Proview says settlement with Apple over iPad trademark 'likely'

Posted:
in iPad edited January 2014
Proview's lawyer has indicated that the company believes it will "likely" reach an out-of-court settlement with Apple in its disagreement over ownership of the iPad trademark in China.

The Associated Press reports that the Guangdong High Court is mediating the settlement talks between the two companies.

"It is likely that we will settle out of court. The Guangdong High Court is helping to arrange it and the court also expects to do so," said Proview lawyer Ma Dongxiao.

"Actually Proview always expected to settle out of court from the beginning," he added. "I don't know if Apple has changed its attitude, but I believe that the key point now is the price."

The report noted that court officials declined to discuss the case with foreign media. Apple said in a statement that it would never "knowingly abuse someone else's trademarks" and added that Proview is trying to get more money to pay off its outstanding debts.

Proview


Reports emerged last week that apple and Proview were discussing a settlement. If the two companies are unable to reach an agreement, the Chinese court will issue its ruling.

Apple maintains that it purchased the Chinese iPad trademark rights from Proview in 2009. Proview argues that the deal did not go through because representatives from the Shenzhen subsidiary that owns the mark were not present when the contract was signed.

Proview made a name for itself as a monitor maker, but it has fallen on hard times. The company reportedly owes a total of $400 million to a number of a creditors, including several prominent Chinese banks.

The negotiations come as Apple is preparing to release its third-generation iPad in China. The Cupertino, Calif., has already received some of the regulatory approvals required to sell the tablet in the country.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 32
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    "We'll settle for you never bothering us again, how's that?"

  • Reply 2 of 32


    Hey Tallest, looks like that was your 10,100th post! Congrats.


     


    Anyhow, looks like Christmas came early this year for one bankrupt Chinese company.

  • Reply 3 of 32


    What a crock, unless something came up that Apple knew they couldn't beat.  

  • Reply 4 of 32


    Proview realizing Apple won't cave to their criminal demands and that they better take what money they can, even though it'll be a fraction of what they want.

  • Reply 5 of 32
    realisticrealistic Posts: 1,154member


    I will be disappointed if Apple pays any substantial amount.

  • Reply 6 of 32
    penchantedpenchanted Posts: 1,070member


    I've said all along that this would be settled politically and I believe this confirms that. Don't think for an instant that this was not a topic of conversation when Tim Cook met with Chinese government officials. I am pretty certain the Chinese government had no intention of allowing anything that might jeopardize Chinese jobs long-term (which this issue has the potential to do) to happen and was the reason I said that the opaqueness of the Chinese justice system was a benefit to Apple. All that is left is for Apple to provide some Chinese government-determined face-saving accommodation for this shell of a once successful Chinese company.

  • Reply 7 of 32
    The content of the settlement? An x amount of money providing that the guy that at the center of this not earn anything but the creditors only and that HE must do menial jobs FOR Apple at Foxconn. For example, highly corrosive chemical mixing station operator. Muahahahaha (slightly over the top there...)
  • Reply 8 of 32
    jpdlvmhjpdlvmh Posts: 72member


    I don't really understand this whole thing.


    If Apple did buy then surely they must have paid for it and there's a record of a money transfer ?


    Who received the money ?     Where did the money go ?

  • Reply 9 of 32
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

    Hey Tallest, looks like that was your 10,100th post! Congrats.


     


    Anyhow, looks like Christmas came early this year for one bankrupt Chinese company.



     


    Wait, really? I see exactly 100 more than that. Maybe the forum counts all deleted posts and I've had exactly 100 posts deleted… image


     


    EDIT: Ladies and gentlemen, never post mere minutes after waking. image

  • Reply 10 of 32
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JPDLVMH View Post


    I don't really understand this whole thing.


    If Apple did buy then surely they must have paid for it and there's a record of a money transfer ?


    Who received the money ?     Where did the money go ?



     


    Please read up on what has happened since I doubt if anyone wants to give you the entire history here. You have a choice of Internet search engines.




    Essentially, the dispute is over whether Apple bought the trademark from the correct Proview corporation. They have 3 corporations in different countries and allege that the corporation that sold Apple the trademark was not the legal owner.

