They bought all the worldwide rights that one company owned. But that company did not own the rights to China.
The Chinese trademark was registered to a different company. The one that Apple bought from did not own the Chinese rights. Apple did not buy the Chinese rights to the name.
This all seems pretty cut and dried to me. Too bad for Apple. Their due diligence team F'ed up.
Really? Have you seen the agreements that they signed?
Apple says that they purchased the rights from the parent company - which would make them the clear owners.
Proview is not denying that. Rather, they are claiming that since the PRC subsidiary was not at the bargaining table that the deal isn't valid. That is not a reasonable argument.
So where's your evidence that both Apple and Proview are wrong?
Proview won the first round in a local court. That is not uncommon in China. Appeals courts are much more conversant with the law and things get straightened out on appeal all the time.
It appears to be a clear case of seller's remorse. They sold the rights to a company called IPAD and were happy with the deal until they found out that IPAD was a front for Apple. Then, they regretted the decision. Too bad.
Really? Have you seen the agreements that they signed?
Apple says that they purchased the rights from the parent company - which would make them the clear owners.
Proview is not denying that. Rather, they are claiming that since the PRC subsidiary was not at the bargaining table that the deal isn't valid. That is not a reasonable argument.
So where's your evidence that both Apple and Proview are wrong?
Proview won the first round in a local court. That is not uncommon in China. Appeals courts are much more conversant with the law and things get straightened out on appeal all the time.
It appears to be a clear case of seller's remorse. They sold the rights to a company called IPAD and were happy with the deal until they found out that IPAD was a front for Apple. Then, they regretted the decision. Too bad.
I'm basing my analysis on what was said by the court, as presented by the media, and on other statements made by the media. IIRC, Reuters has been running good articles. But I generally read lots of different sources, especially when dealing with complex subject matter, so I can't point to particular stores to bolster particular facts.
I'm trying not to impose any "I think that it should be THIS way" thoughts onto it, like "which would make them the clear owners". Clearly, the court decided that Apple is NOT the owner. A higher court may reverse that, but for now, from everything I've seen, Apple does NOT own the rights in China.
Edit: I checked a bunch of old stories. Seemingly, Apple did NOT deal with the parent company. They bought the trademarks from a Taiwan Subsidiary, while the Chinese trademark was held by the Chinese subsidiary.
If your analysis depends on Apple buying from the parent company, then you might want to conclude that Apple did not buy the Chinese trademark. Here's a recent analysis by MSNBC:
Quote:
Chinese legal experts are already arguing that Apple faces long odds of winning. As one lawyer put it, Apple’s negotiating with Proview’s Taiwanese subsidiary is “like negotiating with a son and expecting the father to go along with what was agreed upon.”
With Proview’s ownership of the iPad trademark already established in the Shenzhen courts, it seems doubtful that the Shanghai court will side in favor of Apple and effectively overturn the appeals court in Guangdong.
A friend's company was being sued by a much smaller company that is in dire need of the money.
He wrote a check during a meeting with the other company and said look here, this is the amount of money you want from me, I am going to put this in the bank and with the interest, I am going to hire lawyers to fight you till the end of time. I can go on indefinitely because I am using the interest from money that I will otherwise be giving to you, if you think you can outlast me go ahead, but I know you can't. So how about we settle this for a fraction of what you are asking for and save both sides alot of grief.
I'm not a lawyer, however, I have read the code carefully. I think there is one thing must be mentioned here. In Trademark Law of China:
Article 30.
Where any person who uses a registered trademark has committed any of the following， the Trademark Office shall order him to rectify the situation within a specified period or even cancel the registered trademark：
（1） Where any word， device or their combination of a registered trademark is altered unilaterally （that is， without the required registration）；
（2） where the name， address or other registered matters concerning the registrant of a registered trademark are changed unilaterally （that is，without the required application）；
（3） where the registered trademark is assigned unilaterally （that is，without the required approval）； and
（4） where the registered trademark has ceased to be used for three consecutive years.
It is very obviously, you can not register a trademark and just keep it, but never use it. If the registered trademark like IPAD has ceased to be used for three consecutive yeas, the Trademark Office can end your ownership. I have not heard that Proview Technology (Shenzhen) has ever used this band in any product. But local Trademark Office still give this company another 10 years to keep IPAD.
