Case Introduction

In 2000, Proview Taipei Company, a subsidiary of Proview, registered the iPad trademark in multiple countries and regions. In 2001, Proview Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., a subsidiary of Proview International, registered two categories of iPad trademarks in mainland China.

In 2006, when Apple began planning to launch the iPad, it discovered that the iPad trademark rights belonged to Proview. In 2009, Apple and Proview reached an agreement, and Proview Taipei Company transferred the iPad global trademark to Apple for 35,000 pounds. However, Proview Shenzhen said that the iPad’s mainland China trademark rights were not included in the transfer agreement of 35,000 pounds. Moreover, Shenzhen Proview is the owner of the iPad trademark rights in mainland China, and Proview Taipei Company has no right to sell. Therefore, the mainland China trademark rights of iPad do not belong to Apple.

For this reason, Apple and the British IP Application Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the IP company) took "Shenzhen Proview" to court. Apple claimed that on December 23, 2009, Proview International CEO and Chairman Yang Rongshan authorized Mai Shihong to sign a relevant agreement to transfer all the rights and interests of 10 trademarks to a British IP company, including a trademark transfer agreement in mainland China. . After the agreement was signed, British IP Company paid 35,000 pounds to Proview Taipei Company to purchase all the iPad trademarks, and then British IP Company transferred all rights and interests of the iPad trademarks to Apple for 100,000 pounds.

The two plaintiffs requested the court to order that the exclusive rights to the trademarks registration number 1590557 "iPad" and registration number 1682310 "iPad" belong to the plaintiff, and order the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for the RMB losses in trademark ownership investigation fees and attorney fees. 4 million yuan.

Amend the lawsuit

Proview announced that it has amended the "iPad" trademark infringement accusation it previously filed against Apple in California, believing that Apple committed various frauds and frauds when obtaining the iPad trademark. Unfair competition behavior.

This lawsuit provides new evidence for the transaction between Proview Taiwan Branch and Apple on December 23, 2009. At that time, Apple’s agent deliberately concealed the facts from Proview Taiwan and suppressed the purchase price. Therefore, the contract signed by the parties on this basis is invalid. Once the contract is invalid due to the existence of fraud, the iPad trademark rights in the European Union, South Korea, Mexico, Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam will also revert to its original owner Proview Taiwan.

In the indictment, Proview also accused Apple of being pressed for time when purchasing the IPAD trademark rights. Before reaching an agreement with Proview, it knew that Proview objected to its use of similar trademarks and premeditatedly deceived Proview. Sign a contract with it. In order to advance the transaction, Apple hired an intermediary, Farncombe Company, and its executive director, Graham Robinson, to orchestrate the purchase of the IPAD trademark rights owned by Proview, but these were all false pretexts. Afterwards, Apple also created a special purpose company, IP Application Development Co., Ltd. (IPAD Ltd.), and concealed the fact that the company acted as Apple's agent.

Proview won

The Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court accepted the case on April 19, 2010, and heard it three times on February 23, August 21, and October 18, 2011 Held in court. In December 2011, the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court made a first-instance judgment: rejecting the lawsuit claims of Apple and IP Company. The case acceptance fee was RMB 45,600, which was borne by the two plaintiffs. The first-instance judgment held that the plaintiff should have a higher duty of care if it wants to commercially acquire another person’s trademark. It should enter into a trademark transfer contract with the trademark owner and go through the necessary trademark transfer procedures in accordance with my country’s legal provisions. The trademark transfer contract in this case was signed between the plaintiff IP company and Proview Electronics Co., Ltd., and the apparent agency between the plaintiff and the defendant was not established. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim lacks factual and legal basis and is dismissed.

Suing against Apple

In December 2011, Proview's attorney Xiao Caiyuan stated that Proview had begun to file a lawsuit against Apple's authorized dealers in Guangdong, demanding that Apple Distributors stop infringement - stop using the IPAD trademark. The Shenzhen Futian District People's Court and the Huizhou Intermediate People's Court have accepted the cases respectively and will prepare for the hearing.

The Guangdong Provincial Higher People’s Court sent a civil mediation letter to both parties, and the mediation letter officially came into effect. Recently, Apple has remitted US$60 million to the account designated by the Guangdong High Court in accordance with the requirements of the mediation letter, and on June 28, it applied to the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court, the court of first instance in the case, to enforce the above-mentioned civil mediation letter. The Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court today sent a ruling and a notice of assistance in enforcement to the transfer of the IPAD trademark involved in the case to Apple to the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce. This means that the IPAD trademark ownership dispute between Apple and Shenzhen Proview Company has been successfully resolved.

Bankruptcy and liquidation

In March 2012, before the Guangdong Higher People’s Court made a second-instance judgment on the ownership of the iPad trademark in mainland China, Taiwan Fubon Product Insurance Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit against Shenzhen Wei Guan's application for bankruptcy liquidation has brought another twist to this already tumultuous case. In November 2010, the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court ruled that Shenzhen Proview should pay US$8.6797 million to Fubon Insurance. After Fubon applied for compulsory execution, the Yantian District Court found that Shenzhen Proview's property was seized and disposed of during the execution process. , have been used for mortgage loans, and banks have priority in repayment. Based on this, the court held that Shenzhen Proview had no other properties available for execution. In view of Shenzhen Proview's inability to pay its due debts, on June 27, 2011, Fubon Insurance submitted an application to the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court in accordance with the law, requesting the court to declare Shenzhen Proview bankrupt and conduct bankruptcy liquidation. On December 27, 2011, the Shenzhen Intermediate Court held a bankruptcy hearing on this case. At the bankruptcy hearing, Shenzhen Proview admitted that the company was seriously insolvent. However, the company was in litigation with Apple of the United States over the iPad trademark rights and may use the compensation received to repay debts in the future. Fubon Insurance stated that since the judgment of this trademark litigation has not taken effect, Shenzhen Proview’s use of unpredictable future compensation payments to prove its ability to repay debts is unconvincing.