Obviously, Hong Kong is part of the People's Republic of China (Communist China) and not the Republic of China (Taiwan).
Interestingly, a Hong Kong court issued an order some time ago which forbade Proview from claiming ownership of the trademarks in question. Seems to me that Proview is in contempt of court - and could suffer pretty severe penalties for that.
Taiwan is Taiwan, China is China, and Hong Kong is Hong Kong.
99 years of British influence didn't pass without making it's mark.
I have many Hong Kong friends (my girlfriend is from there) and the difference is like chalk and cheese. Many get insulted when you call them Chinese.
For the final verdict, we're all going to have to wait and see what the mainland Chinese courts say.
There may be some repercussions if American and European businesses see Apple get screwed in the courts because of "homerism". It may not bode well for China's future as a business hub, although with 1.5 billion people they may be able to get by.
Except 1.45 billion of them are either in the army or poor as crap!
Legally, Hong Kong is part of the People's Republic of China.
The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People's Republic of China is officially part of the People's Republic of China but I don't know if it's legally, as in, laws of Hong Hong carry over to the whole, under China.
Didn't the whole 1997 agreement guarantee one country with two systems for 50 years? I recall it being primarily based on economic matters, which this Proview case clearly is about, so I'd think that Hong Kong's ruling it autonomous of what mainland China's verdict.
The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People's Republic of China is officially part of the People's Republic of China but I don't know if it's legally, s in laws of Hong Hong carry over to the whole, under China.
Didn't the whole 1997 agreement guarantee one country with two systems for 50 years? I recall it being primarily based on economic matters, which this Proview case clearly is about, so I'd think that Hong Kong's ruling it autonomous of what mainland China's verdict.
I believe that they are autonomous except for foreign relations and defense.
Bullet points from the letter regarding false statements:
that Apple's affiliate "mistakenly" transacted with Proview Electronics Co., Ltd. ("Proview Taiwan", Proview's another subsidiary) who did not own the trademarks for IPAD in mainland China;
that "Proview Shenzhen had no knowledge of the trademark transfer";
that Apple's affiliates dealt only with representatieves of Proview Taiwan who "had nothing to do with Proview Shenzhen"; and
that the IPAD trademarks in mainland China "were not included in the package of trademarks under consideration" in the sale.
Well, that's what I've been posting about on these forums the past week.
But how can a Chinese entity trademark anything in a foreign language?
I mean that would be like a big company in the China trademarking a series of Manderin characters, building said item in USA and exporting all over the world , and a USA company saying no we have the right to that name, HUH????
Also, The word "iPad" doesn't have an Chinese equivalent does it? by definiton it is they who are copying Apple right?
Do Chinese companies sell anything in China and use English words on the front?
if so why?
The disputed trademarks are for "iPad" in China. China has established trademark rules (albeit certainly with some issues) for use of trademarks in China. Given their global outlook, I'm sure it's not just for Chinese character trademarks.
Again, the dispute is the use of "iPad" in China alone, not anywhere else.
In any case this is all a Proview scam, as we can see Apple too is fed up of all the gobblededook of information crammed up the Chinese press and legal system ~ classic "bullet spray" business practice in Asia. Throw everything against the wall constantly and hope a brick falls out.
Apple needs to get a hold of Big Brother and let him know there are 400,000 jobs at stake and may have to be moved to Brazil. At least there the judges operate with 'integrity' - meaning that when they accept a bribe, they follow through and deliver.
It's already happening with / without Apple lobbying - thx in large part to the recent expose by the unions / labor right thugs. Foxconn already expressed interest in replacing some of those jobs with machine.
Apple, go get 'em! Smash them! Destroy the corrupt and criminal buggers!
I want to see them crushed to smithereens. Show no mercy, and then move in for the kill. Don't threaten to do something, just go ahead and squash those nasty little maggots already.
Time for that "one sided country" to decide if it believes in rule of law.
The rule of law?? You are referring to the rewritten as it suits pieces of paper made up by each country, state and town to achieve whatever feels important/might get a vote/might helps my friend.
Those rules? Big problem that one eh.
And We aren't quite at the one world government just yet so your rule, or your country's rule isn't china's and since the agreement was with Taiwan which (as far the media makes out) snubs china a bit.