Moreover, Apple used a 3rd part company IP Application Development (IPAD) to puchase the registered trademark IPAD in 10 country, however this deal does not mean Apple want to use IPAD as a brand. The only thing Apple want is to avoid any conflict between iPad and IPAD, because those who owned the trademark IPAD can not argue with Apple, or ask for ban. As we all know, the first letter in i-series' brand of Apple is small i not big I, and all the letters after second letter is small, like iPhone, iMac, etc.
So, the Proview Technology (Shenzhen) told the court and media again and again, he registered IPAD first. But he didn't tell anything about how they use this trademark, because they never use it. The corret thing that Chinese Trademark Office must do is accepting their fault and depriving the Proview's ownership of IPAD immediately.
Very true, Apple is a company with a market cap of $500B, including $100B in cash. All of this is vulnerable to a corrupt dictatorial regime and the companies it is involved with. The supply chain is optimized for profits and has few back-up plans and almost no margin of safety. There are all kind of risk like supply chain risks, political risks, natural upheavals, etc.
Worse is the supply chain feeding the competition. The economies of scale paid by Apple can feed the competition like Samsung, Speaking of which, Apple is fighting them in court. Meanwhile, Apple single sources the A class of CPUs to them, buy their panels and even finances them. Duh!
Strategically, Apple should have invested in the Good Ol' USA. Yes, it would have required a huge investment in automation, but economies of scale in automation would have been made for the cost of labor. Look, even Samsung is building a chip plant here in Texas. Instead of Samsung, how about IBM, TXN or even Intel (for a price). They have much more integrity and would unlikely to double cross Apple like Samsung did.
Apple 'should' have invested in the US, but look at the time scale. At the time they would have needed to start such a venture, they didn't have the money to do so. Also, that's a LOT of physical plant development and other capital expenditures.
Tim Cook took a company needing to ramp up and he ramped it up in the most maximal way for Apple and it's shareholders. The guy is a master at it. He's been doing it for ten years!
However, I'm sure he now realizes the game is changing as it always will, and he is currently putting together Plan B. it takes time. All that Law of Large Numbers stuff comes into play here meaning Apple is now so big, demands for its products so enormous that that is the only constraint on them getting bigger! I'm glad they have Tim at the helm because if anyone can pull this off it is him. I believe some jobs will be moved to the US, to the extent that is possible, maybe starting in NC.
Edit: I checked a bunch of old stories. Seemingly, Apple did NOT deal with the parent company. They bought the trademarks from a Taiwan Subsidiary, while the Chinese trademark was held by the Chinese subsidiary.
Ah, if that's right, then it makes more sense that Shenzhen is making claims. Boo.
At this point (and this is just my gut talking), I have to assume there was a misrepresentation of ownership on the part of Taiwan. It's still possible that Apple's people dropped the ball, but that's a pretty big oversight unless there was obfuscation.
I'm not a lawyer, however, I have read the code carefully. I think there is one thing must be mentioned here. In Trademark Law of China:
Article 30.
Where any person who uses a registered trademark has committed any of the following， the Trademark Office shall order him to rectify the situation within a specified period or even cancel the registered trademark：
（1） Where any word， device or their combination of a registered trademark is altered unilaterally （that is， without the required registration）；
（2） where the name， address or other registered matters concerning the registrant of a registered trademark are changed unilaterally （that is，without the required application）；
（3） where the registered trademark is assigned unilaterally （that is，without the required approval）； and
（4） where the registered trademark has ceased to be used for three consecutive years.
It is very obviously, you can not register a trademark and just keep it, but never use it. If the registered trademark like IPAD has ceased to be used for three consecutive yeas, the Trademark Office can end your ownership. I have not heard that Proview Technology (Shenzhen) has ever used this band in any product. But local Trademark Office still give this company another 10 years to keep IPAD.
Moreover, Apple used a 3rd part company IP Application Development (IPAD) to puchase the registered trademark IPAD in 10 country, however this deal does not mean Apple want to use IPAD as a brand. The only thing Apple want is to avoid any conflict between iPad and IPAD, because those who owned the trademark IPAD can not argue with Apple, or ask for ban. As we all know, the first letter in i-series' brand of Apple is small i not big I, and all the letters after second letter is small, like iPhone, iMac, etc.
So, the Proview Technology (Shenzhen) told the court and media again and again, he registered IPAD first. But he didn't tell anything about how they use this trademark, because they never use it. The corret thing that Chinese Trademark Office must do is accepting their fault and depriving the Proview's ownership of IPAD immediately.
My guess is that if that were a good analysis, apple would have used it to argue in court. I have not heard Apple make any such claim.