  • Reply 11 of 32


    Chinese judgement is one thing and execution is another.  There is not contempt of court which means if you deny court judgement there is new felony charge against you.  [I had seen that cae loser threaten the Judge.]  All the court could do is seizure money from your bank.  But where is Apple Corporation's bank account?  Proview has provide the account information to the court for it to seizure.  I sue and win many judgements in China; but at the end the court tells me that sorry!  They have little means to execute judgements.  In one case, eviction of a business tenant, the court claimed that the renter refused to move and they cannot do any thing.  I file the eviction with the court on Feb 8, 2012.  I won the judgement last December.  The court post the eviction notice on the door on 4/2, and the renter remove the notice the same day.  All Apple has to do is change iPad name for a year, Proview will go bankrupt and than Apple can do all it wanted to do.

  • Reply 12 of 32
    not1lostnot1lost Posts: 136member


    How would you like to have a name like "Guangdong!" image

     

  • Reply 13 of 32
    haarhaar Posts: 563member
    <div class="quote-container"> <span>Quote:</span> <div class="quote-block"> Originally Posted by <strong>Suddenly Newton</strong> <a href="/t/149554/proview-says-settlement-with-apple-over-ipad-trademark-likely#post_2099823"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /> Hey <strong>Tallest</strong>, looks like that was your 10,100th post! Congrats.<br /> <p>  </p> <p> Anyhow, looks like Christmas came early this year for one bankrupt Chinese company.</p> </div></div><p>  </p><p> Wait, really? I see exactly 100 more than that. Maybe the forum counts all deleted posts and I've had exactly 100 posts deleted… <img id="yui_3_4_1_2_1335263616934_164" src="/img/vbsmilies/smilies//lol.gif" /></p><p>  </p><p> EDIT: Ladies and gentlemen, never post mere minutes after waking. <img id="yui_3_4_1_2_1335263616934_164" src="/img/vbsmilies/smilies//lol.gif" /></p>

    <strong>or perhaps not trying to be the first poster in an article... bah-dum-ba/rimshot</strong>



    NEWS-FLASH : i thought proview was fighting over the iPad trademark... not the trademark "likeily"... perhaps a better headline would have been...
    Proview likeily to settle with Apple over iPad trademark ...


    so how does one use sarcasm in a headline....
  • Reply 14 of 32
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

    Essentially, the dispute is over whether Apple bought the trademark from the correct Proview corporation. They have 3 corporations in different countries and allege that the corporation that sold Apple the trademark was not the legal owner.


     


    Forgive me if I misunderstand how corporations work but… why does that matter at all? If Touchstone uses Disney properties in one of its movies, Disney wouldn't sue Touchstone, would they? Would they even be able to? 


     


    As long as the company "Proview" is the same company as "Proview" (other country), they should have a common property base, shouldn't they?

  • Reply 15 of 32


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Realistic View Post


    I will be disappointed if Apple pays any substantial amount.



     


    I doubt that the amount will be publicly known.

  • Reply 16 of 32


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JPDLVMH View Post


    I don't really understand this whole thing.


    If Apple did buy then surely they must have paid for it and there's a record of a money transfer ?


    Who received the money ?     Where did the money go ?



     


    The contract was signed and the money went to the Taiwanese subsidiary.  They owned the trademark in all jurisdictions except China.  The Chinese subsidiary did not sign the sales contract, and so did not sell the rights in China.


     


    That is the Reader's Digest condensed version.

  • Reply 17 of 32
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by joeliu58 View Post


    Chinese judgement is one thing and execution is another.  There is not contempt of court which means if you deny court judgement there is new felony charge against you.  [I had seen that cae loser threaten the Judge.]  All the court could do is seizure money from your bank.  But where is Apple Corporation's bank account?  Proview has provide the account information to the court for it to seizure.  I sue and win many judgements in China; but at the end the court tells me that sorry!  They have little means to execute judgements.  In one case, eviction of a business tenant, the court claimed that the renter refused to move and they cannot do any thing.  I file the eviction with the court on Feb 8, 2012.  I won the judgement last December.  The court post the eviction notice on the door on 4/2, and the renter remove the notice the same day.  All Apple has to do is change iPad name for a year, Proview will go bankrupt and than Apple can do all it wanted to do.



