So what on earth does it mean when a Chinese court advises a course of action? Is that a judgement of some kind, or just a threat of a visit from some uniformed friends of the plaintiff if they don't follow the advice?
Did it really win another victory? Or is this Proview's Lawyers acting under the direction of the CEO with more miss leading stories of victory. Apple is only concerned with one mainland China high court as to who has really won this case. Apple has said it bought the rights from Proview for the iPad trademark and is waiting for the high court to rule on this. Proview is hoping for a win because they're in Bankruptcy right now. Apple has tens of thousands of chinese workers in manufacturing plants. If China doesn't side with Apple, I'm sure Apple will move there manufacturing somewhere else which would mean a major loss in jobs in that country. I don't honestly think that Apple would have made a product with the name iPad if they didn't make sure the name was secure as best as they could. One company thinks they can get around this and I hope they will Fail!
Did it really win another victory? Or is this Proview's Lawyers acting under the direction of the CEO with more miss leading stories of victory. Apple is only concerned with one mainland China high court as to who has really won this case. Apple has said it bought the rights from Proview for the iPad trademark and is waiting for the high court to rule on this. Proview is hoping for a win because they're in Bankruptcy right now. Apple has tens of thousands of chinese workers in manufacturing plants. If China doesn't side with Apple, I'm sure Apple will move there manufacturing somewhere else which would mean a major loss in jobs in that country. I don't honestly think that Apple would have made a product with the name iPad if they didn't make sure the name was secure as best as they could. One company thinks they can get around this and I hope they will Fail!
This is incredibly naive - in several respects.
1. Even if the judgment were to cost Apple $1 B (not likely, btw), Apple is not going to move production out of China any time soon. Maybe some trial balloons like Brazil, but the cost advantage to being in China is more than you can imagine.
2. China is not going to be bullied by threats of loss of jobs. While Apple (indirectly) employs hundreds of thousands of people, that's only a very tiny fraction of total manufacturing work. China can not be seen as forcing the court to rule on the basis of politics. The High Court in China and the Chinese government are working very hard to respect intellectual property and to join the rest of the world in recognizing legal processes. They're not going to throw that out simply for one case - even for a large customer. Plus, of course, they recognize that Apple can't simply pull out any time soon, as well.
This is what's been boggling me for a while now. How could have Apple missed the part of due diligence where they ascertain who actually owns the thing they're trying to buy.
Now, my only question is what the actual wording on the agreement says. If it's Yang's name on the agreement and if it says "worldwide" rights (insofar as they were held by a company owned directly or indirectly by Yang), it would seem Apple is in the clear, and it's just Chinese politics at play. The alternative is that the agreement explicitly specifies all the countries that Proview (or it's subsidiaries) owned except in China, then Apple is over a proverbial barrel.
Either way, it still seems like Proview is trying to pull a fast one. The specific wording I wonder about will tell whether they actually meant to do it up front, or if it was after the fact (as in, after they realized IP Application Development was making the deal so Apple could get the rights), when they thought they might be able to squeeze a bit more out of the deal.
I don't think you have to worry about the exact wording. The Judge will have seen all the evidence and the arguments of both side, before he came to the firm and unequivocal conclusion siding with Apple and rejecting Yang's and Proview's defence.
I agree with you: it appears very evident from the Judgment that Yang is trying to pull a fast one!
Apple's agents was actually taken for a ride by Proview Hong Kong, paid for a license that really wasn't covered the Mainland but the people who do the negotiation didn't read it through. Cupertino office didn't though something was amiss either. Until now...
So, was it a simple lack of due diligent on Apple's part, or Proview set the trap all along? Kind of Proview office on Mainland, Hong Kong and Taipei knew this all along it wasn't a complete license and there is a big omission in it. And now Proview springs the trap...
Just read the judgement carefully rather than making up your own facts and arriving at baseless conclusions about Apple's lack of due diligence.
The judge clearly believes that Apple were victims of a conspiracy to breach the agreement. Think about this (page 11):
"?The conduct of all the defendants demonstrate that they have combined together with the common intention of injuring Apple and IP Application by acting in breach of the Agreement?Proview Holdings, Proview Electronics and Proview Shenzhen, all clearly under Yang?s control, have refused to take any steps to ensure compliance with the agreement so that the China trademarks are properly assigned. Instead, they attempted to exploit the situation as a business opportunity for the the Proview Group by seeking an amount of US$10,000,000 from Apple?