Maybe they have reserved it, but they have already appealed, and no reporting has brought up that issue as having been advanced by Apple.
Ah, if that's right, then it makes more sense that Shenzhen is making claims. Boo.
At this point (and this is just my gut talking), I have to assume there was a misrepresentation of ownership on the part of Taiwan. It's still possible that Apple's people dropped the ball, but that's a pretty big oversight unless there was obfuscation.
It seems right. every source agrees, including AI.
There may well have been misrepresentation. It might be that the Taiwan sub did something wrong and now is liable to Apple for their misdeeds. But I'm not sure if the Taiwan sub has any substantial assets to make Apple whole.
It seems right. every source agrees, including AI.
There may well have been misrepresentation. It might be that the Taiwan sub did something wrong and now is liable to Apple for their misdeeds. But I'm not sure if the Taiwan sub has any substantial assets to make Apple whole.
What a friggin mess!
Substitute 'misrepresentation' with 'miscommunication' maybe?
The point is not whether Foxconn will ever make and market their own branded products. What if there is a dispute in the future? Foxconn, with all its foxconnections in the Chinese establishment will be able to really turn the screws into Apple. If Apple has Foxconn as their sole manufacturing partner, they would be well and truly f***ed if Foxconn turns against them. They need some buffer against this. And the only way is if Apple has other partners in other countries.
There is really no other contract manufacturer as big and good as Foxconn in China or elsewhere.
Like Samsung... But Foxconn is a different kind of company than Samsung and I don't really foresee Foxconn trying to develop, manufacture and market their own-branded products.
It seems right. every source agrees, including AI.
There may well have been misrepresentation. It might be that the Taiwan sub did something wrong and now is liable to Apple for their misdeeds. But I'm not sure if the Taiwan sub has any substantial assets to make Apple whole.
What a friggin mess!
The Taiwan Sub misdeed might have jeopardized the assets of their parent company. That parent company might be coming into a lot of money soon ($1.6B).
The Taiwan Sub misdeed might have jeopardized the assets of their parent company. That parent company might be coming into a lot of money soon ($1.6B).
$1.6 billion is such an off-the-deep-end number. They'll never get that much (if anything at all).
832Designation(s) under the Madrid Protocol AG - AL - AM - AZ - BA - BQ - BT - BW - BY - CN - CU - CW - CY - GE - GH - HR - IR - IS - KE - KG - KP - LI - LR - LS - MA - MC - MD - ME - MG - MK - MN - MZ - NA - OM - RS - SL - SM - ST - SX - SY - SZ - TM - UA - UZ - VN - ZM
CN 450Publication number and date2011/16 Gaz, 12.05.2011
861Total provisional refusal of protectionThis provisional refusal is not subject to review or appeal before this Office. It is deemed to include a declaration of confirmation of total provisional refusal under Rule 18ter(3).
Name of holder: WEIGUAN KEJI (SHENZHEN YOUXIAN GONGSI)
Address of the holder: 21,23N,SHATOUJIAO BAOSHUIQU, SHENZHEN SHI,GUANGDONG 518081
The document isn't legible enough, but the mark looks like "iPAD"
There's another one for IPAD from the same holder
Date of registration: 2001-12-14
Number of registration:1682310
This one looks like "iPAD" with the i in a circle.
A third mark for I-PAD is from yet another company:
Date of regstration:2001-9-7
Holder: KEQI YOUXIAN GOGSI
In my opinion, it seems that it's impossible to have not done due diligence, someone somewhere along the line dropped the ball since those trademarks were registered in like 2001. I can't read Chinese, so someone else will have to read what it's actually a trademark on. I'm not confident that the Chinese companies were selling a device called "iPAD" that looks anything like what Apple sells.
As a footnote to this. I also happen to have a Proview monitor, which says it's made in China, and lists the address as Proview Electronics in Taiwan.
832Designation(s) under the Madrid Protocol AG - AL - AM - AZ - BA - BQ - BT - BW - BY - CN - CU - CW - CY - GE - GH - HR - IR - IS - KE - KG - KP - LI - LR - LS - MA - MC - MD - ME - MG - MK - MN - MZ - NA - OM - RS - SL - SM - ST - SX - SY - SZ - TM - UA - UZ - VN - ZM
CN 450Publication number and date2011/16 Gaz, 12.05.2011
861Total provisional refusal of protectionThis provisional refusal is not subject to review or appeal before this Office. It is deemed to include a declaration of confirmation of total provisional refusal under Rule 18ter(3).
