Taiwanese creditor seeks Proview liquidation at bankruptcy hearing

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Fubon Insurance on Wednesday argued in a Chinese high court to have debtor Proview Technology liquidated and if successful could bring an abrupt end to an ongoing iPad trademark suit being leveled against Apple.

Fubon's hearing with the Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province is in appeal to a lower court ruling in April that blocked the creditor from forcing Proview into bankruptcy, reports Chinese language publication China Daily.

The creditor is seeking to dismantle and liquidate what is left of the of the nearly-dead Proview which according to a March report owes Fubon over $8.6 million. During the hearing Proview's representation argued to uphold the bankruptcy ban, saying that the company's remaining fixed assets with the disputed iPad trademark could help alleviate some of the financial burden.

Legal experts believe that if Fubon's request to liquidate is accepted, Proview's trademark dispute with Apple will come to an end. The court has yet to hand down a final ruling on the matter.

Formerly a thriving display manufacturer, Proview was hit hard during the global economic slowdown and has managed to hold onto one remaining major asset in the iPad moniker. The company's mountainous debt and lack of liquidity has pushed it to feverishly pursue Apple in court, hoping to squeeze a $400 million settlement out of the computer giant.

Proview
Derelict Proview factory with a sign roughly translated to "Do not enter."


Proview first filed claims against Apple in 2010, saying that the Cupertino-based company's purchase of the "global rights" to the iPad name didn't include China.

The case became increasingly convoluted as Proview proceeded to accuse the iPhone maker of fraud and unfair competition on claims that the U.K. proxy company used to buy the iPad trademark, IP Application Development Limited (IPAD Ltd.), concealed the fact that Apple was behind the $55,000 purchase. In May, Apple offered Proview $16 million for the trademark but the settlement was rejected.

Apple rebutted the original complaint with a countersuit in 2011, but the case was rejected by the Intermediate People's Court of Shenzhen. The case is currently being appealed in the same court that heard the Fubon arguments on Wednesday, though judgment has been delayed judgment pending resolution of mediation talks.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 16
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    [VIDEO]

    Let's see if I have this straight…

    Proview International (based in Hong Kong) has subsidiaries in Taiwan (Proview Electronics) and Shenzhen (Proview Technology).

    Proview Electronics sold 'global rights' to Apple, but apparently 'global rights' does not include China (or the US).

    Here's a theory: Perhaps their definition of 'global rights' uses 'global' to mean 'within the company', not the world itself. Since Proview Electronics is a subsidiary of the parent company and the Chinese portion is controlled by a different subsidiary, sales (and use) of the name wouldn't be valid in China.

    Please tell me that's crap, though. :lol:
  • Reply 2 of 16

    Quote:


    Proview first filed claims against Apple in 2010, saying that the Cupertino-based company's purchase of the "global rights" to the iPad name didn't include China.


     




     


     


     


    How can the "Global Rights" not include China?   That doesn't make sense.   Did they really claim that?

  • Reply 3 of 16
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,162member


    The last gasps of a desperate, failed company. Apple can continue to drag this out or offer the Proview CEO a small "retirement" package to make him go away. 

  • Reply 4 of 16
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,275member
    lkrupp wrote: »
    The last gasps of a desperate, failed company. Apple can continue to drag this out or offer the Proview CEO a small "retirement" package to make him go away. 

    Not sure Apple or Proview CEO are free to resolve this on their own at this point. Seems like the court will have the last word. Maybe Apple should offer the judge a retirement package. A free trip to Cupertino to "research" the case followed by a quick petition for asylum. Then a nice "cottage" on Larry Ellison's new island and a lifetime supply of pineapple.
  • Reply 5 of 16
    muncywebmuncyweb Posts: 157member


    They should fix some of the windows on their building. They're going to have a major mold problem on their hands.

