In any case, the later Proview closed down, and it was declared closed just after the lawsuit was finished;

Why did the court decide Proview won the case? Because this is not Yang Rongshan's business alone. At that time, because he was in debt of more than 300 million yuan, mainly banks, real estate developers, insurance companies and agents all over the world, where did the banks come from (from China)? Therefore, the judge affirmed that Proview could use the money to pay off its debts (bank). Proview still owes these eight banks $400 million (and these eight banks may only recover part of their debts in proportion to their capital contribution).

At that time, Proview's bottom line price was $400 million.

In the end, Apple reached a settlement with Shenzhen Proview, and Apple had to pay a settlement fee of $60 million to Shenzhen Proview.

Apple and Proview reached a settlement of $60 million, which is not too much, and it can be regarded as paying a tuition fee in the China market.

In fact, I have been scolding them for cheating Apple, and I scolded them for a long time after Proview closed down. I didn't come here to talk about this idea until I saw your question today, because I didn't come to see it today and rarely came to Baidu before.

I think Apple is rich, so paying tens of millions of dollars is like nine Niu Yi cents.

If Apple suspends the release of iPad products before the acquisition and gives the intellectual property team enough time to complete the trademark transfer of China, it is likely that the $60 million will be spent.

At that time, Yang Rongshan, the boss of Proview in Taiwan Province Province and Proview in Shenzhen, agreed and authorized a staff member of the legal affairs office of Proview Company in Taiwan Province Province to sign an agreement with IPADL Company in the UK to transfer the trademark of IPAD to IPADL Company in the UK, which listed the trademark rights of the mainland including IPAD.

Driven by Apple, IPAD has long been popular all over the world, and its intangible value is astronomical.

Proview, on the other hand, is poorly managed and has entered a dead end. At that time, Yang Rongshan proposed two places where he thought Apple infringed.

First, the commercial rights of IPAD belong to Proview in Taiwan Province Province and Proview in Shenzhen, and the trademark rights of mainland China are in Proview in Shenzhen. At that time, Taiwan Province Proview was signed, not Shenzhen Proview, so the trademark rights transferred did not include mainland trademark rights.

Second, Apple cheated Proview at that time. Yang Rongshan believes that Apple has registered and established IPADL in the UK, allowing IPADL to come forward to buy the IPAD trademark. He thinks this is "fraud"!

The above behavior, ...:

1. The actual controllers of Taiwan Province Proview and Shenzhen Proview are both Yang Rongshan. If Yang Rongshan authorizes others to transfer the IPAD trademark, no matter which company it belongs to or which unemployed person it is, such transfer shall be deemed as valid.

Second, it is legal and business ethics for Apple to register a company in the UK and acquire the IPAD trademark industry. Just like domain name trading. You can sell it to millions of people who need it, or you can just sell it for a few hundred dollars and then transfer it to another investor.

3. If the mainland court decides that the trademark right of IPAD in the mainland does not belong to Apple because of the above evidence of Yang Rongshan, it indirectly proves that Yang Rongshan constitutes fraud. Why? Since Yang Rongshan thinks that he has no right to transfer the mainland IPAD trademark, but actually transfers and collects the transfer money, this is the crime of fraud. Moreover, because of his fraud and prosecution, Apple compensated N yuan, which affected IPAD sales, had a negative impact on Apple's image ... and caused huge losses to Apple. I think Apple can file a lawsuit against Yang Rongshan and his authorized person to demand compensation for the above-mentioned amount of losses.

4. No matter whether the licensor's name is Yang Rongshan personally or Proview Yang Rongshan of Taiwan Province Province, if Yang Rongshan insists that the mainland IPAD trademark does not belong to the transfer scope, he will also be involved in fraud.

Apple: Clever purchase setting and wrong litigation strategy.

Apple and Proview have shown good co-ordination ability in a series of incidents related to this case, and they can systematically analyze each other's situation and take targeted measures, just like the three-dimensional coordinated operations of land, sea and air in modern wars, which can greatly improve operational efficiency.

Apple has four great experiences: First, it won the bid anonymously, and set up a special purpose entity in the UK-IP Company to buy related trademarks, claiming that the abbreviation used by the company is "IPAD", thus gaining the trust of Proview and greatly saving the purchase cost; Second, many lawsuits have been filed, and the courts in Shenzhen and Hong Kong sued for different reasons. Although they may not all win the case, at least they have done their best to safeguard their rights and interests; Third, stop at the bottom of the barrel, and constantly apply for cancellation of the Chinese trademark "IPAD" on the grounds that it has stopped using for three consecutive years, thus fundamentally solving the legal obstacles that may be brought by the Chinese trademark "IPAD"; Fourth, public relations cooperation, using good public relations (such as media and scholars' speeches), trying to shape their own victim image and win public sympathy.

Despite the above four ingenious methods, Apple did not take the trademark right of Chinese mainland IPAD into its pocket. Apple's shortcomings are very obvious. If we had been more cautious when signing the trademark transfer agreement with Taipei Proview, Shenzhen Proview would have joined the agreement and signed and sealed it, then these disputes would probably not have happened later.

Apple also made a low-level mistake in litigation strategy. First of all, in terms of scheme selection, Apple's litigation scheme selection based on existing evidence has room for further improvement. For example, Proview in Taipei should be added as the co-defendant in the first instance of this case, and the trademark transfer contract dispute should be added as the cause of action. Although this does not guarantee a certain victory, it at least increases the room for manoeuvre in litigation. Secondly, in terms of court preparation, the court preparation for the second trial of this case is not sufficient. For example, Apple's attorney failed to summarize the emails asking witnesses to appear in court in advance, which led to the loss of points when the presiding judge asked which of dozens of emails to demonstrate.

At that time, Proview's huge debt repayment bank accounted for the bulk, so in order not to let domestic banks suffer too much losses, Proview won the lawsuit. Although it is difficult to pay off debts with tens of millions of dollars, it is better than nothing!

Reconciliation is the most reasonable result. Apple paid $60 million for its original negligence, and Proview worked hard on the details, and finally won $60 million in compensation for itself, once again confirming the old saying: details determine success or failure.