Name of holder: WEIGUAN KEJI (SHENZHEN YOUXIAN GONGSI)
Address of the holder: 21,23N,SHATOUJIAO BAOSHUIQU, SHENZHEN SHI,GUANGDONG 518081
The document isn't legible enough, but the mark looks like "iPAD"
There's another one for IPAD from the same holder
Date of registration: 2001-12-14
Number of registration:1682310
This one looks like "iPAD" with the i in a circle.
A third mark for I-PAD is from yet another company:
Date of regstration:2001-9-7
Holder: KEQI YOUXIAN GOGSI
In my opinion, it seems that it's impossible to have not done due diligence, someone somewhere along the line dropped the ball since those trademarks were registered in like 2001. I can't read Chinese, so someone else will have to read what it's actually a trademark on. I'm not confident that the Chinese companies were selling a device called "iPAD" that looks anything like what Apple sells.
As a footnote to this. I also happen to have a Proview monitor, which says it's made in China, and lists the address as Proview Electronics in Taiwan.
My guess is that if that were a good analysis, apple would have used it to argue in court. I have not heard Apple make any such claim.
Maybe they have reserved it, but they have already appealed, and no reporting has brought up that issue as having been advanced by Apple.
I think I have not got enough background information about the current lawsuit between Apple and Proview. Today, China Central Television, CCTV tells us that several years before current lawsuit, there was another lawsuit between Apple and Proview. In that lawsuit, Apple wanted take advantage of the code that I have mentioned to deprive Proview's ownership of IPAD trademark. However, the Proview did show its product with IPAD trademark, a LCD screen monitro. So, the local court didn't support Apple, and the Trademark Office gave Proview Shenzhen another ten years for keeping it. Because of that, in current case, Apple doesn't say anything about IPAD trademark is in use or not. CCTV also shows us some document about the Proview's ownership of IPAD, including iPAD. But I still haven't seen any document or product with iPad which is being used by Apple.
However, the Proview did show its product with IPAD trademark, a LCD screen monitro. So, the local court didn't support Apple, and the Trademark Office gave Proview Shenzhen another ten years for keeping it. Because of that, in current case, Apple doesn't say anything about IPAD trademark is in use or not. CCTV also shows us some document about the Proview's ownership of IPAD, including iPAD. But I still haven't seen any document or product with iPad which is being used by Apple.
This is not so relevant, because at the end of 2009, Mr. Yang (aka all Proview companies including Proview Shenzhen) entered a contract selling the iPad China Trademarks (plus other region trademarks) to Apple. This is evidenced in the Hong Kong decision: http://www.hklii.hk/cgi-bin/sinodisp...2011/1375.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by panel_data
I think I have not got enough background information about the current lawsuit between Apple and Proview. Today, China Central Television, CCTV tells us that several years before current lawsuit, there was another lawsuit between Apple and Proview. In that lawsuit, Apple wanted take advantage of the code that I have mentioned to deprive Proview's ownership of IPAD trademark.
Indeed, I'm not sure whether CCTV is giving you the full picture or not. Even if Proview has a 10-year right to it, they released that right to China Trademarks when:
(1) It was sold it to Apple at the end of 2009
(2) China Minsheng Banking Corporation received an Asset Preservation Order for it in March 2010
(3) Apple received an Asset Preservation Order for it in May 2010
(4) It was attempted to be transferred to Yoke Technology (Mr. Yang's own company) in May 2010
Comments
This has already been to court. Apple lost.
They bought all the worldwide rights that one company owned. But that company did not own the rights to China.
The Chinese trademark was registered to a different company. The one that Apple bought from did not own the Chinese rights. Apple did not buy the Chinese rights to the name.
This all seems pretty cut and dried to me. Too bad for Apple. Their due diligence team F'ed up.
Really? Have you seen the agreements that they signed?
Apple says that they purchased the rights from the parent company - which would make them the clear owners.
Proview is not denying that. Rather, they are claiming that since the PRC subsidiary was not at the bargaining table that the deal isn't valid. That is not a reasonable argument.
So where's your evidence that both Apple and Proview are wrong?
Proview won the first round in a local court. That is not uncommon in China. Appeals courts are much more conversant with the law and things get straightened out on appeal all the time.
It appears to be a clear case of seller's remorse. They sold the rights to a company called IPAD and were happy with the deal until they found out that IPAD was a front for Apple. Then, they regretted the decision. Too bad.
