Lucky that Proview wants them to buy the trademark only twice?
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
The Chinese trademark was not bought by Apple. They bought it in several other countries.
Apple bought the China-registered trademark from Proview Taiwan. (It was Proview Taiwan that had registered the "IPAD" mark IN CHINA.) To reiterate that - anyone doing a search of (mainland) China's trademark database would have seen that it was Proview *Taiwan* that held the mark, and hence that's what Apple purchased.
The MSM paints this as Apple making a big goof, but it wasn't -- this is Proview parent playing fast and loose, trying to put the screws to Apple after Apple legitimately purchased the mark from the entity that had registered it in China, and then added (beaucoup) value to that mark.
I wouldn't because to claim ownership requires repeating endless lies to the courts and media. And in the end I would get nothing but humiliation and huge legal bills.
Assuming you would be lying, that is. Proview may be in the wrong but they may also feel they have a reasonable legal case. Stating their case, obviously skewed to favour themselves, is not the same as lying. Unless you are saying that all lawyers are liars, of course?
The Chinese trademark was not bought by Apple. They bought it in several other countries.
from this website, it looks like that the real fight is between apple and proview's creditors now, not between apple and YANG, the proview's previous owner.
I believe that regardless of the legal findings of the Chinese judicial system, this case will be settled politically (and may have already been). The Chinese cannot afford to have thousands of employees idled just so that Proview gets some money. Nor can they feed the already present distrust by Western companies for the opaqueness of the Chinese courts and government.
I'm not saying it is right, but you can bet that this case is ultimately decided in Apple's favor with perhaps some face-saving gesture for Yang. There seems enough confusion about what happened that this makes it even easier to provide such a solution.
This is about shaking down Apple. Proview has no intention of taking the iPad name back. Their motive is to get Apple to cough up some money. And Apple has a lot of money. If Chinese courts side with Proview I predict a nondisclosure settlement for no where near the $2 billion figure being bandied about. This will definitely leave a bad taste in Apple's mouth regarding China. The Chinese communist government may not be adverse to shaking down a company like Apple but they don't want to take it too far either. After all Foxconn is building a factory in Brazil don't you know.
This will be an interesting case as it works its way through the Chinese courts. On one hand, China needs a large company like Apple to keep employing its workers and injecting money and capital into its economy. On the other, China is nationalistic as hell and runs a pretty good propaganda machine. It wouldn't be very surprising to see Apple lose, get fined and lectured by Chinese judges, etc.
At this point, I see Apple prevailing and Proview rapidly closing up shop. The more troubling aspect of this are some reports that claim Apple "swindled" Proview out of their trademark by purchasing it through a shell company. Of course, this is a perfectly legal and accepted business practice all around the world, but try telling that to certain sensationalist media outlets.
Apple bought the China-registered trademark from Proview Taiwan. (It was Proview Taiwan that had registered the "IPAD" mark IN CHINA.) To reiterate that - anyone doing a search of (mainland) China's trademark database would have seen that it was Proview *Taiwan* that held the mark, and hence that's what Apple purchased.
Apple bought the China-registered trademark from Proview Taiwan. (It was Proview Taiwan that had registered the "IPAD" mark IN CHINA.) To reiterate that - anyone doing a search of (mainland) China's trademark database would have seen that it was Proview *Taiwan* that held the mark, and hence that's what Apple purchased.
The MSM paints this as Apple making a big goof, but it wasn't -- this is Proview parent playing fast and loose, trying to put the screws to Apple after Apple legitimately purchased the mark from the entity that had registered it in China, and then added (beaucoup) value to that mark.
This is a bit like Alice In Wonderland. The person (Yang) who sold Apple the trademark, and put in writing that the sale includes the rights for China, is the same person now claiming that Proview's Shenzhen subsidiary (of which he is also the head) did not agree to sell the Chinese rights. He says he was acting not as the head of the subsidiary that actually held the rights, but as the head of the parent company, which didn't hold the rights. Yet he sold those rights that he didn't have, the rights which he says were not held by the company he was acting on behalf of.
Either way the court rules, this guy should go to jail for fraud.
I dont understand what the hell the court needs to look at. They just need a tiny bit of common sense...
-Apple was a decently wealthy company when they bought the trademark. The only reason they wanted to buy it with a 'special purpose company' was to get the ACTUAL value for the name, not the 'you are a rich company, so you must pay more' value. Also they most likely didn't want to give away any bit their future plans for the iPad (including the name).
-Proview waited nearly 2 years to take Apple to court with all their BS claims. If this was a legitimate claim, they would have filed it as soon as Apple started producing the first iPad in China. Instead they wait until their company literally has nothing to lose in trying this.
-The court should also look at how Apple conducts all their other purchases. This is the only problem (that I know of) in Apple's asset buying career.
I just don't see how the courts can't see this whole thing for what it is. A SCAM. I hope the courts aren't corrupted and let Proview get away with this. I also hope that if Proview's claims get dismissed, the company and the owner and any other officials who claimed this get the book thrown at them. If the court makes an example of this company it will save the court time, and it will teach other companies not to try this.