The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People's Republic of China is officially part of the People's Republic of China but I don't know if it's legally, as in, laws of Hong Hong carry over to the whole, under China.
Didn't the whole 1997 agreement guarantee one country with two systems for 50 years? I recall it being primarily based on economic matters, which this Proview case clearly is about, so I'd think that Hong Kong's ruling it autonomous of what mainland China's verdict.
Yes you are right about the two systems. The legal system in HK is based on UK system (well England and Wales, Scotland has a slightly different legal system). In fact when the transfer completed the legal system was not frozen but has adopted most precedent set under UK law post 1997.
The Chinese legal system is very different (not saying it is better or worse, that will depend on your point of view).
A judgement in Hong Kong regarding a company in china could be over-ridden by a chinese judgement with a higher authority.
Some people in China feel that Hong Kong residents look down on them when doing business and I have seen first hand that happen. (My wife is Chinese I am a UK citizen so when we do business in HK we can be in similar meetings but definitely get treated very differently by the same company).
This has led to a certain amount of disdain from some mainland Chinese people about Hong Kong and so if it rules on a case that is then examined under Chinese law, the outcome may well be tainted by the very fact that a Hong Kong court has ruled!
This was always a risk that Apple was taking in having the case heard in HK - they had a much better chance of winning the battle but may have weakened their chance of winning the war.
By the way I am not making a judgement whether the above is fair or not, it is just how it is.
Personally I hope this gets resolved soon as I want to be able to buy the new iPad3 in China without having to pay scalpers fees or waiting till I am next abroad.
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.
Apple entered into a contract on the transfer of the trademark with someone who doesn't actually own the trademark. But this guy is actually an affiliate of the actual owner.
Nope, they entered into the agreement all with the same guy, Mr. Yang.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannysiu
The real trademark owner is on the brink of bankruptcy and is controlled by its creditors.
And that results in blocking iPad in China how exactly? As I mentioned before, who is the real trademark owner? Asset Protection Orders have been given to China Minsheng Bank and Apple itself in Shenzhen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannysiu
To win the trademark, Apple has to bear the burden of proof and establish to the mainland china court that the contractual party has led apple to believe that it has the apparent authority to sell the trademark.
Indeed, the evidence of the emails, the contracts and so on makes it pretty obvious Proview scammed Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannysiu
But Since who owns a trademark is public information and anyone with Internet access can get that info within a few mins from China's trademark office website. It is exeedingly difficult for apple to prove that the entity who sold the trademark led Apple believe it has the authority. Even if Apple wasn't actually aware of this, court may hold that apple shall be responsible for its negligence.
Let's assume Apple was negligent. This makes authorities in China block the sale of iPads at the request of a bankrupt company how? BTW, since Proview Shenzen is under the Proview parent etc all represented by Mr. Yang, it could be shown that Apple knew about the registration under Proview Shenzhen and executed a ~collective~ purchase for efficiency. Proview may have to prove that the parent-subsidiary relationship was both made clear by Proview and that Apple ignored and/or and seriously misunderstood that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannysiu
Since Proview is on the brink of bankruptcy. Apple's claim against Proview would be as useless as any ordinary creditor. Yes, Proview may owe Apple a trademark, but it also owes other creditors millions of dollars. When the trademark is Proview's only asset, there is no legal basis to liquidate the company by satisfying only one creditor, Apple. If the creditors and Apple can't reach an agreement, the trademark will have to be sold through public auction and then every creditor and apple get a slice. Alternatevely, apple has to offer to other creditors big sums of money in exchange for the trademark.
And this blocks iPad in China how? And why would Apple need to buy the same thing twice? If the creditors own the trademark, are they the ones trying to block the iPad?
Don't the creditors have the burden of proof to show that Apple acted negligently and illegally, before iPad sales are blocked? Also, isn't the trademark subject to lapsing because of bankruptcy of a company that already sold the trademark, and in fact applied for the trademark to be sold to another company [Proview Shenzen to Yoke Tech] all under the same person, while the company and that person is bankrupt?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannysiu
I simply do not think any of the above legal framework is exclusive to China. Should this happen in any western jurisdiction, Apple may still have a huge proble. Apple's legal team is the one to blame for its total ignorance and stupidity when they enter into that contract.
