iPad Issues in China: Amazon Not an Authorized Retailer, Apple's Victory in Hong Kong Trademark Case

Eventually, IP Application and Proview Holdings, Proview Electronics and Proview Shenzhen (“the Contracting Defendants”) entered into a written agreement in December 2009 whereby the Contracting Defendants agreed to sell, transfer and assign the Subject Trademarks to IP Application for £35,000 (“the Agreement”).

9. It is Apple and IP Application’s case that in the process of drawing up the formal written agreement (“the Written Agreement”) and the assignments (“the Country Assignments”) to give effect to the Agreement, the representatives of the Contracting Defendants represented and led IP Application to believe that all the Subject Trademarks, including in particular the China Trademarks, were owned by and registered in the name of Proview Electronics. Accordingly, the Written Agreement and the Country Assignments executed on 23 December 2009 expressly stated that Proview Electronics was the proprietor of the Subject Trademarks including the China Trademarks and that Proview Electronics warranted that it was the unencumbered sole owner of the Subject Trademarks including the China Trademarks. The Country Assignment pertaining to the China Trademarks (“the China Country Assignment”) also recited that Proview Electronics was the proprietor of the China Trademarks. However, after Apple had announced the launch of iPads in January 2010, it was discovered that the China Trademarks were in fact registered in the name of Proview Shenzhen. The China Country Assignment was accordingly ineffective in assigning the China Trademarks to IP Application.

39. In performing of the Agreement, IP Application had paid £35,000 for the Subject Trade Marks (including the China Trademarks) on 23 December 2009. It is plainly arguable that the circumstances of the present case are such that the court may order specific performance if IP Application succeeds in its claim for breach of contract. There is accordingly clearly a serious question to be tried that Proview Shenzhen now holds the China Trademarks on trust for Apple and IP Application.

41. There is clearly a serious question to be tried that each of these requirements are made out in the present case :

(a) there exists a trust by reason of the matters set out in Part D.2.c above;

(b) Proview Shenzhen has acted in breach of trust by reason of its refusal to transfer and assign the China Trademarks;

(c) other defendants have induced and/or assisted in Proview Shenzhen’s breach; and

(d) such inducement and/or assistance is dishonest.

Here, the conduct of all the defendants demonstrate that they have combined together with the common intention of injuring Apple and IP Application by acting in breach of the Agreement. Proview Holdings, Proview Electronics and Proview Shenzhen, all clearly under Yang’s control, have refused to take any steps to ensure compliance with the Agreement so that the China Trademarks are properly assigned or transferred to IP Application. Instead, they attempted to exploit the situation as a business opportunity for the Proview Group by seeking an amount of US$10,000,000 from Apple.

Win the case in Hong Kong means nothing because the law in HK doesn't apply to China.

Does Apple and Disney have enough money to fund a private Army to overthrow the Red Chinese? This would solve a lot of problems.

Seems smart move. Pull iPads (and other apple products) from resellers. Resellers loose money. Can't feed familly. Resellers take it out on proview and, chinese officials etc. china puts proview in its place and backs apple. Apple wins without fighting.

Macrumors and WSJ are distorting facts here and make it sound like its Proview's fault.

Truth is today there is no such as a single "Provew". Today Proview Shenzhen and its parent company are two seperate and independent entities sharing merely a name. Proview Shenzhen = the creditors of Proview Shenzhen.

The whole group is on the brink of bankrupcy and its oversea parent company lost control over Proview Shenzhen to the creditors.

Yes Proview Shenzhen's parent company agree to casue Proview Shenzhen to transfer the trademark.

But Proview Shenzhen is taken over by its creditors. And whatever its parent company as its shareholder say or decide (transfer of the trademark) is not binding on Proview Shenzhen unless they are able to repay the debts.

It's like whatever you agree to do(and court asked you to do) , you cannot legally do it unless you actually legally control it.

It is well within the legitimate rights of the creditors (aka Proview Shenzhen) to refuse to transfer the trademark, since the parerent company lost is legal power to tell Proview Shenzhen what to do. The HK court's ruling is absolutely correct. But it is a useless ruling because whatever the HK court require the parent company to do, the parent company had already lost its power and legal capacity to do so.

I do not understand why such simple facts become portrayed in a way like the country and its government is bullying Apple.

Should this happen in any other western country, Apple would in even bigger trouble, since Apple is clearly infringing a trademark legetimately owned and used by someone else for over a decade. The blame is totally on Apple. When you purchase something, it is your responsibility to find out whether the seller actually owns that thing. If you failed to do so, you bear the consequences. Simple as that.

Also sounds like apple cheated the guy.

So apple cheated this guy by sending in a smaller company to buy the iPad name. If apple had gone in themselves to buy it the guy would have asked for more money.