The Judge, who saw all the evidence and heard all the arguments, found in favour of Apple and against all the Defendants including Yang and in Judgment in his order he:
RESTRAINS ALL OF THEM from making any oral or written representation to any other person(s) to the effect that they are, or any one of them is, the proprietor(s) and/or owner(s) of the IPAD trade mark (Registration No. 1590557, registered in Class 9 of the Register of Trade Marks of the People?s Republic of China) and the IPAD stylised trade mark (Registration No. 1682310 rgistered in Class 9 of the Register Of Trade Marks of the People?s Republic of China) (hereafter referred to as the ?Subject Trademarks) and/or have title, rights and/or interests in the Subject Trademarks, and or is in aposition to sell, transfer, assign, otherwise dispose of and/or give good title to the Subject Trademarks.
won a small legal victory on Friday as the Intermediate People's Court in Huizhou handed down a ruling against the sale of Apple's ubiquitous tablet.
LOL...The People's Court? So Apple's loser ex-boyfriend is suing her for the trademark after she kicked him out for not getting a job and paying his share of the rent?
I think it's time for the WTO to get involved. If China wants to enjoy the privileges of being a player in the world economy, it's time they stop acting like some adolescent 3rd-world country, accept their responsibilities and put an end to this sort of mickey mouse shit.
This is a pure greed from a bankrupted Taiwanese company who tried to play with games. The creditors include some Chinese banks who have access to influence the lower court judge and local officials. That Taiwanese CEO should fail and go to hell.
1. Even if the judgment were to cost Apple $1 B (not likely, btw), Apple is not going to move production out of China any time soon. Maybe some trial balloons like Brazil, but the cost advantage to being in China is more than you can imagine.
2. China is not going to be bullied by threats of loss of jobs. While Apple (indirectly) employs hundreds of thousands of people, that's only a very tiny fraction of total manufacturing work. China can not be seen as forcing the court to rule on the basis of politics. The High Court in China and the Chinese government are working very hard to respect intellectual property and to join the rest of the world in recognizing legal processes. They're not going to throw that out simply for one case - even for a large customer. Plus, of course, they recognize that Apple can't simply pull out any time soon, as well.
Heck, there are other choices in Vietnam or Thailand.
If "Hong Kong is part of China", and if "the court in Hong Kong was a high court", then why is there any need to appeal the lower Chinese courts? According to what you laid out, the Hong Kong court has already over ruled them.
Or maybe the Hong Kong court is NOT a higher Chinese Court and DID NOT over rule the two lower court decisions?
Please. These International legal things are complicated. Trying to suss out what you think is right, even when it flies in the face of the facts, is not a good method.
Proview, the Shenzhen company that is claiming trademark rights to the 'iPad' name, said it won a small legal victory on Friday as the Intermediate People's Court in Huizhou handed down a ruling against the sale of Apple's ubiquitous tablet.
Citing a statement by Proview's lawyer Xie Xianghui, the Associated Press reported on Monday that the court in China's Guangdong province advised distributors to halt sales of the iPad, though it is unclear what effect the judgment will have on the ongoing dispute.
The ruling further muddies the already complex trademark battle that has seen Proview file suits against Apple in numerous courts; asking commercial authorities to block iPad sales in 40 cities.
Recent reports from customs officials in the country note that such a ban would be difficult to enforce, however, because of the popularity of the device.
There has been no official move to ban Apple's tablet in mainland China, though local authorities in select areas have seized at least 45 units.
Adding to the confusion are conflicting decisions from a December ruling in Proview's favor that is currently under appeal at the High Court in Guangdong, and an earlier ruling from a Hong Kong court that sided with Apple.
Perhaps most difficult is jurisdiction as the suit revolves around claims that Apple made an unauthorized transaction when it purchased the "iPad" name from a Taiwanese affiliate of Shenzhen's Proview Technology, which itself is a subsidiary of Hong Kong-based Proview International Holdings.
Proview sued Apple in 2011, claiming that not only is Apple using the "iPad" moniker illegally in China, but allege that the company surreptitiously acquired the trademark through U.K. proxy company IP Application Development in 2010.
The Chinese company is seeking $38 million in damages and an apology from the iPad maker.
Just read the judgement carefully rather than making up your own facts and arriving at baseless conclusions about Apple's lack of due diligence.