Hmm, all I would say is that I disagree, thank goodness Western systems are ~not as~ malfunctioning as Asian legal systems.
Again, in Western countries, if say Apple screwed up in this way, how would a bankrupt company force the state and local government to confiscate goods on the basis of trademarks that they already sold, with said confiscation only affecting secondary dealers?
This is the big scam. Hide behind supposed "legal documents", exploit them at will, one moment saying the rules apply, then the next saying, oh, but we left out one bit.
Comments
Obviously, Hong Kong is part of the People's Republic of China (Communist China) and not the Republic of China (Taiwan).
Interestingly, a Hong Kong court issued an order some time ago which forbade Proview from claiming ownership of the trademarks in question. Seems to me that Proview is in contempt of court - and could suffer pretty severe penalties for that.
Taiwan is Taiwan, China is China, and Hong Kong is Hong Kong.
99 years of British influence didn't pass without making it's mark.
I have many Hong Kong friends (my girlfriend is from there) and the difference is like chalk and cheese. Many get insulted when you call them Chinese.
For the final verdict, we're all going to have to wait and see what the mainland Chinese courts say.
Taiwan is Taiwan, China is China, and Hong Kong is Hong Kong.
99 years of British influence didn't pass without making it's mark.
I have many Hong Kong friends (my girlfriend is from there) and the difference is like chalk and cheese. Many get insulted when you call them Chinese.
For the final verdict, we're all going to have to wait and see what the mainland Chinese courts say.
I've eaten cheese that tasted like chalk... or, just a minute...
Taiwan is Taiwan, China is China, and Hong Kong is Hong Kong.
99 years of British influence didn't pass without making it's mark.
I have many Hong Kong friends (my girlfriend is from there) and the difference is like chalk and cheese. Many get insulted when you call them Chinese.
For the final verdict, we're all going to have to wait and see what the mainland Chinese courts say.
I really couldn't care less what your friends get insulted over. Your friends have apparently been asleep for the last decade.
Legally, Hong Kong is part of the People's Republic of China.
I really couldn't care less what your friends get insulted over. Your friends have apparently been asleep for the last decade.
Legally, Hong Kong is part of the People's Republic of China.
So if I were to ask China whose is Hong Kong they'd say China. CHECK!
Any wonder what they'd say if asked about Taiwan? Would Honk Kong courts differ?
There may be some repercussions if American and European businesses see Apple get screwed in the courts because of "homerism". It may not bode well for China's future as a business hub, although with 1.5 billion people they may be able to get by.
Except 1.45 billion of them are either in the army or poor as crap!
Legally, Hong Kong is part of the People's Republic of China.
The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People's Republic of China is officially part of the People's Republic of China but I don't know if it's legally, as in, laws of Hong Hong carry over to the whole, under China.
Didn't the whole 1997 agreement guarantee one country with two systems for 50 years? I recall it being primarily based on economic matters, which this Proview case clearly is about, so I'd think that Hong Kong's ruling it autonomous of what mainland China's verdict.
I understand how they could (if they won this battle) ban sales with-in China, but how can they ban exports to other countries?
The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People's Republic of China is officially part of the People's Republic of China but I don't know if it's legally, s in laws of Hong Hong carry over to the whole, under China.
Didn't the whole 1997 agreement guarantee one country with two systems for 50 years? I recall it being primarily based on economic matters, which this Proview case clearly is about, so I'd think that Hong Kong's ruling it autonomous of what mainland China's verdict.
I believe that they are autonomous except for foreign relations and defense.
Bullet points from the letter regarding false statements:
that Apple's affiliate "mistakenly" transacted with Proview Electronics Co., Ltd. ("Proview Taiwan", Proview's another subsidiary) who did not own the trademarks for IPAD in mainland China;
that "Proview Shenzhen had no knowledge of the trademark transfer";
that Apple's affiliates dealt only with representatieves of Proview Taiwan who "had nothing to do with Proview Shenzhen"; and
that the IPAD trademarks in mainland China "were not included in the package of trademarks under consideration" in the sale.
Well, that's what I've been posting about on these forums the past week.
Now do you believe me?
