Proview Brings iPad Trademark Battle to the States

| News

Proview Technology has extended its legal battle with Apple over the iPad trademark from Chine to the United States. According to a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in California, Proview claims Apple used deception to gain the iPad trademark and shouldn’t be allowed to continue using the name.

The company has been fighting Apple in China in hopes of proving the iPad maker didn’t properly license the iPad name for use in the country. Apple, however, says it purchased the trademark from Proview legitimately from one of the company’s subsidiaries, and that Proview Technology was aware of the transaction.

Proview's iPad trademark fight comes to the U.S.Proview’s iPad trademark fight comes to the U.S.

Proview’s court filing in the U.S. claims that by using an intermediary company — IP Application Development — to handle the trademark purchase, and by failing to disclose that the name was destined for the now popular multimedia tablet, that Apple acted “”with oppression, fraud and/or malice,” according to the Wall Street Journal.

Most recently, Proview lost a request for an injunction in Shanghai to block iPad sales. The company has been filing lawsuits in various cities throughout China in hopes of stopping Apple from selling its iPad tablet.

Apple recently accused Proview of intentionally spreading false information about the trademark battle to journalists and the public. In a letter to the company’s chairman, Apple threatened legal action if the alleged disinformation flow didn’t stop.

Apple continues to assert that it legitimately purchased the iPad trademark. “Proview refuses to honor their agreement with Apple in China, and a Hong Kong court has sided with Apple in this matter,” an Apple spokesperson said.

Sign Up for the Newsletter

Join the TMO Express Daily Newsletter to get the latest Mac headlines in your e-mail every weekday.

10 Comments Leave Your Own

Lee Dronick

Proview claims Apple used deception to gain the iPad trademark and shouldn?t be allowed to continue using the name.

Apple products have been using the i prefix for a long time, anyone else using it is being deceptive.

cb50dc

The legal nuances may be lost on me, but it seems that by going through “IP Application Development” Apple was, without getting too technical, un pocos sneakius, wink but legit.

cb50dc

Related story with more details, from The New York Times: Apple Case in Shanghai is Suspended

MOSiX Man

*sniff, sniff* Does anybody else smell desperation in the air?

Lee Dronick

I am also catching a whiff of deep pocket and it isn’t emanating from Apple.

geoduck

*sniff, sniff* Does anybody else smell desperation in the air?

Desperation, Chutzpah, Cojones, whatever, I’ll give them credit for being brash. I don’t think they’ll win. Using a shadow company to keep a seller from jacking up the price is a very common practice.

As far as deep pockets, they aren’t PsyStar. I think I read somewhere they were worth something like $100M. They may be going broke but they have enough to pay for a few lawyers for a couple of months.

Lee Dronick

Hmmmm, I thought that Proview was bankrupt. Anyway it is going to be interesting to see how they fair in a USA Court.

zewazir

Somehow I do not think the complaint “If we’d known it was Apple that was buying the trademark, we’d have asked for more money” will fly.

It also seems that by taking this new “they were sneaky by using an intermediary” tactic, they are acknowledging that Apple is correct that they DID purchase the trademark, and that ProView WAS involved in the purchase. I guess the recent documents Apple has been releasing to the courts show their earlier stance, that the purchase did not include mainland China because they were not involved in the negotiations, was, shall we say, in error?

geoduck

they are acknowledging that Apple is correct that they DID purchase the trademark, and that ProView WAS involved in the purchase.

That’s a very good point. They are tacitly saying that everything Apple’s said is true, just they now think it’s unfair.

zewazir

Fair, schmair.  If they’d been smart, the trademark deal would have included a clause giving them a percentage of revenues generated through the use of their trademark.  They obviously weren’t that smart, and now they want the courts to rewrite their history.  And it’s no coincidence that each court filing centers around a different - and in some cases mutually exclusive - set of claims.  IMO, ProView needs to go the way of PsyStar.

Log-in to comment