China has come closer than most countries to implementing capitalism in its most pure form -- anything and anyone can be bought or sold.
Really? Have you seen the agreements that they signed?
Apple says that they purchased the rights from the parent company - which would make them the clear owners.
Proview is not denying that. Rather, they are claiming that since the PRC subsidiary was not at the bargaining table that the deal isn't valid. That is not a reasonable argument.
So where's your evidence that both Apple and Proview are wrong?
Proview won the first round in a local court. That is not uncommon in China. Appeals courts are much more conversant with the law and things get straightened out on appeal all the time.
It appears to be a clear case of seller's remorse. They sold the rights to a company called IPAD and were happy with the deal until they found out that IPAD was a front for Apple. Then, they regretted the decision. Too bad.
I'm basing my analysis on what was said by the court, as presented by the media, and on other statements made by the media. IIRC, Reuters has been running good articles. But I generally read lots of different sources, especially when dealing with complex subject matter, so I can't point to particular stores to bolster particular facts.
I'm trying not to impose any "I think that it should be THIS way" thoughts onto it, like "which would make them the clear owners". Clearly, the court decided that Apple is NOT the owner. A higher court may reverse that, but for now, from everything I've seen, Apple does NOT own the rights in China.
Edit: I checked a bunch of old stories. Seemingly, Apple did NOT deal with the parent company. They bought the trademarks from a Taiwan Subsidiary, while the Chinese trademark was held by the Chinese subsidiary.
If your analysis depends on Apple buying from the parent company, then you might want to conclude that Apple did not buy the Chinese trademark. Here's a recent analysis by MSNBC:
Chinese legal experts are already arguing that Apple faces long odds of winning. As one lawyer put it, Apple’s negotiating with Proview’s Taiwanese subsidiary is “like negotiating with a son and expecting the father to go along with what was agreed upon.”
With Proview’s ownership of the iPad trademark already established in the Shenzhen courts, it seems doubtful that the Shanghai court will side in favor of Apple and effectively overturn the appeals court in Guangdong.
http://behindthewall.msnbc.msn.com/_...hinese-ibarrel
A friend's company was being sued by a much smaller company that is in dire need of the money.
He wrote a check during a meeting with the other company and said look here, this is the amount of money you want from me, I am going to put this in the bank and with the interest, I am going to hire lawyers to fight you till the end of time. I can go on indefinitely because I am using the interest from money that I will otherwise be giving to you, if you think you can outlast me go ahead, but I know you can't. So how about we settle this for a fraction of what you are asking for and save both sides alot of grief.
I like this bit.
"Give me my bribe, please"
I believe the word you meant was "ransom".
I'm not a lawyer, however, I have read the code carefully. I think there is one thing must be mentioned here. In Trademark Law of China:
Article 30.
Where any person who uses a registered trademark has committed any of the following， the Trademark Office shall order him to rectify the situation within a specified period or even cancel the registered trademark：
（1） Where any word， device or their combination of a registered trademark is altered unilaterally （that is， without the required registration）；
（2） where the name， address or other registered matters concerning the registrant of a registered trademark are changed unilaterally （that is，without the required application）；
（3） where the registered trademark is assigned unilaterally （that is，without the required approval）； and
（4） where the registered trademark has ceased to be used for three consecutive years.
It is very obviously, you can not register a trademark and just keep it, but never use it. If the registered trademark like IPAD has ceased to be used for three consecutive yeas, the Trademark Office can end your ownership. I have not heard that Proview Technology (Shenzhen) has ever used this band in any product. But local Trademark Office still give this company another 10 years to keep IPAD.
Moreover, Apple used a 3rd part company IP Application Development (IPAD) to puchase the registered trademark IPAD in 10 country, however this deal does not mean Apple want to use IPAD as a brand. The only thing Apple want is to avoid any conflict between iPad and IPAD, because those who owned the trademark IPAD can not argue with Apple, or ask for ban. As we all know, the first letter in i-series' brand of Apple is small i not big I, and all the letters after second letter is small, like iPhone, iMac, etc.
So, the Proview Technology (Shenzhen) told the court and media again and again, he registered IPAD first. But he didn't tell anything about how they use this trademark, because they never use it. The corret thing that Chinese Trademark Office must do is accepting their fault and depriving the Proview's ownership of IPAD immediately.