Excuse me for pointing out something obvious
But how can a Chinese entity trademark anything in a foreign language?
I mean that would be like a big company in the China trademarking a series of Manderin characters, building said item in USA and exporting all over the world , and a USA company saying no we have the right to that name, HUH????
Also, The word "iPad" doesn't have an Chinese equivalent does it? by definiton it is they who are copying Apple right?
Do Chinese companies sell anything in China and use English words on the front?
if so why?
The disputed trademarks are for "iPad" in China. China has established trademark rules (albeit certainly with some issues) for use of trademarks in China. Given their global outlook, I'm sure it's not just for Chinese character trademarks.
Again, the dispute is the use of "iPad" in China alone, not anywhere else.
In any case this is all a Proview scam, as we can see Apple too is fed up of all the gobblededook of information crammed up the Chinese press and legal system ~ classic "bullet spray" business practice in Asia. Throw everything against the wall constantly and hope a brick falls out.
Apple needs to get a hold of Big Brother and let him know there are 400,000 jobs at stake and may have to be moved to Brazil. At least there the judges operate with 'integrity' - meaning that when they accept a bribe, they follow through and deliver.
It's already happening with / without Apple lobbying - thx in large part to the recent expose by the unions / labor right thugs. Foxconn already expressed interest in replacing some of those jobs with machine.
Apple, go get 'em! Smash them! Destroy the corrupt and criminal buggers!
I want to see them crushed to smithereens. Show no mercy, and then move in for the kill. Don't threaten to do something, just go ahead and squash those nasty little maggots already.
And then do the same to Android, please.
I hope Apple sues Proview to submission.
Into oblivion would be good.
Time for that "one sided country" to decide if it believes in rule of law.
The rule of law?? You are referring to the rewritten as it suits pieces of paper made up by each country, state and town to achieve whatever feels important/might get a vote/might helps my friend.
Those rules? Big problem that one eh.
And We aren't quite at the one world government just yet so your rule, or your country's rule isn't china's and since the agreement was with Taiwan which (as far the media makes out) snubs china a bit.
I suppose to conclude, we do not have a clue
The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People's Republic of China is officially part of the People's Republic of China but I don't know if it's legally, as in, laws of Hong Hong carry over to the whole, under China.
Didn't the whole 1997 agreement guarantee one country with two systems for 50 years? I recall it being primarily based on economic matters, which this Proview case clearly is about, so I'd think that Hong Kong's ruling it autonomous of what mainland China's verdict.
Yes you are right about the two systems. The legal system in HK is based on UK system (well England and Wales, Scotland has a slightly different legal system). In fact when the transfer completed the legal system was not frozen but has adopted most precedent set under UK law post 1997.
The Chinese legal system is very different (not saying it is better or worse, that will depend on your point of view).
A judgement in Hong Kong regarding a company in china could be over-ridden by a chinese judgement with a higher authority.
Some people in China feel that Hong Kong residents look down on them when doing business and I have seen first hand that happen. (My wife is Chinese I am a UK citizen so when we do business in HK we can be in similar meetings but definitely get treated very differently by the same company).
This has led to a certain amount of disdain from some mainland Chinese people about Hong Kong and so if it rules on a case that is then examined under Chinese law, the outcome may well be tainted by the very fact that a Hong Kong court has ruled!
This was always a risk that Apple was taking in having the case heard in HK - they had a much better chance of winning the battle but may have weakened their chance of winning the war.
Personally I hope this gets resolved soon as I want to be able to buy the new iPad3 in China without having to pay scalpers fees or waiting till I am next abroad.
Facts are actually pretty simple here.
Apple entered into a contract on the transfer of the trademark with someone who doesn't actually own the trademark. But this guy is actually an affiliate of the actual owner.
The real trademark owner is on the brink of bankruptcy and is controlled by its creditors.
To win the trademark, Apple has to bear the burden of proof and establish to the mainland china court that the contractual party has led apple to believe that it has the apparent authority to sell the trademark. But Since who owns a trademark is public information and anyone with Internet access can get that info within a few mins from China's trademark office website. It is exeedingly difficult for apple to prove that the entity who sold the trademark led Apple believe it has the authority. Even if Apple wasn't actually aware of this, court may hold that apple shall be responsible for its negligence.
