Exept Apple bought the rights from them. They are just trying to get some extra cash out of the deal...
----------
Because its the same skill set...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple and Proview Face Off in Shanghai Court Over iPad Trademark
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Exept Apple bought the rights from them. They are just trying to get some extra cash out of the deal...
----------
Because its the same skill set...
The Proview iPAD is an ugly piece of excrement! At least when you copy someone, do it right... like the products Samsung produced from copying Apple... at least they have some aesthetic...
Apple has email evidence that the subsidiary owning the trademark knew about and agreed to the sale.
Let's say your uncle sells your car to me, I pay him, but you knew nothing of the deal and you refuse to hand over the car - quite rightfully so. On the other hand, if I have evidence that you agreed that he should sell your car and take the money, then things are different (the situation might arise if you think that your uncle is much better at negotiating or looks more respectable than you do, so you'll get more money if he sells your car instead of you). On the third hand, if I have evidence that you agreed to this, with the intent that the uncle takes my money, you keep the car, and I am getting ripped off, then you are both in trouble.
Actually, you argue all the possible points. Like in a murder case where you say "I wasn't where the murder happened, I didn't have a gun, and I shot him in self defence"
By arguing that Proview doesn't use the trademark and there is no real damage, there's a very remote possibility that the judge decides Proview should hand over the trademarks, Apple should pay them £55,000 in damages (what Apple paid originally), and Apple should sue the other Proview to get their money back. (Possible if a judge doesn't want to decide against a Chinese company for some political reason).Strange claim. I think most TVs have a very distinctive look. I own a Samsung 40" TV, and it looks very different from other TVs. Very distinctive, and quite nice, actually. I'm sure the guys designing the Samsung TVs could have designed a tablet with a very nice and very distinctive look as well. Sadly, Samsung didn't let them.
Last edited:
Assuming the above is correct, it seems like a pretty open shut case of extortion to me. Proview says the sellers of the trademark didn't have the right to sell it, yet stopped offering the product that was being sold under the "ipad" name after the trademark sale date.
I suppose they want to just put that down to coincidence.
THIS....this is the problem right here...Apple bought the rights under a subsidiary dirt cheap and when Proview found out it was Apple they felt jilted and wanted more money
I'm tellin ya I'm definitely not going to get anything under the Proview brand, trying to get 2 billion for this? what a joke.
Great find. Love how Proviews iPAD opens up on the bottom making access to ram and such pretty easy (at least in the pictures).
I wonder how the company managed to spend like $30 million just to produce 10-20,000 units. If the numbers are accurate.
From the HongKong court findings :
Summary :
1. Apple, as B&M holdings purchased iPad trademark from Proview, including all rights in China, Taiwan and HongKong.
2. The parent company Proview clearly stated they own the rights to all the Trademarks.
3. Yang was legal representative, general manager and chairman for Proview Taiwan, Proview Shenzen, and Yoke. In other words, he as the authority to sell the company assets.
4. On December 23rd 2009 Yang sells the trademark to "Apple" for 35,000 pounds.
5. Apple announces "iPad" in January 2010.
6. It is discovered that Proview Shenzen owns the Trademark (Yang is the Chairman)
7. March 2010, Proview Shenzen asks for $10,000,000 for the trademark.
8. Apple refuses and has been fighting since then to gain control of the trademark that they already purchased.
There should be no case here, Proview lied, and deceived B&M until Apple announced their product and then tried to extort money. It seems obvious that Yang saw that B&M was Apple, settled for any money with the intent to extort money later.
Summary :
1. Apple, as B&M holdings purchased iPad trademark from Proview, including all rights in China, Taiwan and HongKong.
2. The parent company Proview clearly stated they own the rights to all the Trademarks.
3. Yang was legal representative, general manager and chairman for Proview Taiwan, Proview Shenzen, and Yoke. In other words, he as the authority to sell the company assets.
4. On December 23rd 2009 Yang sells the trademark to "Apple" for 35,000 pounds.
5. Apple announces "iPad" in January 2010.
6. It is discovered that Proview Shenzen owns the Trademark (Yang is the Chairman)
7. March 2010, Proview Shenzen asks for $10,000,000 for the trademark.
8. Apple refuses and has been fighting since then to gain control of the trademark that they already purchased.
There should be no case here, Proview lied, and deceived B&M until Apple announced their product and then tried to extort money. It seems obvious that Yang saw that B&M was Apple, settled for any money with the intent to extort money later.
Isn't it funny that Apple were the first to use the 'i' term the way it is used today in almost every tech item. Also funny that it looks exactly like the old iMac.
Proview copies Apple then complains about it??
