Showing posts with label iPad. Show all posts
Showing posts with label iPad. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

iPad, youPad, wePad? Who Is the Owner of the Trademark in China?

iPads for sale in the Apple Store at Central, Hong Kong
 Photo Danny Friedmann
Apple introduced a third category, in between a laptop and smartphone, on January 27, 2010 (see the late Steve Jobs give the presentation here and demonstration here and here). April 3, 2010 it was intoduced in the U.S. and one month later in other places around the world. Two months later already a million of these devices were sold. And according to Reuters, Apple has sold 15.43 million iPads in the last 14 weeks of 2011.

So Jobs vision became reality. But how to name this third category? 

" ... and we call it the iPad." 
That other companies had already registered the name iPad in some jurisdictions could be solved, so the thinking went. For this purpose Apple set up a special purpose company to acquire these trademarks in all relevant jurisdictions. The name of the company IP Application Development Limited is interesting, because abbreviated it is IPAD Ltd. 

In the acquisition process, or rather effort to assign the trademark, a mistake was made. IPAD Ltd. and Proview Holdings, Proview Electronics (Taiwan) and Proview Technology (Shenzhen) entered into a written agreement, December 2009, whereby they agreed to sell, transfer and assign the Chinese trademark of iPad to IPAD Ltd. for £35,000. However, in the written agreement Proview Electronics (Taiwan) pretended to be the proprietor of the trademark and "assigned" the trademark to IPAD Ltd. But the real proprietor was Proview Technology (Shenzhen). John Paczkowski seems to have gathered some of the documents, see here. Then Proview Technology (Shenzhen) started to try to enjoin the sale of iPads in China for alleged infringement of their iPad trademark, and was successful in cities such as Shijiazhuang and Huizhou, according to David Levine in an article for Reuters. Or, if Apple wanted to avoid getting banned from the Chinese shops and gain control over the iPad trademark, they had to pay 10,000 U.S dollar. 
Also it became clear that Proview Technology (Shenzhen) had lodged applications with the Trademark Office, part of the State Administration for Industry and Commmerce, to transfer the Chinese iPad trademarks to Yoke Technology on May 7, 2010. 

The mistake by IPAD Ltd/Apple could have been easily prevented. If you go to Trademark Search of China's Trademark Office, part of State Administration for Industry and Commerce, and type in IPAD in class international trademark 9, you will see that Proview Technology (Shenzhen) registered the trademark January 10, 2000, see registration number 1590557 and that the effective period of exclusive right: June 21, 2011-June 20, 2021, however, it seems to be repealed because of non-use for three years). Also Proview Technology (Shenzhen) has registered the stylized version of the trademark, international trademark class 9, under registration number 1682310, application date September 19, 2000. Effective period of exclusive right: December 14, 2001- December 13, 2011. Continued after objection. So at least IPAD Ltd could have easily found a starting point to trace who owns the iPad trademark for international trademark class 9. 

Everybody knows Apple these days, but Proview used to be famous too. Proview Group is a producer of display devices, which  include LCD monitors, CRT monitors and flat-panel digital products. It has operations and offices around the world, including Taiwan, Mainland China (Shenzhen and Wuhan), Hong Kong and Europe. Proview Holdings was incorporated in Bermuda and is listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. Proview International Holdings Ltd was the first Taiwanese technology company to list in Hong Kong, and was quite successful. In 1999 it teamed up with U.S. chip maker National Semiconductor "to launch the I-PAD, a stripped-down desktop computer whose main selling points were its Internet connectivity and ease of use." Then Proview was hit by the financial crisis and May 12, 2010, the Hong Kong Stock Exchange issued a notice that trading of Proview Holdings’ shares had been suspended. Read here Jeremy Wagstaff and Lee Chyen Yee's Reuters article on Proview's rise and demise, see here.

Timeline
May 20, 2011, Apple Inc. and IPAD Ltd filed a lawsuit in Hong Kong against Proview International Holding Ltd, Proview Electronics Co (Taiwan) Ltd, Proview Technology (Shenzhen), Yang Rong-Shan (founder of the Proview Group and  chairman and CEO of Proview Holdings who was adjudicated bankrupt on August 2, 2010) and Yoke Technology (Shenzhen). The Hong Kong case reveals many of the relevant facts: High Court Of The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Court Of First Instance, Action no. 739 of 2010  (HCA739/2010). On June 28, 2011 the Poon J. (潘兆初法官), decided and July 14, 2011 he motivated his decision to allow  the interlocutory injunction and restrain the defendants to "sell, transfer, assign, otherwise dispose of and/or give good title" to the Chinese iPad trademarks. 

