Proview Versus Apple: Trademark Dispute Keeps Heating Up

by Holly Shoemaker

On Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2012, Proview Technology, a Chinese technology company that is a subsidiary of Proview International, presented arguments at a court hearing saying Apple has violated its trademark by selling iPads throughout mainland China. On Thursday, the court denied Proview’s injunction request that stores temporarily remove iPads from their shelves.

The Dispute

Proview claims it owns the trademark in China and so does Apple. Apple maintains it has the right to use the trademark in China and Proview has no right to produce or sell iPads under the same name. Apple says it bought the naming rights from Proview in 2009. Proview says it never licensed the naming rights and that a subsidiary sold the naming rights to Apple in 2006. Despite that, Proview Technology maintains that the global trademark excludes China.

A Shenzhen court agreed with Proview and ruled in the company’s favor last December. Despite the ruling, Proview has not had the ability to remove iPads from all stores. While some stores have removed iPads, they still account for more than 76 percent of the market share of tablet PCs in China. Apple appealed that ruling and a higher court hearing is scheduled for Feb. 29, 2012.

Dispute Extends to the United States

A representative from Proview Electronics, the subsidiary that Proview Technology claims sold the global trademark to Apple, has confirmed it has filed suit against Apple at the Santa Clara Superior Court on Feb. 17, 2012.

Concluding Thoughts

The lawsuits lack some legitimacy and Proview faces bankruptcy. While Proview International registered trademarks for IPAD in some countries in 2000, the name IPAD does not equal iPad.

It is also interesting that some reports indicate that Proview International sold the IPAD trademark to a company linked to Apple for approximately $55,000 in 2006. Other reports indicate a subsidiary, Proview Electronics, sold the trademark. From my standpoint, there is too much conflicting information on which Proview company took specific actions. I would think Proview would want to ensure consistency in court documents. All this conflicting information makes me wonder how Proview even won some rulings.