Very true, Apple is a company with a market cap of $500B, including $100B in cash. All of this is vulnerable to a corrupt dictatorial regime and the companies it is involved with. The supply chain is optimized for profits and has few back-up plans and almost no margin of safety. There are all kind of risk like supply chain risks, political risks, natural upheavals, etc.
Worse is the supply chain feeding the competition. The economies of scale paid by Apple can feed the competition like Samsung, Speaking of which, Apple is fighting them in court. Meanwhile, Apple single sources the A class of CPUs to them, buy their panels and even finances them. Duh!
Strategically, Apple should have invested in the Good Ol' USA. Yes, it would have required a huge investment in automation, but economies of scale in automation would have been made for the cost of labor. Look, even Samsung is building a chip plant here in Texas. Instead of Samsung, how about IBM, TXN or even Intel (for a price). They have much more integrity and would unlikely to double cross Apple like Samsung did.
Apple 'should' have invested in the US, but look at the time scale. At the time they would have needed to start such a venture, they didn't have the money to do so. Also, that's a LOT of physical plant development and other capital expenditures.
Tim Cook took a company needing to ramp up and he ramped it up in the most maximal way for Apple and it's shareholders. The guy is a master at it. He's been doing it for ten years!
However, I'm sure he now realizes the game is changing as it always will, and he is currently putting together Plan B. it takes time. All that Law of Large Numbers stuff comes into play here meaning Apple is now so big, demands for its products so enormous that that is the only constraint on them getting bigger! I'm glad they have Tim at the helm because if anyone can pull this off it is him. I believe some jobs will be moved to the US, to the extent that is possible, maybe starting in NC.
Edit: I checked a bunch of old stories. Seemingly, Apple did NOT deal with the parent company. They bought the trademarks from a Taiwan Subsidiary, while the Chinese trademark was held by the Chinese subsidiary.
Ah, if that's right, then it makes more sense that Shenzhen is making claims. Boo.
At this point (and this is just my gut talking), I have to assume there was a misrepresentation of ownership on the part of Taiwan. It's still possible that Apple's people dropped the ball, but that's a pretty big oversight unless there was obfuscation.
Hello, everybody. I come from China.
I'm not a lawyer, however, I have read the code carefully. I think there is one thing must be mentioned here. In Trademark Law of China:
Article 30.
Where any person who uses a registered trademark has committed any of the following， the Trademark Office shall order him to rectify the situation within a specified period or even cancel the registered trademark：
（1） Where any word， device or their combination of a registered trademark is altered unilaterally （that is， without the required registration）；
（2） where the name， address or other registered matters concerning the registrant of a registered trademark are changed unilaterally （that is，without the required application）；
（3） where the registered trademark is assigned unilaterally （that is，without the required approval）； and
（4） where the registered trademark has ceased to be used for three consecutive years.
It is very obviously, you can not register a trademark and just keep it, but never use it. If the registered trademark like IPAD has ceased to be used for three consecutive yeas, the Trademark Office can end your ownership. I have not heard that Proview Technology (Shenzhen) has ever used this band in any product. But local Trademark Office still give this company another 10 years to keep IPAD.
Moreover, Apple used a 3rd part company IP Application Development (IPAD) to puchase the registered trademark IPAD in 10 country, however this deal does not mean Apple want to use IPAD as a brand. The only thing Apple want is to avoid any conflict between iPad and IPAD, because those who owned the trademark IPAD can not argue with Apple, or ask for ban. As we all know, the first letter in i-series' brand of Apple is small i not big I, and all the letters after second letter is small, like iPhone, iMac, etc.
So, the Proview Technology (Shenzhen) told the court and media again and again, he registered IPAD first. But he didn't tell anything about how they use this trademark, because they never use it. The corret thing that Chinese Trademark Office must do is accepting their fault and depriving the Proview's ownership of IPAD immediately.
My guess is that if that were a good analysis, apple would have used it to argue in court. I have not heard Apple make any such claim.
Maybe they have reserved it, but they have already appealed, and no reporting has brought up that issue as having been advanced by Apple.
Ah, if that's right, then it makes more sense that Shenzhen is making claims. Boo.
At this point (and this is just my gut talking), I have to assume there was a misrepresentation of ownership on the part of Taiwan. It's still possible that Apple's people dropped the ball, but that's a pretty big oversight unless there was obfuscation.
It seems right. every source agrees, including AI.
There may well have been misrepresentation. It might be that the Taiwan sub did something wrong and now is liable to Apple for their misdeeds. But I'm not sure if the Taiwan sub has any substantial assets to make Apple whole.
