When is an iPad not an iPad?

[mr friendly guy]

when Apple are trying to sell it in China

Apple can’t call an iPad an iPad in China, says court
Press Trust of India, 07 Dec 2011 | 04:03 PM
Email0 0 5 46

Apple bought the rights to use the trademark from Proview Taipei in 2009. However, Proview Shenzhen reserved the right to use the trademark on the Chinese mainland.


Apple, the maker of iPhone and iPad, suffered a setback in China as a court rejected a lawsuit filed by Apple against a local company for alleged infringement of its 'iPad' trademark. Apple may have to sell the product under a new name in China or cough up $1.6 billion.



The verdict effectively forces Apple to purchase the trademark from the Chinese tech company.



The Municipal Intermediate People's Court in Shenzhen, a southern Chinese city neighboring Hong Kong, earlier this week rejected a lawsuit by Apple accusing Proview Technology (Shenzhen) of infringing on its 'iPad' trademark.



Proview Technology (Shenzhen) is a subsidiary of Hong Kong-headquartered Proview International Holdings Limited, which also has a branch in Taipei.


Proview Taipei registered the 'iPad' trademark in a number of countries and regions as early as 2000 and Proview Shenzhen registered the trademark on the Chinese mainland in 2001, long before Apple launched its iPad tablet.



Apple bought the rights to use the trademark from Proview Taipei in 2009 with a payment of 35,000 pounds ($54,616).



However, Proview Shenzhen reserved the right to use the trademark on the Chinese mainland. The two sides have been entangled in a legal battle ever since.



Proview Shenzhen, once a famous flat-panel display producer, is now on the brink of bankruptcy due to debts owed to banks in the wake of the global financial crisis.



Li Su, the President of Beijing-based Hejun Vanguard Group, a leading management consultancy firm, has been entrusted by banks to assume the post of "debt restructuring consultant" for Proview Shenzhen.



"Apple's actions are strange. They had not obtained the rights to use the 'iPad' trademark when they began to sell the iPad on the Chinese mainland in September last year," Huang Yiding of the Hejun Vanguard Group's public relations department was quoted by state-run Xinhua news agency as saying.



"Their copyright infringement is very clear. The laws are still there and they sell their products in defiance of laws. The more products they sell, the more they need to compensate," he said.


China, where a plethora of Apple products are assembled, is also a major market for iPhones and iPads.

This other article has the picture of the copyright registration

Let me get this straight. Apple brought the term "iPad" from a Taiwanese company which has a subsidiary in the PRC. It however did not purchase the right to use the term on the Chinese mainland, but did so anyway, hence the legal shenanigans.

Why the hell did it purchase the name iPad anyway? Is not like they can't call it iTablet or iSlate or something, if they must have the "i" in the name. If they really want the PAD in the name (I have heard that it was called iPad in homage to the PADD device on Star Trek) then why not just call it aPad, or some other letter. Frankly it seems silly to purchase a name when you put all that effort into manufacturing a product, when you can simply make up a name.

If this is true, Apple have no one to blame but themselves for this debacle.

[Darth Tanner]

then why not just call it aPad

I'm imagine they quite simply want to use all the money spent marketing the iphone label.

They knowingly violated their agreement with Proview by using the Ipad label in China, they should have simply bought out the full rights to the name, they didn't exactly pay out a lot in the initial settlement. However the late date of the agreement would indicate to me they had already gone with the Ipad name and were too committed by the time the fact Proview owned it came to light to make a change.

Proview may well have kept the fact they owned the rights in china low key until now so as to allow Apple to so blatantly abuse it, thus allowing such a large damage claim of 1.6 billion.

[Mr Bean]

Here's a question, does Proview Shenzhen have a product on the market named iPad? If not then why in Xenu's name should they be allowed to keep that trademark?
I know.. I know trademark law, but even the PRC famous for ignoring trademarks and IP laws should I think have laws famous for making this kind of thing impossible.

[Skgoa]

Why the hell did it purchase the name iPad anyway? Is not like they can't call it iTablet or iSlate or something, if they must have the "i" in the name. If they really want the PAD in the name (I have heard that it was called iPad in homage to the PADD device on Star Trek) then why not just call it aPad, or some other letter. Frankly it seems silly to purchase a name when you put all that effort into manufacturing a product, when you can simply make up a name.

Because of brand awareness? Frankly, it seems silly NOT to purchase the name when you have put all that effort into the product already.

[Sarevok]

Here's a question, does Proview Shenzhen have a product on the market named iPad? If not then why in Xenu's name should they be allowed to keep that trademark?
I know.. I know trademark law, but even the PRC famous for ignoring trademarks and IP laws should I think have laws famous for making this kind of thing impossible.

Trademark laws do not have to make sense. Might makes right and whoever has more money has the final say.

[mr friendly guy]

Here's a question, does Proview Shenzhen have a product on the market named iPad? If not then why in Xenu's name should they be allowed to keep that trademark?
I know.. I know trademark law, but even the PRC famous for ignoring trademarks and IP laws should I think have laws famous for making this kind of thing impossible.

Trademark laws do not have to make sense. Might makes right and whoever has more money has the final say.

Except when you are Apple it seems.

[Esquire]

Not so - China has more money than Apple, and it's their laws that are being broken here.

