It appears from the email correspondence and the actual agreement that between the two, the name of the company was changed in the legal agreement from Proview Technology to Proview Electronics, even though it was signed by a representative of Proview Technology. The Chinese subsidiary (Proview Technology), owner of the Chinese trademark, agreed in its emails to sell that trademark to Apple's shell company. However, when it drafted its legal agreement, Proview Technology changed the name on the agreement to Proview Electronics, the Hong Kong subsidiary that did not own the trademark. This was a clear effort to mislead Apple's representative, and in most courts, would be considered fraud. Proview Technology knowingly misrepresented itself on the written agreement as Proview Electronics, fully aware that Apple was intending to purchase the rights from the legal owner, Proview Technology. To me, this looks like signing a legal document with someone else's name, then claiming it is invalid because it is not your signature on the document. It is unfortunate that Apple's lawyers missed the name change on the document, because catching this deception would have left Proview Technology no evidence to support its claim. Essentially, Proview Technology sold Apple a counterfeit trademark agreement, and then sued Apple for stealing the trademark that was the subject of the false agreement. Proview Technology claims that Proview Electronics made the sale without its consent, but it is clear from the correspondence that it was Proview Technology, not Proview Electronics, that Apple's shell company was dealing with. To be honest, I find it amazing that even China's corrupt courts sided with Proview Technology on this matter.
