Apple Settles Chinese 'iPad' Trademark Dispute with Proview for $60 Million

[motorazr]

Missed that. Yeah its butt ugly. But still doesn't negate the fact they had prior registration and right to the trademark.

I think what I, amongst many others (hopefully...), am trying to get at, is not the idea that they had it first. Sure, they did. But Trademarks are supposed to protect a company from having their name (logo, slogan, etc) **STOLEN**, since it is supposed to distinguish their company or product.

However, since the preview iPad name clearly was not the inspiration for Apple's iPad (it's not the Internet Personal Access Device, which is preview's ACTUAL device name....), not to mention that their 'iPad' was already borrowing Apple's iMac design.

Oh well. Doesn't do any good to be upset about it, but its just all these similar suits get annoying, especially with such impeccably large sums of cash just being thrown around.

 

[jacobj]

Does a company really have to tell you its intended usage and value to them? If you sold your house for what seemed like a fair price and the company built an expensive hotel on the site of your home, were they dishonest by not telling you?

You sell for a price between the value to you and the perceived value to the buyer. The buyer does not need to tell you his intended use of the property.

You also forget that Proview was not even using the trademark. They were about to lose the name anyways.

If the developer disguised themselves as a happy young couple looking for a home and then built a hotel, then I would have an issue with it. If they came to me as a developer, then I know what their interests are.

That is all I am, or ever have been saying.

 

[ComputersaysNo]

Good news for everyone who believes in Karma: Proview is getting sued by their own lawyers who helped them getting 60mil from Apple

http://m.engadget.com/2012/07/22/proview-grandall-law-firm-ipad-court-case/?icid=eng_latest_art

 

[Gasu E.]

I was blatant because you seemed to be missing it and still are. I made the argument because you stated it had some kind of inherent value that a trademark does not. That is sims wrong.

I never said any such thing. Also, this is a misguided reaction to my single commentary upon your ravings.

My point, that you are intent on missing, is that Apple deceived the seller. I am not expecting them to reveal the price they were willing to pay, only that they do not deceive the seller by disguising their identity. You seem to be arguing that deception is fine.

I am arguing no such thing. Please read my comment again... and the actual thing you said that I was reacting to.