The judge clearly believes that Apple were victims of a conspiracy to breach the agreement. Think about this (page 11):
"?The conduct of all the defendants demonstrate that they have combined together with the common intention of injuring Apple and IP Application by acting in breach of the Agreement?Proview Holdings, Proview Electronics and Proview Shenzhen, all clearly under Yang?s control, have refused to take any steps to ensure compliance with the agreement so that the China trademarks are properly assigned. Instead, they attempted to exploit the situation as a business opportunity for the the Proview Group by seeking an amount of US$10,000,000 from Apple?
The Judge, who saw all the evidence and heard all the arguments, found in favour of Apple and against all the Defendants including Yang and in Judgment in his order he:
RESTRAINS ALL OF THEM from making any oral or written representation to any other person(s) to the effect that they are, or any one of them is, the proprietor(s) and/or owner(s) of the IPAD trade mark (Registration No. 1590557, registered in Class 9 of the Register of Trade Marks of the People?s Republic of China) and the IPAD stylised trade mark (Registration No. 1682310 rgistered in Class 9 of the Register Of Trade Marks of the People?s Republic of China) (hereafter referred to as the ?Subject Trademarks) and/or have title, rights and/or interests in the Subject Trademarks, and or is in aposition to sell, transfer, assign, otherwise dispose of and/or give good title to the Subject Trademarks.
There is no ambiguity about the above.
I wonder what the penalties are for Contempt of Court in China?
Apple's case doesn't seem to be very strong, from legal perspective
Apple entered into a contract on the transfer of the trademark with someone who doesn't actually own the trademark. But this guy is actually an affiliate of the actual owner.
The real trademark owner is on the brink of bankruptcy and is controlled by its creditors.
To win the trademark, Apple has to bear the burden of proof and establish to the mainland china court that the contractual party has led apple to believe that it has the apparent authority to sell the trademark. But Since who owns a trademark is public information and anyone with Internet access can get that info within a few mins from China's trademark office website. It is exeedingly difficult for apple to prove that the entity who sold the trademark led Apple believe it has the authority. Even if Apple wasn't actually aware of this, court may hold that apple shall be responsible for its negligence.
Further, even if Apple did manage to establish the "apparent authority" argument and is supported by the court, and the court found the agreement on trademark transfer binding on the actual owner, Proview Shenzhen. Apple faces another huge obstacle:
Since Proview is on the brink of bankruptcy. Apple's claim against Proview would be as useless as any ordinary creditor. Yes, Proview may owe Apple a trademark, but it also owes other creditors millions of dollars. When the trademark is Proview's only asset, there is no legal basis to liquidate the company by satisfying only one creditor, Apple. If the creditors and Apple can't reach an agreement, the trademark will have to be sold through public auction and then every creditor and apple get a slice. Alternatevely, apple has to offer to other creditors big sums of money in exchange for the trademark.
I simply do not think any of the above legal framework is exclusive to China. Should this happen in any western jurisdiction, Apple may still have a huge proble. Apple's legal team is the one to blame for its total ignorance and stupidity when they enter into that contract.
Comments
If China doesn't side with Apple, I'm sure Apple will move there manufacturing somewhere else
Not much chance of that. Apple is joined at the hip to China. At least for now.
You base your conclusions on personal guesswork as to "what the Chinese government" might "want".
No, with regard to your inane comments, I based my conclusions on the actual Court records!
The final part of my reply was questions, not conclusions. (Can't you read?)
Its up to each reader to come to their own conclusions regarding the questions.
Did it really win another victory? Or is this Proview's Lawyers acting under the direction of the CEO with more miss leading stories of victory. Apple is only concerned with one mainland China high court as to who has really won this case. Apple has said it bought the rights from Proview for the iPad trademark and is waiting for the high court to rule on this. Proview is hoping for a win because they're in Bankruptcy right now. Apple has tens of thousands of chinese workers in manufacturing plants. If China doesn't side with Apple, I'm sure Apple will move there manufacturing somewhere else which would mean a major loss in jobs in that country. I don't honestly think that Apple would have made a product with the name iPad if they didn't make sure the name was secure as best as they could. One company thinks they can get around this and I hope they will Fail!
This is incredibly naive - in several respects.
1. Even if the judgment were to cost Apple $1 B (not likely, btw), Apple is not going to move production out of China any time soon. Maybe some trial balloons like Brazil, but the cost advantage to being in China is more than you can imagine.