[mr friendly guy]

Except the court case was between Apple and a Chinese firm long past its glory days on the verge of bankruptcy. Apple filed the case against this firm. Apple did not file a case against the Chinese state, nor did the PRC file suit against Apple. Pointing our the PRC has more money than Apple isn't really relevant to Sarevok's original statement that whoever has the most money wins, because the PRC wasn't going up against Apple.

[mr friendly guy]

Why the hell did it purchase the name iPad anyway? Is not like they can't call it iTablet or iSlate or something, if they must have the "i" in the name. If they really want the PAD in the name (I have heard that it was called iPad in homage to the PADD device on Star Trek) then why not just call it aPad, or some other letter. Frankly it seems silly to purchase a name when you put all that effort into manufacturing a product, when you can simply make up a name.

Because of brand awareness? Frankly, it seems silly NOT to purchase the name when you have put all that effort into the product already.

As I said, if the "i something something" is the brand part, all you need is to have an "i" in the name, and call it something else, unless you weren't planning to market it in the PRC.

If you are refering to brand awareness in regards to the PADD, as in a homage to Star Trek, I highly doubt Joe Average would realise that Star Trek called their devices PADD in the first place.

[Edi]

If the Chinese company bought the trademark way before Apple even had an iPad product, then Apple can either buy the trademark or buy the company or change their product name and that's the end to it. There's nothing wrong with that arrangement, since this isn't the equivalent of cybersquatting a domain in order to extort money with it. If anything, it's the other way around, with Apple trying to muscle in on an already established issue of legal standing simply because they had chosen to use that same name in other areas of the globe.

Simply because they are an American company does not magically grant them automatic relief from local laws elsewhere.

[evilsoup]

As I said, if the "i something something" is the brand part, all you need is to have an "i" in the name, and call it something else, unless you weren't planning to market it in the PRC.

The logic is probably that iPad sounds a lot like iPod, so using that name gives greater recognition to the new product by association.

[Esquire]

Except the court case was between Apple and a Chinese firm long past its glory days on the verge of bankruptcy. Apple filed the case against this firm. Apple did not file a case against the Chinese state, nor did the PRC file suit against Apple. Pointing our the PRC has more money than Apple isn't really relevant to Sarevok's original statement that whoever has the most money wins, because the PRC wasn't going up against Apple.

My understanding was that the Chinese government was supporting their company against Apple. Wouldn't that put the PRC, and their resources, on their company's side?

[Skgoa]

iPod, iPhone, iPad... it's pretty simple system, really. But what I was getting at is that it's called "iPad" all over the world. Everyone and their dog is talking about the "iPad", generate hype and brand awareness for it. Calling it anything else in China would mean they have to pay more money (for more ads) to get the same level of name recognition and consumer comfort. Buying the name - especially for only $50k, if I read that right - is much cheaper. And if you control the name, there is no danger of a competitor bringing out an inferior product that might be associated with you. I don't want to accuse any country of anything, but we all know there is a non-zero probability of that happening.


Edi: You are right, that's how it should work. Unfortunately it often doesn't.

[mr friendly guy]

Except the court case was between Apple and a Chinese firm long past its glory days on the verge of bankruptcy. Apple filed the case against this firm. Apple did not file a case against the Chinese state, nor did the PRC file suit against Apple. Pointing our the PRC has more money than Apple isn't really relevant to Sarevok's original statement that whoever has the most money wins, because the PRC wasn't going up against Apple.

My understanding was that the Chinese government was supporting their company against Apple. Wouldn't that put the PRC, and their resources, on their company's side?

I am unaware of that. The articles I read gave no impression other than that its a civil suit between two companies.

[Pelranius]

Except the court case was between Apple and a Chinese firm long past its glory days on the verge of bankruptcy. Apple filed the case against this firm. Apple did not file a case against the Chinese state, nor did the PRC file suit against Apple. Pointing our the PRC has more money than Apple isn't really relevant to Sarevok's original statement that whoever has the most money wins, because the PRC wasn't going up against Apple.

My understanding was that the Chinese government was supporting their company against Apple. Wouldn't that put the PRC, and their resources, on their company's side?

Actually, it's a Hong Kong company.

[Lusankya]

Hong Kong is a part of the PRC.

Besides, while it is a Hong Kong company, the suit was levied against the Shenzhen subsidiary company, and not the main branch.

[Esquire]

Except the court case was between Apple and a Chinese firm long past its glory days on the verge of bankruptcy. Apple filed the case against this firm. Apple did not file a case against the Chinese state, nor did the PRC file suit against Apple. Pointing our the PRC has more money than Apple isn't really relevant to Sarevok's original statement that whoever has the most money wins, because the PRC wasn't going up against Apple.

My understanding was that the Chinese government was supporting their company against Apple. Wouldn't that put the PRC, and their resources, on their company's side?

I am unaware of that. The articles I read gave no impression other than that its a civil suit between two companies.

Put it this way - the PRC certainly hasn't declared the protection of Proview's intellectual property to be a matter of national security, but they have applied the law (by 'they' I mean the Chinese justice system) in a way that certainly wouldn't happen in the US: fairly, and without preference to the multinational corporation with millions to throw into a court case. That's all I was saying.