     


    That's not going to happen. Proview owes its creditors millions of dollars. If Proview goes bankrupt, the creditors would receive the trademarks (if any). That would leave the creditors to sue Apple if there's any validity to the complaint. And since the creditors are large, multinational banks, they aren't going out of business.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Forgive me if I misunderstand how corporations work but… why does that matter at all? If Touchstone uses Disney properties in one of its movies, Disney wouldn't sue Touchstone, would they? Would they even be able to? 


     


    As long as the company "Proview" is the same company as "Proview" (other country), they should have a common property base, shouldn't they?



     


    They are completely different companies. Proview Taiwan is a different company than Proview Hong Kong which is a different company from Proview PRC (I'm not going to look up the actual names because it doesn't matter in this context). It is actually quite common to set up different companies in different countries because of different tax laws but also because it creates some protection from creditors and from liability.


     


    What Proview is alleging is that Proview PRC owned the 'iPad' trademark, but Apple actually arranged a deal with Proview Taiwan - which had no legal right to sell it. If Proview wins that argument, then Apple would not have any rights to the trademark and Proview Taiwan would have to return Apple's payment.



    It would be as if I wanted to buy your car and negotiated a deal and paid your brother. You would have every right to object.




    Of course, Apple claims that they were negotiating with Proview PRC (which owned the trademark) but Proview PRC told them to do the deal with Proview Taiwan (since the same person heads all three companies). If that's the case, it's clear fraud and Apple could get an order for the deal to go through. 



    Either Proview committed clear and undeniable fraud or Apple's lawyers slipped up. None of us has enough facts to figure out which is the case. The only court to actually rule on trademark ownership is the Hong Kong court which ruled that Proview could not claim ownership.

  • Reply 18 of 32
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


     


     


    The contract was signed and the money went to the Taiwanese subsidiary.  They owned the trademark in all jurisdictions except China.  The Chinese subsidiary did not sign the sales contract, and so did not sell the rights in China.


     


    That is the Reader's Digest condensed version.



     


    Well, no. 



    That is the "I believe everything that Proview says because I will accept anything that puts Apple in a bad light" version. Just the version we'd expect from you.

  • Reply 19 of 32


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


     


     


    The contract was signed and the money went to the Taiwanese subsidiary.  They owned the trademark in all jurisdictions except China.  The Chinese subsidiary did not sign the sales contract, and so did not sell the rights in China.


     


    That is the Reader's Digest condensed version.



     


    Well, no. 



    That is the "I believe everything that Proview says because I will accept anything that puts Apple in a bad light" version. Just the version we'd expect from you.



     


    That is the version based on the actual documents which were posted a couple of monts ago.,

  • Reply 20 of 32
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

    What Proview is alleging is that Proview PRC owned the 'iPad' trademark, but Apple actually arranged a deal with Proview Taiwan - which had no legal right to sell it. If Proview wins that argument, then Apple would not have any rights to the trademark and Proview Taiwan would have to return Apple's payment.




    Of course, Apple claims that they were negotiating with Proview PRC (which owned the trademark) but Proview PRC told them to do the deal with Proview Taiwan (since the same person heads all three companies). If that's the case, it's clear fraud and Apple could get an order for the deal to go through. 



    Either Proview committed clear and undeniable fraud or Apple's lawyers slipped up. None of us has enough facts to figure out which is the case. The only court to actually rule on trademark ownership is the Hong Kong court which ruled that Proview could not claim ownership.



     


    So why isn't this cut and dry? Find the IP address of the e-mail correspondence for the deal. From PRC, well… From Taiwan, well… How can Apple not know who they did business with?


     


    Back in the day it was as easy as reading the watermark at the top of the documents used in the transition. Proview PRC logo? Apple wins. Proview Taiwan logo? Proview wins. Digitization's a slippery slope. image


     


    Thanks for the clarification.

Sign In or Register to comment.