May 24, 2010, Apple instituted proceedings against Proview Technology (Shenzhen) in the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court and filed an application for Asset Preservation Order (APO) in respect of the Chinese iPad trademarks. June 12, 2010 the application was granted on 12 June 2010, subject to the APOs obtained by some other Mainland banks.

Proview Technology (Shenzhen) has started suing Apple resellers at the Shenzhen Futian District Court (December 30, 2011) and Huizhou Intermediate People's Court (January 7, 2012), read Katrin Hille's FT article here and about Apple losing there here, at Stan Abram's China Hearsay.

According to Shenzhen Media People’s Court Apple lost its trademark ownership on December 6, 2011, see Huang Mengren's article here. Apple decided to appeal at the Guangdong Higher People's Court.
February 22, 2012, there was a trademark infringement case between Proview and Apple at the Shanghai  Pudong New Area People's Court. Apple was successful to the extent that Apple's iPads were not banned from the shelves. But as Stan Abrams of China Hearsay made clear, see here and here, the real question is who owns the iPad trademark. This will be decided at the Guangdong Higher People's Court, February 29, 2012.

In the mean time Proview Electronics (Taiwan) has accused Apple of fraud in a lawsuit filed at the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. See here. However, in contrast to trademark lawyer Martin Schwimmer of The Trademark Blog, who was quoted by David Levine responding to the case: "I have never encountered this level of ruse", see here: I think it is not so strange nor unusual if you set up a special purpose company for the acquisition of a name such as iPad. Especially since iPhone is so ubiquitously known that if Apple pursued the trademark iPad, it would have definitely driven up the price, as this case proofs: from 35,000 pounds to 10 million U.S. dollars. There is no legal requirement to disclose the reason why you want to buy a trademark. Or is there?
continue reading ...

Thursday, December 08, 2011

Will the iPad Trademark Be Apple's Forbidden Fruit?

Must Apple resellers in Dongmen, Shenzhen stop selling iPads?
Photo: Danny Friedmann
Kathrin Hille wrote for the Financial Times (FT) that (mother company) Proview Electronics of Taiwan agreed to sell Apple the “global trademark” for the iPad name for 35,000 UK pounds, according to Proview. "[B]ut the two companies have subsequently disagreed about whether that deal included China", read Ms Hill's FT article here.

Of course there is no such thing as a global trademark, that is why Ms Hill put it between quotation marks. Trademarks are rather territorial creatures. It is beyond my imagination that the lawyers of Apple did not check whether the trademarks for the iPad in China were included. If I would buy something for 35,000 UK pounds, I would check and double check.

When Apple applied for the iPad trademark in China, it was rejected by the trademark office, because Proview Technology already owned the trademark. And Apple sought a declaration of invalidity at the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court. The FT reports that the court rejected this request by Apple earlier this week. Apple can, and I am certain, they will appeal.

In the short term Apple has more problems, now that Proview Technology (Shenzhen) has started suing Apple resellers at the Shenzhen Futian District Court (December 30, 2011) and Huizhou Intermediate People's Court (January 7, 2012). 

Guangdong Guanghe land Grandall were the law firms that assisted Proview.

UPDATE: More about ongoing trademark battles between Proview versus Apple here.

continue reading ...

Saturday, December 18, 2010

Parallel Universe Shenzhen: Where The iPads Run on Android

Androids have landed on Shenzhen's beach
Photo Danny Friedmann
By Michiel Tjoe-Awie

The market penetration of Google's Android mobile operating system came second, behind Nokia's Symbian but was preferred above Apple's iOS. The iPad is still the most popular “pad”. Wouldn’t it be great if we could have the best of both worlds. I mean that Apple would strike a deal with Google to make a variation of iPad, running on Google's Android operating system. Unthinkable? Why? Just because it should contradict Apple’s goal to dominate the market for operating systems? Remember you once learned the difference between a consumers (demand) market, and a manufacturers (supply) market? If the consumer dictates the manufacturer what to make we talk about a demand market, a manufacturers market works the other way around. The Chinese plan economy was a typical example of the latter. But thinks has changed. Now it provides only what the market wants. No boundaries. The market has made it’s request and has produced a miraculous new product. Something like a beautiful woman that likes to watch football or a child that likes to listen or a dog that doesn’t smell or an iPad with a Android operating system. What? I said: “an iPad with an Android operating system!”