2. China is not going to be bullied by threats of loss of jobs. While Apple (indirectly) employs hundreds of thousands of people, that's only a very tiny fraction of total manufacturing work. China can not be seen as forcing the court to rule on the basis of politics. The High Court in China and the Chinese government are working very hard to respect intellectual property and to join the rest of the world in recognizing legal processes. They're not going to throw that out simply for one case - even for a large customer. Plus, of course, they recognize that Apple can't simply pull out any time soon, as well.
This is what's been boggling me for a while now. How could have Apple missed the part of due diligence where they ascertain who actually owns the thing they're trying to buy.
Now, my only question is what the actual wording on the agreement says. If it's Yang's name on the agreement and if it says "worldwide" rights (insofar as they were held by a company owned directly or indirectly by Yang), it would seem Apple is in the clear, and it's just Chinese politics at play. The alternative is that the agreement explicitly specifies all the countries that Proview (or it's subsidiaries) owned except in China, then Apple is over a proverbial barrel.
Either way, it still seems like Proview is trying to pull a fast one. The specific wording I wonder about will tell whether they actually meant to do it up front, or if it was after the fact (as in, after they realized IP Application Development was making the deal so Apple could get the rights), when they thought they might be able to squeeze a bit more out of the deal.
I don't think you have to worry about the exact wording. The Judge will have seen all the evidence and the arguments of both side, before he came to the firm and unequivocal conclusion siding with Apple and rejecting Yang's and Proview's defence.
I agree with you: it appears very evident from the Judgment that Yang is trying to pull a fast one!
So let me see if you think what I think;
Apple's agents was actually taken for a ride by Proview Hong Kong, paid for a license that really wasn't covered the Mainland but the people who do the negotiation didn't read it through. Cupertino office didn't though something was amiss either. Until now...
So, was it a simple lack of due diligent on Apple's part, or Proview set the trap all along? Kind of Proview office on Mainland, Hong Kong and Taipei knew this all along it wasn't a complete license and there is a big omission in it. And now Proview springs the trap...
Just read the judgement carefully rather than making up your own facts and arriving at baseless conclusions about Apple's lack of due diligence.
The judge clearly believes that Apple were victims of a conspiracy to breach the agreement. Think about this (page 11):
"?The conduct of all the defendants demonstrate that they have combined together with the common intention of injuring Apple and IP Application by acting in breach of the Agreement?Proview Holdings, Proview Electronics and Proview Shenzhen, all clearly under Yang?s control, have refused to take any steps to ensure compliance with the agreement so that the China trademarks are properly assigned. Instead, they attempted to exploit the situation as a business opportunity for the the Proview Group by seeking an amount of US$10,000,000 from Apple?
The Judge, who saw all the evidence and heard all the arguments, found in favour of Apple and against all the Defendants including Yang and in Judgment in his order he:
RESTRAINS ALL OF THEM from making any oral or written representation to any other person(s) to the effect that they are, or any one of them is, the proprietor(s) and/or owner(s) of the IPAD trade mark (Registration No. 1590557, registered in Class 9 of the Register of Trade Marks of the People?s Republic of China) and the IPAD stylised trade mark (Registration No. 1682310 rgistered in Class 9 of the Register Of Trade Marks of the People?s Republic of China) (hereafter referred to as the ?Subject Trademarks) and/or have title, rights and/or interests in the Subject Trademarks, and or is in aposition to sell, transfer, assign, otherwise dispose of and/or give good title to the Subject Trademarks.
There is no ambiguity about the above.
I guess I shouldn't bother adding the "sarcasm off" symbol if people are going to ignore it...
Try using "/sarcasm" instead of "/s"
won a small legal victory on Friday as the Intermediate People's Court in Huizhou handed down a ruling against the sale of Apple's ubiquitous tablet.
LOL...The People's Court? So Apple's loser ex-boyfriend is suing her for the trademark after she kicked him out for not getting a job and paying his share of the rent?
I think it's time for the WTO to get involved. If China wants to enjoy the privileges of being a player in the world economy, it's time they stop acting like some adolescent 3rd-world country, accept their responsibilities and put an end to this sort of mickey mouse shit.
This is a pure greed from a bankrupted Taiwanese company who tried to play with games. The creditors include some Chinese banks who have access to influence the lower court judge and local officials. That Taiwanese CEO should fail and go to hell.
This is incredibly naive - in several respects.
1. Even if the judgment were to cost Apple $1 B (not likely, btw), Apple is not going to move production out of China any time soon. Maybe some trial balloons like Brazil, but the cost advantage to being in China is more than you can imagine.