Two Chinese courts have decided exactly that. Apple is now appealing the decision of one of those courts.
Zither,
Back to your old tricks inventing your own facts to suit your opinions.
To my knowledge there have been at least FOUR Chinese Court cases involving Proview and Apple:: 2 won by Apple and 2 won by Proview.
The HongKong Court FOUND IN FAVOUR OF APPLE's request for an injunction against all the defendants which included Proview's holding company (which is listed in Hongkong and has been declared bankrupt) Proview's Taiwanese company and Proviews two mainland China companies as well as Yang himself, who the Court found controlled all the Proview companies AT ALL MATERIAL TIMES. The Hongkong court issued the following Order, inter alia:
All the Defendants, including Yang Long San, Rowell, are restrained 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 Trademanks
As has been previously pointed out to you HongKong is part of China.
Later a lower provincial Court found in favour of Proview/Yang's claim that they had not sold the iPad trademark to Apple. However in this case Apple were prevented from disclosing as evidence the HongKong Court's findings and evidence. (Subsequently Apple won an Order from the HongKong Court permitting them to disclose and place in evidence the findings and evidence in the HongKong case, which presumably Apple will now be able to use in their Chinese mainland Appeal).
Another lower provincial mainland China Court then found in favour of Proview's application that one retailer in that town be constrained from selling iPads. This Court made NO FINDING OF FACT as to whether Apple or Proview owned the trademark but simply relied on the earlier mainland China case referred to above.
Proview then LOST its case in Shanghai (a much more important jurisdiction) where they made a similar application to ban the sales of iPads which was REFUSED.
So I make that 2-2, not 2-0 as you claim!
Also, there is a perverse inherent contradiction in Proview's case. In mainland China they claim they did not sell the iPad trademark to Apple, but in in the US they claim they DID SELL THE IPAD Trademark to Apple, but were duped into doing so.
Ownership of the Chinese trademark was never decided by that court.
You're parsing words (again), and hanging on to threads. The Hong Kong court said flat out that Yang was an active participant in a conspiracy (the judge's words), and said Proview should have transferred the rights to Apple.
Also, there is a perverse inherent contradiction in Proview's case. In mainland China they claim they did not sell the iPad trademark to Apple, but in in the US they claim they DID SELL THE IPAD Trademark to Apple, but were duped into doing so.
They never denied that the Taiwan company sold the rights in several countries. They are consistent in their denial that the Taiwan company had the ability to sell the Chinese trademark.
Comments
Lucky that Proview wants them to buy the trademark only twice?
The Chinese trademark was not bought by Apple. They bought it in several other countries.
Apple bought the China-registered trademark from Proview Taiwan. (It was Proview Taiwan that had registered the "IPAD" mark IN CHINA.) To reiterate that - anyone doing a search of (mainland) China's trademark database would have seen that it was Proview *Taiwan* that held the mark, and hence that's what Apple purchased.
The MSM paints this as Apple making a big goof, but it wasn't -- this is Proview parent playing fast and loose, trying to put the screws to Apple after Apple legitimately purchased the mark from the entity that had registered it in China, and then added (beaucoup) value to that mark.
I wouldn't because to claim ownership requires repeating endless lies to the courts and media. And in the end I would get nothing but humiliation and huge legal bills.
Assuming you would be lying, that is. Proview may be in the wrong but they may also feel they have a reasonable legal case. Stating their case, obviously skewed to favour themselves, is not the same as lying. Unless you are saying that all lawyers are liars, of course?
The tens of millions of people who have bought iHome products?
and that's why they sold it for $55K. Now of course it turns out to be Apple and the $$$ just lit up their eyes.
And every Chinese court which has issued a decision.
see the pattern?
The Chinese trademark was not bought by Apple. They bought it in several other countries.
from this website, it looks like that the real fight is between apple and proview's creditors now, not between apple and YANG, the proview's previous owner.
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-s...2&MainCatID=11
Two Chinese courts have decided exactly that. Apple is now appealing the decision of one of those courts.
...and Hong Kong is part of which country again?
I'll give you a hint, it starts with 'C'.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...ew?INTCMP=SRCH
I'm not saying it is right, but you can bet that this case is ultimately decided in Apple's favor with perhaps some face-saving gesture for Yang. There seems enough confusion about what happened that this makes it even easier to provide such a solution.
...and Hong Kong is part of which country again?
I'll give you a hint, it starts with 'C'.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...ew?INTCMP=SRCH
A troll would say it's part of whatever country will win him the argument. Starts with a 'C'... must be Croatia.
At this point, I see Apple prevailing and Proview rapidly closing up shop. The more troubling aspect of this are some reports that claim Apple "swindled" Proview out of their trademark by purchasing it through a shell company. Of course, this is a perfectly legal and accepted business practice all around the world, but try telling that to certain sensationalist media outlets.
Apple bought the China-registered trademark from Proview Taiwan. (It was Proview Taiwan that had registered the "IPAD" mark IN CHINA.) To reiterate that - anyone doing a search of (mainland) China's trademark database would have seen that it was Proview *Taiwan* that held the mark, and hence that's what Apple purchased.