Copycats are not hindered by the animosity between Steve Jobs and Eric Schmidt (from Google). So the unthinkable has become true in the parallel universe of cloning:

Neo of Shanzhai reports that the second generation iPad inspired device in that parallel universe for clones, copycats and counterfeiters Shenzhen will be manufactured with a Google's Android 2.2 operating system.
By the way in this case the Apple logo was not used on the clone. Design patents and copyright, and even trademark (for the use of the name iPad or when the form was registered as trademark) might be infringed.
Read the Shanzhai article with pictures of genuine and clone for that parlour game: find the differences here.

Text Michiel Tjoe-Awie
continue reading ...

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Nexocial, Dutch Copycat in China

Hugo Leijtens, an ex-Microsoft employee, went two years ago to Chengdu, he describes as the new Silicon Valley. There he became the Chief Technical Officer of Nexocial, a company that came up with an iPad clone in just three months: the nPad, which works on Microsoft Windows C. The nPad will be launched April 3, while the iPad will be launched next summer.

Presenter Jort Kelder of the Dutch television programme about entrepreneurs 'Bij ons in de BV' (With us in the private company) asked Mr Leijtens the following question: "Are you not a petty thief, in the best Chinese tradition?"
Mr Leijtens reply: "I believe Apple has said once 'Good artists borrow. Great artists steal.' "

IP Dragon is wondering whether Apple will sue Nexocial. If they do, let's see if Mr Leijtens will repeat that one liner in court.
The Nexocial site http://www.nexocial.com is not in the air. Don't know what that means.

Read also Willemien Groot's article about Nexocial for Radio Netherlands Worldwide here.
continue reading ...

Wednesday, February 03, 2010

Is Apple's iPad a Knockoff from Shenzhen Great Dragon Brother's P88, Or Is the Latter A Case Of Pre-emtive Cloning?

Stan Abrams of China Hearsay blogs about Shenzhen Great Dragon Brother's P88, which is very similar to Apple's just released iPad. Mr Abrams, never losing his ironical talent wrote about Shenzen Great Dragon Brother's assertive stance towards IP rights in relation to Apple: "[T]he company apparently filed a design patent, so it’s doing its part to create indigenous IP. All those public education campaigns seem to be working!" Read Mr Abrams' blog here.

Aritz Parra of El Mundo interviewed Mr Wu Xiaolong, CEO of Great Dragon Brother who said that the P88 has been already on the market in China for half a year and was first presented to the world at the International Electronics Fair in Berlin six months ago. Read the article ''Made in China' vs Apple: ¿Quién copió a quién?' in Spanish here.

Earlier, Elaine Chow of Shanghaiist wrote that the P88 was already three months available at the Chinese market, which she calls pre-emtive cloning. Read Ms Chow's article here.

Sometimes Apple has to deal with knockoffs that are better than the real thing, as was the case with the knockoff MacBook Air, read here. Although the P88 has a bigger screen and a much larger disk drive (P88: 160 GB HD versus iPad: 64 GB Flash) and does multitasking and the iPad does not, the P88 has only a battery life of 1,5 hours, while the iPad has 10 hours. Shardendu Gautam compares the technical features for ThinkDigit, read here.

Yesterday, Song Jiang of the site Shanzai.com, that is following the Shanzai (Shan Zhai Ji = 山寨机 , read more about it here ) phenomenon, wrote:

"Just what will happen when the iPad gets launched in China remains to be seen, but I have a feeling that any presiding court in China might just sway in favor of Great Long. This could cause significant ripples in the intellectual property debate surrounding Chinese-made, and more recently, Chinese-designed products and their increasing penetration of traditionally Western dominated markets."

Picture by Shanzai.com.
Read Song Jiang's article here.

UPDATE:
Read Stan Abrams' article 'Shanzhai Saturday: Dawn of a New Era' about double shanzai, read here.
continue reading ...