iPad Versus IPAD Continues: China’s Higher Court Hears Apple's Appeal

by Holly Shoemaker

On Wednesday, Feb. 29, 2012, the higher People’s Court of Guangzhou heard Apple’s appeal regarding the iPad trademark in mainland China. A lower court had previously ruled in Proview Technology’s favor last December.

Summary of Arguments

• Apple argued if Proview wins the case, it would “confuse consumers and hurt their interests” as the name iPad is associated with Apple, not Proview.
• Proview defended its case and argued that its company employees did not accurately represent the company in negotiations for the trademark. One of Preview's subsidiaries negotiated the sale.

The court did ask the companies if they wished to settle their dispute. Apple and Proview said they would consult their clients. The court did not set a new date or release when the companies should expect a ruling. A ruling could take a couple of weeks to months.

Under Chinese law, the higher court’s verdict is typically final. If Apple loses this round, it could appeal to the Supreme People’s Court for a retrial. However, that remains an unlikely outcome. Analysts say if the case continues without resolution from the higher court, the companies may settle. That would certainly help Proview Technology, a company deep in debt.

Concluding Thoughts

I agree with Apple that the decision affects more than just two companies. China produces many components for iPads and other products. Consumers in China will also be affected as they clearly show an interest in the product. If the higher court rules in favor of Proview, assuming the companies do not settle, people may no longer have jobs either as Apple has large production facilities in China. That has the ability to affect iPad sales in general. If no one produces the needed parts, consumers do not have the same access to a final product.

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.