  • Reply 6 of 16
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,215member
    [VIDEO]
    Let's see if I have this straight…
    Proview International (based in Hong Kong) has subsidiaries in Taiwan (Proview Electronics) and Shenzhen (Proview Technology).
    Proview Electronics sold 'global rights' to Apple, but apparently 'global rights' does not include China (or the US).
    Here's a theory: Perhaps their definition of 'global rights' uses 'global' to mean 'within the company', not the world itself. Since Proview Electronics is a subsidiary of the parent company and the Chinese portion is controlled by a different subsidiary, sales (and use) of the name wouldn't be valid in China.
    Please tell me that's crap, though. :lol:

    You could be correct about the semantics, but some stories say Apple has communication clarifying the areas included and China was on that list, with the implication they had the right to include it
  • Reply 7 of 16
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member


    Maybe Proview can get together with Kodak to discuss strategy, RIM and Nokia should be available to join in soon.

  • Reply 8 of 16
    bushman4bushman4 Posts: 805member


    Proview is at the end. Apple is not going to settle and the creditprs are not going to wait.

  • Reply 9 of 16
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    hill60 wrote: »
    Maybe Proview can get together with Kodak to discuss strategy, RIM and Nokia should be available to join in soon.

    They can all form one BIG bankrupt company!

    Call it… "OK! I am a provoker win kid." … Because… anagrams.

    Oh! No, call it "Worm-Driven Okapia Ok Ki". Seems more fitting.

    Or "Random Waikiki Provoke", as in "our lawyers are going to get off with millions and vacation in Waikiki where they'll randomly provoke… further lawsuits."
  • Reply 10 of 16

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MuncyWeb View Post


    They should fix some of the windows on their building. They're going to have a major mold problem on their hands.



     


    Those aren't windows, those are "Executive Emergency Exits."

  • Reply 12 of 16

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    Formerly a thriving display manufacturer, Proview was hit hard during the global economic slowdown and has managed to hold onto one remaining major asset in the iPad moniker. 


     


    Really? Hold onto it?  I thought they sold the iPad moniker to a company they thought wasn't Apple. And now you're saying they still own it?

  • Reply 13 of 16

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


     


    Really? Hold onto it?  I thought they sold the iPad moniker to a company they thought wasn't Apple. And now you're saying they still own it?



     


     


    To be fair, that is what the Chinese Court has said.  That is why Apple is appealing their decision.

  • Reply 14 of 16
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,215member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    The case became increasingly convoluted as Proview proceeded to accuse the iPhone maker of fraud and unfair competition on claims that the U.K. proxy company used to buy the iPad trademark, IP Application Development Limited (IPAD Ltd.), concealed the fact that Apple was behind the $55,000 purchase. In May, Apple offered Proview $16 million for the trademark but the settlement was rejected.


     


    1. Using Proxy companies is not illegal and it is a standard tactic to avoid overinflated prices simply due to 'they can afford to pay it


    2 if they had done even 5 minutes of searching they would have found an easy 100 sites that were certain that IP Application Development was a fake name for Apple. 


    3, Proview claims that Apple made the offer of $16 mil. Personally I think they are lying. Apple feels they rightly own the trademark already (and claims to have documentation to back that up) and it's Proview that is committing fraud by not transferring it and claiming that the folks that said they were including China etc didn't have that power. They wouldn't offer to settle particularly at that high an amount. the same $55k is as high as they might go. 

  • Reply 15 of 16
    jdlinkjdlink Posts: 50member


    Please, someone just put them out of our misery.

  • Reply 16 of 16
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post


     


     


     


    How can the "Global Rights" not include China?   That doesn't make sense.   Did they really claim that?



    Yes, they say one subsidiary (Taiwan) sold the "global rights", but that the Chinese rights were owned by a different subsidiary (Shenzhen), so that the Chinese rights weren't actually sold. That means to me that Proview is admitting to committing fraud by its Taiwan subsidiary. Either that or they're committing fraud now (by not actually transferring the rights in China). Proview promised in writing to transfer the Chinese rights, but never did it.


     


    It gets more ridiculous yet - the lawyer who negotiated the deal and signed the papers for Proview is the head lawyer of the Shenzhen subsidiary. Proview says he was acting on behalf of the Taiwan subsidiary, not the Shenzhen subsidiary. But he promised in writing that he had the authority to sell the global rights including China. 


     


    Alice in Wonderland anyone?

Sign In or Register to comment.