If proview wins this that is a scary thought for the future.
That means someone could potentially trademark breathing.
We would see a lot of good products that we need. Medical stuff etc would be taken down because some ****** asian company had their little things put out of joint because they were not selling anything.
in the end everyone suffers because of some cheap knock off *******s
Proview copies Apple then complains about it??
If proview wins this that is a scary thought for the future.
That means someone could potentially trademark breathing.
We would see a lot of good products that we need. Medical stuff etc would be taken down because some ****** asian company had their little things put out of joint because they were not selling anything.
in the end everyone suffers because of some cheap knock off *******s
Excellent summary, although I thought that B & M initially approached the Shenzhen subsidiary, the legal owner of the Chinese trademark, but were explicitly advised by that subsidiary's representative that he would meet them at the office of the Taiwanese subsidiary, which he claimed was the actual rights-holder (as per the emails submitted by Apple to the Hong Kong court). So Proview Shenzhen lied to B & M about the fact the they were the actual rights holders. Shenzhen Taiwan was complicit in this, having signed over rights to a trademark that they did not own. And the parent company was complicit as well, having been the company to whom payment was made. And, as you state, all companies had the same CEO and legal representative.
The only other thing I would add, as others have mentioned, is:
4a) Immediately following the sale of the iPad trademark, in December 2009, Proview Holdings ceases the production of its iPad all-in-one desktop "internet access device" (which was remarkably similar to the iMac G3)
Last edited:
This is incorrect. One element of proof necessary to obtain a patent is that the invention must be reduced to practice. It cannot be theoretical.
Also, with respect to trademarks, there is a requirement that the mark must be used in commerce. In other words, one cannot obtain enforceable rights in a mark unless it can be shown to be actually used in association with marketing a product or service. International trademark practice presumes that marks are abandoned if they are not used for a period of time, which period can vary depending on the law of the country where the mark is registered. Because of this, it may very well be relevant that Proview no longer has any real commercial existence or marketable products.
Winni, you're just as bad as those you deride; you're as biased as anyone here--you're just the other side of the coin.
You ignore anything that doesn't support your negative view of Apple; for example you're currently ignoring the fact that Apple bought the rights to the "iPad" name and the fact that a Hong Kong court found that Proview et. al. colluded to extort Apple.
Before whining about others wearing blinders, why don't you take off your own?
Yes I feel I have to chime in with the comment that the "IPAD" looks like a crappy original iMac rip off.
Irony indeed.
Irony indeed.
Introducing the new Apple iScrewProview with a high-density Retina display and 9.7" screen...
Steve Jobs to Proview on the Internet Personal Access Device
"You guys don't know what you're doing!"
Trade marks 'Don't even look same!'
I hope Proview are not seriously contending the two trademarks can be confused! I know they both say the same word but if I remember trademark law correctly, as long as the two trademarks are distinguishable and do not look the same, then it could be argued they cannot be confused. Epecially as one is for a tablet and the other a computer. The typeface is completely different for a start off, and I think Apple are very particular about that when they mention their iPad. See what you guys think at the following link from Harvard Uni.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm
I hope Proview are not seriously contending the two trademarks can be confused! I know they both say the same word but if I remember trademark law correctly, as long as the two trademarks are distinguishable and do not look the same, then it could be argued they cannot be confused. Epecially as one is for a tablet and the other a computer. The typeface is completely different for a start off, and I think Apple are very particular about that when they mention their iPad. See what you guys think at the following link from Harvard Uni.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm
Under American trademark law, the iPAD mark would probably fall under the category of a descriptive mark, and would thus only be protected if it had acquired secondary meaning beyond the descriptive term Internet Personal Access Device. Given that the name describes exactly what the device is, and has no additional non-descriptive meaning, it would not be a valid trademark in the United States. It could also be argued that iPad is distinctive from iPAD, especially since iPAD is actually intended as an abbreviation of the device's full name.
Unfortunately, we are dealing with Chinese law and Chinese courts in this case, so this argument is of academic interest only.
Before you call Steve Jobs an *******, glance at ye olde mirror, my friend. Apple bought the name -- there was no killing products. There were no longer any products which is why Proview was willing to sell the name. They just didn't know WHO they were really selling the name to, as Apple was buying under another name.
Apple bought the name. Proview is simply saying Parent company didn't have the right to sell the name. That's what's trying to be sorted out. But let's be clear. Apple bought the name from Proview's parent company. Got it? Good.
But you know all this. You just want to stir the pot.
You are not a trademark lawyer though are you? Shoot higher.
----------
perhaps it is time you stopped frequenting Apple forums?