I'd love to see a cite for that.
...and Hong Kong is part of which country again?
I'll give you a hint, it starts with 'C'.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...ew?INTCMP=SRCH
Ownership of the Chinese trademark was never decided by that court.
Apple bought the China-registered trademark from Proview Taiwan. (It was Proview Taiwan that had registered the "IPAD" mark IN CHINA.) To reiterate that - anyone doing a search of (mainland) China's trademark database would have seen that it was Proview *Taiwan* that held the mark, and hence that's what Apple purchased.
The MSM paints this as Apple making a big goof, but it wasn't -- this is Proview parent playing fast and loose, trying to put the screws to Apple after Apple legitimately purchased the mark from the entity that had registered it in China, and then added (beaucoup) value to that mark.
This is a bit like Alice In Wonderland. The person (Yang) who sold Apple the trademark, and put in writing that the sale includes the rights for China, is the same person now claiming that Proview's Shenzhen subsidiary (of which he is also the head) did not agree to sell the Chinese rights. He says he was acting not as the head of the subsidiary that actually held the rights, but as the head of the parent company, which didn't hold the rights. Yet he sold those rights that he didn't have, the rights which he says were not held by the company he was acting on behalf of.
Either way the court rules, this guy should go to jail for fraud.
-Apple was a decently wealthy company when they bought the trademark. The only reason they wanted to buy it with a 'special purpose company' was to get the ACTUAL value for the name, not the 'you are a rich company, so you must pay more' value. Also they most likely didn't want to give away any bit their future plans for the iPad (including the name).
-Proview waited nearly 2 years to take Apple to court with all their BS claims. If this was a legitimate claim, they would have filed it as soon as Apple started producing the first iPad in China. Instead they wait until their company literally has nothing to lose in trying this.
-The court should also look at how Apple conducts all their other purchases. This is the only problem (that I know of) in Apple's asset buying career.
I just don't see how the courts can't see this whole thing for what it is. A SCAM. I hope the courts aren't corrupted and let Proview get away with this. I also hope that if Proview's claims get dismissed, the company and the owner and any other officials who claimed this get the book thrown at them. If the court makes an example of this company it will save the court time, and it will teach other companies not to try this.
Two Chinese courts have decided exactly that. Apple is now appealing the decision of one of those courts.
Zither,
Back to your old tricks inventing your own facts to suit your opinions.
To my knowledge there have been at least FOUR Chinese Court cases involving Proview and Apple:: 2 won by Apple and 2 won by Proview.
The HongKong Court FOUND IN FAVOUR OF APPLE's request for an injunction against all the defendants which included Proview's holding company (which is listed in Hongkong and has been declared bankrupt) Proview's Taiwanese company and Proviews two mainland China companies as well as Yang himself, who the Court found controlled all the Proview companies AT ALL MATERIAL TIMES. The Hongkong court issued the following Order, inter alia:
All the Defendants, including Yang Long San, Rowell, are restrained 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 Trademanks
As has been previously pointed out to you HongKong is part of China.
Later a lower provincial Court found in favour of Proview/Yang's claim that they had not sold the iPad trademark to Apple. However in this case Apple were prevented from disclosing as evidence the HongKong Court's findings and evidence. (Subsequently Apple won an Order from the HongKong Court permitting them to disclose and place in evidence the findings and evidence in the HongKong case, which presumably Apple will now be able to use in their Chinese mainland Appeal).
Another lower provincial mainland China Court then found in favour of Proview's application that one retailer in that town be constrained from selling iPads. This Court made NO FINDING OF FACT as to whether Apple or Proview owned the trademark but simply relied on the earlier mainland China case referred to above.
Proview then LOST its case in Shanghai (a much more important jurisdiction) where they made a similar application to ban the sales of iPads which was REFUSED.
So I make that 2-2, not 2-0 as you claim!
Also, there is a perverse inherent contradiction in Proview's case. In mainland China they claim they did not sell the iPad trademark to Apple, but in in the US they claim they DID SELL THE IPAD Trademark to Apple, but were duped into doing so.
http://wiki.mbalib.com/wiki/%E8%8B%B...A0%87%E9%97%A8
Ownership of the Chinese trademark was never decided by that court.
You're parsing words (again), and hanging on to threads. The Hong Kong court said flat out that Yang was an active participant in a conspiracy (the judge's words), and said Proview should have transferred the rights to Apple.
The person (Yang) who sold Apple the trademark,
Yang never owned the Chinese trademark. It is owned by Proview Schenzen, which is a subsidiary of a publicly owned company based in Hong Kong.
Also, there is a perverse inherent contradiction in Proview's case. In mainland China they claim they did not sell the iPad trademark to Apple, but in in the US they claim they DID SELL THE IPAD Trademark to Apple, but were duped into doing so.
They never denied that the Taiwan company sold the rights in several countries. They are consistent in their denial that the Taiwan company had the ability to sell the Chinese trademark.