What a friggin mess!
It seems right. every source agrees, including AI.
There may well have been misrepresentation. It might be that the Taiwan sub did something wrong and now is liable to Apple for their misdeeds. But I'm not sure if the Taiwan sub has any substantial assets to make Apple whole.
What a friggin mess!
Substitute 'misrepresentation' with 'miscommunication' maybe?
The point is not whether Foxconn will ever make and market their own branded products. What if there is a dispute in the future? Foxconn, with all its foxconnections in the Chinese establishment will be able to really turn the screws into Apple. If Apple has Foxconn as their sole manufacturing partner, they would be well and truly f***ed if Foxconn turns against them. They need some buffer against this. And the only way is if Apple has other partners in other countries.
There is really no other contract manufacturer as big and good as Foxconn in China or elsewhere.
Like Samsung... But Foxconn is a different kind of company than Samsung and I don't really foresee Foxconn trying to develop, manufacture and market their own-branded products.
HTC used to just be a 3rd party manufacturer...
It seems right. every source agrees, including AI.
There may well have been misrepresentation. It might be that the Taiwan sub did something wrong and now is liable to Apple for their misdeeds. But I'm not sure if the Taiwan sub has any substantial assets to make Apple whole.
What a friggin mess!
The Taiwan Sub misdeed might have jeopardized the assets of their parent company. That parent company might be coming into a lot of money soon ($1.6B).
The Taiwan Sub misdeed might have jeopardized the assets of their parent company. That parent company might be coming into a lot of money soon ($1.6B).
$1.6 billion is such an off-the-deep-end number. They'll never get that much (if anything at all).
Three companies own rights to "IPAD"
A French one: INSTITUT PASTEUR
http://www.wipo.int/romarin/advSearc...ontains+356832
A German one: Siemens Aktiengesellschaft
http://www.wipo.int/romarin/advSearc...ontains+885058
An American one: IP Application Development LLC (Representing Apple)
http://www.wipo.int/romarin/advSearc...ntains+1039213
Note that in the last one:
832Designation(s) under the Madrid Protocol AG - AL - AM - AZ - BA - BQ - BT - BW - BY - CN - CU - CW - CY - GE - GH - HR - IR - IS - KE - KG - KP - LI - LR - LS - MA - MC - MD - ME - MG - MK - MN - MZ - NA - OM - RS - SL - SM - ST - SX - SY - SZ - TM - UA - UZ - VN - ZM
CN 450Publication number and date2011/16 Gaz, 12.05.2011
861Total provisional refusal of protectionThis provisional refusal is not subject to review or appeal before this Office. It is deemed to include a declaration of confirmation of total provisional refusal under Rule 18ter(3).
http://www.wipo.int/romarin//pdf/59/74/5974510.pdf
Scroll down it a bit and you'll see:
The information concerning the earlier mark(s):
Mark:IPAD
Date of application: 2000-1-10
Date of registration:2001-6-21
Number of registration 1590557 (non-Madrid)
Name of holder: WEIGUAN KEJI (SHENZHEN YOUXIAN GONGSI)
Address of the holder: 21,23N,SHATOUJIAO BAOSHUIQU, SHENZHEN SHI,GUANGDONG 518081
The document isn't legible enough, but the mark looks like "iPAD"
There's another one for IPAD from the same holder
Date of registration: 2001-12-14
Number of registration:1682310
This one looks like "iPAD" with the i in a circle.
A third mark for I-PAD is from yet another company:
Date of regstration:2001-9-7
Holder: KEQI YOUXIAN GOGSI
In my opinion, it seems that it's impossible to have not done due diligence, someone somewhere along the line dropped the ball since those trademarks were registered in like 2001. I can't read Chinese, so someone else will have to read what it's actually a trademark on. I'm not confident that the Chinese companies were selling a device called "iPAD" that looks anything like what Apple sells.