2. China is not going to be bullied by threats of loss of jobs. While Apple (indirectly) employs hundreds of thousands of people, that's only a very tiny fraction of total manufacturing work. China can not be seen as forcing the court to rule on the basis of politics. The High Court in China and the Chinese government are working very hard to respect intellectual property and to join the rest of the world in recognizing legal processes. They're not going to throw that out simply for one case - even for a large customer. Plus, of course, they recognize that Apple can't simply pull out any time soon, as well.
Heck, there are other choices in Vietnam or Thailand.
If "Hong Kong is part of China", and if "the court in Hong Kong was a high court", then why is there any need to appeal the lower Chinese courts? According to what you laid out, the Hong Kong court has already over ruled them.
Or maybe the Hong Kong court is NOT a higher Chinese Court and DID NOT over rule the two lower court decisions?
Please. These International legal things are complicated. Trying to suss out what you think is right, even when it flies in the face of the facts, is not a good method.
And besides, didn't the Hong Kong court say that
Chinese court uses "relationship" law
Proview, the Shenzhen company that is claiming trademark rights to the 'iPad' name, said it won a small legal victory on Friday as the Intermediate People's Court in Huizhou handed down a ruling against the sale of Apple's ubiquitous tablet.
Citing a statement by Proview's lawyer Xie Xianghui, the Associated Press reported on Monday that the court in China's Guangdong province advised distributors to halt sales of the iPad, though it is unclear what effect the judgment will have on the ongoing dispute.
The ruling further muddies the already complex trademark battle that has seen Proview file suits against Apple in numerous courts; asking commercial authorities to block iPad sales in 40 cities.
Recent reports from customs officials in the country note that such a ban would be difficult to enforce, however, because of the popularity of the device.
There has been no official move to ban Apple's tablet in mainland China, though local authorities in select areas have seized at least 45 units.
Adding to the confusion are conflicting decisions from a December ruling in Proview's favor that is currently under appeal at the High Court in Guangdong, and an earlier ruling from a Hong Kong court that sided with Apple.
Perhaps most difficult is jurisdiction as the suit revolves around claims that Apple made an unauthorized transaction when it purchased the "iPad" name from a Taiwanese affiliate of Shenzhen's Proview Technology, which itself is a subsidiary of Hong Kong-based Proview International Holdings.
Proview's 'iPAD' computer. | Source: The Wall Street Journal
Proview sued Apple in 2011, claiming that not only is Apple using the "iPad" moniker illegally in China, but allege that the company surreptitiously acquired the trademark through U.K. proxy company IP Application Development in 2010.
The Chinese company is seeking $38 million in damages and an apology from the iPad maker.
[ View article on AppleInsider ]
Hello, short seller
Just read the judgement carefully rather than making up your own facts and arriving at baseless conclusions about Apple's lack of due diligence.
The judge clearly believes that Apple were victims of a conspiracy to breach the agreement. Think about this (page 11):
"?The conduct of all the defendants demonstrate that they have combined together with the common intention of injuring Apple and IP Application by acting in breach of the Agreement?Proview Holdings, Proview Electronics and Proview Shenzhen, all clearly under Yang?s control, have refused to take any steps to ensure compliance with the agreement so that the China trademarks are properly assigned. Instead, they attempted to exploit the situation as a business opportunity for the the Proview Group by seeking an amount of US$10,000,000 from Apple?
The Judge, who saw all the evidence and heard all the arguments, found in favour of Apple and against all the Defendants including Yang and in Judgment in his order he:
RESTRAINS ALL OF THEM from making any oral or written representation to any other person(s) to the effect that they are, or any one of them is, the proprietor(s) and/or owner(s) of the IPAD trade mark (Registration No. 1590557, registered in Class 9 of the Register of Trade Marks of the People?s Republic of China) and the IPAD stylised trade mark (Registration No. 1682310 rgistered in Class 9 of the Register Of Trade Marks of the People?s Republic of China) (hereafter referred to as the ?Subject Trademarks) and/or have title, rights and/or interests in the Subject Trademarks, and or is in aposition to sell, transfer, assign, otherwise dispose of and/or give good title to the Subject Trademarks.
There is no ambiguity about the above.
I wonder what the penalties are for Contempt of Court in China?
Incorrect, see above. There is no brother, father, mother, sister, uncle. It's all one guy.
ignore zzz, he is a troll pure and simple.
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.