Further, even if Apple did manage to establish the "apparent authority" argument and is supported by the court, and the court found the agreement on trademark transfer binding on the actual owner, Proview Shenzhen. Apple faces another huge obstacle:
Since Proview is on the brink of bankruptcy. Apple's claim against Proview would be as useless as any ordinary creditor. Yes, Proview may owe Apple a trademark, but it also owes other creditors millions of dollars. When the trademark is Proview's only asset, there is no legal basis to liquidate the company by satisfying only one creditor, Apple. If the creditors and Apple can't reach an agreement, the trademark will have to be sold through public auction and then every creditor and apple get a slice. Alternatevely, apple has to offer to other creditors big sums of money in exchange for the trademark.
I simply do not think any of the above legal framework is exclusive to China. Should this happen in any western jurisdiction, Apple may still have a huge proble. Apple's legal team is the one to blame for its total ignorance and stupidity when they enter into that contract.
So many china brasher here.
Don't worry, we have some China apologists too.
Facts are actually pretty simple here.
Indeed.
Apple entered into a contract on the transfer of the trademark with someone who doesn't actually own the trademark. But this guy is actually an affiliate of the actual owner.
Nope, they entered into the agreement all with the same guy, Mr. Yang.
The real trademark owner is on the brink of bankruptcy and is controlled by its creditors.
And that results in blocking iPad in China how exactly? As I mentioned before, who is the real trademark owner? Asset Protection Orders have been given to China Minsheng Bank and Apple itself in Shenzhen.
To win the trademark, Apple has to bear the burden of proof and establish to the mainland china court that the contractual party has led apple to believe that it has the apparent authority to sell the trademark.
Indeed, the evidence of the emails, the contracts and so on makes it pretty obvious Proview scammed Apple.
But Since who owns a trademark is public information and anyone with Internet access can get that info within a few mins from China's trademark office website. It is exeedingly difficult for apple to prove that the entity who sold the trademark led Apple believe it has the authority. Even if Apple wasn't actually aware of this, court may hold that apple shall be responsible for its negligence.
Let's assume Apple was negligent. This makes authorities in China block the sale of iPads at the request of a bankrupt company how? BTW, since Proview Shenzen is under the Proview parent etc all represented by Mr. Yang, it could be shown that Apple knew about the registration under Proview Shenzhen and executed a ~collective~ purchase for efficiency. Proview may have to prove that the parent-subsidiary relationship was both made clear by Proview and that Apple ignored and/or and seriously misunderstood that.
Since Proview is on the brink of bankruptcy. Apple's claim against Proview would be as useless as any ordinary creditor. Yes, Proview may owe Apple a trademark, but it also owes other creditors millions of dollars. When the trademark is Proview's only asset, there is no legal basis to liquidate the company by satisfying only one creditor, Apple. If the creditors and Apple can't reach an agreement, the trademark will have to be sold through public auction and then every creditor and apple get a slice. Alternatevely, apple has to offer to other creditors big sums of money in exchange for the trademark.
And this blocks iPad in China how? And why would Apple need to buy the same thing twice? If the creditors own the trademark, are they the ones trying to block the iPad?
Don't the creditors have the burden of proof to show that Apple acted negligently and illegally, before iPad sales are blocked? Also, isn't the trademark subject to lapsing because of bankruptcy of a company that already sold the trademark, and in fact applied for the trademark to be sold to another company [Proview Shenzen to Yoke Tech] all under the same person, while the company and that person is bankrupt?
I simply do not think any of the above legal framework is exclusive to China. Should this happen in any western jurisdiction, Apple may still have a huge proble. Apple's legal team is the one to blame for its total ignorance and stupidity when they enter into that contract.
Hmm, all I would say is that I disagree, thank goodness Western systems are ~not as~ malfunctioning as Asian legal systems.
Again, in Western countries, if say Apple screwed up in this way, how would a bankrupt company force the state and local government to confiscate goods on the basis of trademarks that they already sold, with said confiscation only affecting secondary dealers?
This is the big scam. Hide behind supposed "legal documents", exploit them at will, one moment saying the rules apply, then the next saying, oh, but we left out one bit.