As a footnote to this. I also happen to have a Proview monitor, which says it's made in China, and lists the address as Proview Electronics in Taiwan.
do you know the differences of non-madrid over madrid protocol?
http://www.wipo.int/branddb/en/index.jsp
Three companies own rights to "IPAD"
A French one: INSTITUT PASTEUR
http://www.wipo.int/romarin/advSearc...ontains+356832
A German one: Siemens Aktiengesellschaft
http://www.wipo.int/romarin/advSearc...ontains+885058
An American one: IP Application Development LLC (Representing Apple)
http://www.wipo.int/romarin/advSearc...ntains+1039213
Note that in the last one:
832Designation(s) under the Madrid Protocol AG - AL - AM - AZ - BA - BQ - BT - BW - BY - CN - CU - CW - CY - GE - GH - HR - IR - IS - KE - KG - KP - LI - LR - LS - MA - MC - MD - ME - MG - MK - MN - MZ - NA - OM - RS - SL - SM - ST - SX - SY - SZ - TM - UA - UZ - VN - ZM
CN 450Publication number and date2011/16 Gaz, 12.05.2011
861Total provisional refusal of protectionThis provisional refusal is not subject to review or appeal before this Office. It is deemed to include a declaration of confirmation of total provisional refusal under Rule 18ter(3).
http://www.wipo.int/romarin//pdf/59/74/5974510.pdf
Scroll down it a bit and you'll see:
The information concerning the earlier mark(s):
Mark:IPAD
Date of application: 2000-1-10
Date of registration:2001-6-21
Number of registration 1590557 (non-Madrid)
Name of holder: WEIGUAN KEJI (SHENZHEN YOUXIAN GONGSI)
Address of the holder: 21,23N,SHATOUJIAO BAOSHUIQU, SHENZHEN SHI,GUANGDONG 518081
The document isn't legible enough, but the mark looks like "iPAD"
There's another one for IPAD from the same holder
Date of registration: 2001-12-14
Number of registration:1682310
This one looks like "iPAD" with the i in a circle.
A third mark for I-PAD is from yet another company:
Date of regstration:2001-9-7
Holder: KEQI YOUXIAN GOGSI
In my opinion, it seems that it's impossible to have not done due diligence, someone somewhere along the line dropped the ball since those trademarks were registered in like 2001. I can't read Chinese, so someone else will have to read what it's actually a trademark on. I'm not confident that the Chinese companies were selling a device called "iPAD" that looks anything like what Apple sells.
As a footnote to this. I also happen to have a Proview monitor, which says it's made in China, and lists the address as Proview Electronics in Taiwan.
My guess is that if that were a good analysis, apple would have used it to argue in court. I have not heard Apple make any such claim.
Maybe they have reserved it, but they have already appealed, and no reporting has brought up that issue as having been advanced by Apple.
I think I have not got enough background information about the current lawsuit between Apple and Proview. Today, China Central Television, CCTV tells us that several years before current lawsuit, there was another lawsuit between Apple and Proview. In that lawsuit, Apple wanted take advantage of the code that I have mentioned to deprive Proview's ownership of IPAD trademark. However, the Proview did show its product with IPAD trademark, a LCD screen monitro. So, the local court didn't support Apple, and the Trademark Office gave Proview Shenzhen another ten years for keeping it. Because of that, in current case, Apple doesn't say anything about IPAD trademark is in use or not. CCTV also shows us some document about the Proview's ownership of IPAD, including iPAD. But I still haven't seen any document or product with iPad which is being used by Apple.
However, the Proview did show its product with IPAD trademark, a LCD screen monitro. So, the local court didn't support Apple, and the Trademark Office gave Proview Shenzhen another ten years for keeping it. Because of that, in current case, Apple doesn't say anything about IPAD trademark is in use or not. CCTV also shows us some document about the Proview's ownership of IPAD, including iPAD. But I still haven't seen any document or product with iPad which is being used by Apple.
This is not so relevant, because at the end of 2009, Mr. Yang (aka all Proview companies including Proview Shenzhen) entered a contract selling the iPad China Trademarks (plus other region trademarks) to Apple. This is evidenced in the Hong Kong decision: http://www.hklii.hk/cgi-bin/sinodisp...2011/1375.html
I think I have not got enough background information about the current lawsuit between Apple and Proview. Today, China Central Television, CCTV tells us that several years before current lawsuit, there was another lawsuit between Apple and Proview. In that lawsuit, Apple wanted take advantage of the code that I have mentioned to deprive Proview's ownership of IPAD trademark.
Indeed, I'm not sure whether CCTV is giving you the full picture or not. Even if Proview has a 10-year right to it, they released that right to China Trademarks when:
(1) It was sold it to Apple at the end of 2009
(2) China Minsheng Banking Corporation received an Asset Preservation Order for it in March 2010
(3) Apple received an Asset Preservation Order for it in May 2010
(4) It was attempted to be transferred to Yoke Technology (Mr. Yang's own company) in May 2010
This is China afterall.