subsidiary would have to be compelled by the parent company to transfer the trademark in accordance with the parent's legal system.

 

That is mostly true. The part you're leaving out is that during the negotiations with the parent company, Apple was told to sign the deal with the Taiwan subsidiary and write the check to them. Apple was acting on the instructions of the parent.

"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 29

They want a resolution? How about 2048 x 1536? That sounds like a pretty impressive resolution to me!

 

At least we know Apple has done a lot more with the iPad name than Proview. I realize in the end that has no bearing on the case, but it is the kind of thing that could make people want to vote in Apple's favour.

post #16 of 29

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LighteningKid View Post

They want a resolution? How about 2048 x 1536? That sounds like a pretty impressive resolution to me!

 

 

 

How about this?  Resolved: We will get Apple's money.

post #17 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

 

Quote:
 However, Proview has argued that its Shenzhen subsidiary still owns the iPad trademark, because representatives from the Chinese branch were not present when the contract was signed.

 

 

That is not Proview's argument.

 

It  is not a matter of who was present at the closing.  It is a matter of which company entered into the contract  of sale.  

 

The  Chinese subsidiary never signed the contract, despite being mentioned  in prior emails.  The Chinese owner of the Chinese trademark never signed the contract, and did not sell the Chinese trademark.

 

Even if representatives of the "Chinese branch" were present, it would have made no difference unless the Chinese company signed the  sales contract and thereby transferred the Chinese trademark. 

While this is true, according to Apple they were lead to believe that control over China belonged to the people they were talking to and was included in the sale. Even some of the district courts agreed with them

I'm not shocked a Proview lawyer is saying talks are going on because they would want to put out the implication they are winning. But the truth could be there are no talks or Apple's side is transfer it or go to court and they are not backing down. IF they pull back and agree to pay anything it won't be the millions Proview wants. More like the same 55k at most from the original sale
post #18 of 29

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

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

 

Quote:
 However, Proview has argued that its Shenzhen subsidiary still owns the iPad trademark, because representatives from the Chinese branch were not present when the contract was signed.

 

 

That is not Proview's argument.

 

It  is not a matter of who was present at the closing.  It is a matter of which company entered into the contract  of sale.  

 

The  Chinese subsidiary never signed the contract, despite being mentioned  in prior emails.  The Chinese owner of the Chinese trademark never signed the contract, and did not sell the Chinese trademark.

 

Even if representatives of the "Chinese branch" were present, it would have made no difference unless the Chinese company signed the  sales contract and thereby transferred the Chinese trademark. 

While this is true, according to Apple they were lead to believe that control over China belonged to the people they were talking to and was included in the sale. Even some of the district courts agreed with them

I'm not shocked a Proview lawyer is saying talks are going on because they would want to put out the implication they are winning. But the truth could be there are no talks or Apple's side is transfer it or go to court and they are not backing down. IF they pull back and agree to pay anything it won't be the millions Proview wants. More like the same 55k at most from the original sale

 

My guess is that the settlement will be confidential, and that nobody will know the amount.

post #19 of 29

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Proview is playing with the big boys, and they'll soon find out companies like Apple don't bow down to every single mosquito that comes buzzing around.

 

Mosquito! :)! - Nice! I Like it!!! 

 


Edited by macologist - 4/20/12 at 11:29am

 

Go  Apple, AAPL!!!

Reply

 

Go  Apple, AAPL!!!

Reply
post #20 of 29

When Apple infringes on another company's trademark, it will have to pay big money for using that name. Apple should get this resolved soon, otherwise the Chinese users will shift quickly to the Android tablets.

post #21 of 29

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter236 View Post

When Apple infringes on another company's trademark, it will have to pay big money for using that name. Apple should get this resolved soon, otherwise the Chinese users will shift quickly to the Android tablets.

 


You can still buy an iPad 2 all over China or a new iPad through the grey market.  Which Android tablet do you really think they will choose over that?

post #22 of 29

Let's not forget you can also buy this beauty in China as well.

6787126006_a99f59b3c7_z.jpg

Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
post #23 of 29

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post

 

 


You can still buy an iPad 2 all over China or a new iPad through the grey market.  Which Android tablet do you really think they will choose over that?

 

Android phones now have a larger market share than the iPhone in China. We will see how much sales have been slowing when they announce earnings next week.

post #24 of 29

Taiwan is not China and the Taiwanese will animatedly tell you all about it if you ask them.

 

Dammit, that new "quote" function on the site is complete crap. It works half the time I've used it.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #25 of 29

 

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

 

 

 

The sales contract was signed by the Taiwan subsidiary.  The preliminary negotiations,  via email,  may have been with the Hong Kong parent, but I would have to look it up to be certain.

 

 

 

You'll never quit with your parsing of words, will you? The person who signed the document is the CEO of the Shenzen subsidiary - he is also the founder of Proview, and the majority owner (through his son, who he transferred ownership to in order to escape bankruptcy liability). It's all the same person.

 

The manipulation by Proview is that this man, the founder of Proview and the CEO of the Shenzen subsidiary is the one who signed the contract. He claims that he signed the papers not as the CEO of the Shenzen subsidiary, but as a representative of the Taiwan company. Pure BS.

post #26 of 29

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter236 View Post

 

 

Android phones now have a larger market share than the iPhone in China. We will see how much sales have been slowing when they announce earnings next week.

 

And your point is?

 

McDonald's sells more burgers than anyonse else too. Have you ever been to China? It's full of cheap Android phones. This is what makes up the most of that 850,000 daily activations Andy Rubin yaps so much about. High-end Android phones make up less than half that figure with the rest being junk devices that nobody cares about, certainly not Apple. Next you're going to tell me Apple is worried about the 250 million plus dumb phones Nokia and Samsung each sell a year.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #27 of 29

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter236 View Post

 

 

Android phones now have a larger market share than the iPhone in China. We will see how much sales have been slowing when they announce earnings next week.

 

 



You didn't answer my question in your response, or even mention tablets for that matter.  Phones are subsidized in China as in many other markets.  Tablets are subsidized almost anywhere, so the Chinese tablet market will likely continue to look like that of the rest of the world where Apple has a very dominant position.  Who is to say that that sales will have slowed at all, especially for the iPad which is the subject of the article and my post?  With the release of the new iPad during the quarter it's possible that they will sell almost as many as the holiday quarter (and there is 1 less week in this quarter than last).

post #28 of 29

 

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

 

 

How about this?  Resolved: We will get Apple's money.

 

More like resolved, we got money but only a fraction of what we were asking for.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #29 of 29

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

 

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

 

 

 

The sales contract was signed by the Taiwan subsidiary.  The preliminary negotiations,  via email,  may have been with the Hong Kong parent, but I would have to look it up to be certain.

 

 

 

You'll never quit with your parsing of words, will you? The person who signed the document is the CEO of the Shenzen subsidiary - he is also the founder of Proview, and the majority owner (through his son, who he transferred ownership to in order to escape bankruptcy liability). It's all the same person.

 

The manipulation by Proview is that this man, the founder of Proview and the CEO of the Shenzen subsidiary is the one who signed the contract. He claims that he signed the papers not as the CEO of the Shenzen subsidiary, but as a representative of the Taiwan company. Pure BS.

 

The individual did not sign as an individual.  He signed on behalf of a corporation.  

 

And the corporation did not own the property it purported to sell.

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple in talks with Proview to settle iPad trademark dispute