Affiliate Disclosure
If you buy through our links, we may get a commission. Read our ethics policy.

Experts say Proview could benefit from secrecy Apple used to obtain 'iPad' name

Apple's legendary secrecy led the company to employ unusual tactics in acquiring the "iPad" trademark from Chinese company Proview, and those methods may have bolstered Proview's case against them, experts say.

Trademark attorneys who spoke with Reuters said Proview "has a plausible claim" against Apple. The company seeks to stop Apple's use of the "iPad" name for its hot-selling touchscreen tablet.

Proview's advantages stem from the strange ways Apple concealed its identity when the company negotiated with Proview to obtain the iPad trademark. Apple's acquisition was done through an "opaque special purpose entity," Proview has said in court filings.

"I have never encountered this level of ruse," said New York-based trademark attorney Martin Schwimmer of Apple's approach.

But some experts also believe that Apple can counter Proview's claims by arguing that the Chinese trademark holder cannot sue Apple directly. Instead, they could tell the court that Proview can only file suit against the special purpose corporation who actually bought the trademarks from them.

Last week, Proview brought its trademark infringement suit against Apple to America in a complaint lodged in a California court. The suit alleges that Apple acted "with oppression, fraud and/or malice" in using the U.K.-based IP Application Development, Ltd, or "IPAD," to buy the naming rights from a Taiwanese affiliate in 2009 for $55,000.

In response, Apple has argued that it legally bought the rights to the iPad name, and that Proview is not honoring its end of the deal struck between the two companies. Proview has sought as much as $2 billion from Apple for the naming rights.

Also last week, Proview suffered a setback in Shanghai, after a local court sided with Apple in a lawsuit filed there. Proview has filed a number of lawsuits in different cities across China, attempting to bar sales of the device. That strategy has led to some minor successes in small cities.

79 Comments

irnchriz 18 Years · 1595 comments

Nothing illegal in what Apple did. Standard practice to ensure a fair deal/price is struck and to prevent the sellers eyes changing into huge glowing dollar bill signs.

monstrosity 18 Years · 2227 comments

Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz

Nothing illegal in what Apple did. Standard practice to ensure a fair deal/price is struck and to prevent the sellers eyes changing into huge glowing dollar bill signs.


I mean really, how thick are Proview??

If a random company lacking in history was looking to buy any name which began with a small 'i' from me, I'm pretty sure I would suspect it might be Apple.

pendergast 14 Years · 1358 comments

According to the original article, there is a complaint that Apple's special purpos entity told Proview via email that they would not be competing with Proview.

I'm not saying the iPad competes with the now-defunct IPAD, but I believe that's an important detail.

greekmango 15 Years · 9 comments

"oppression, fraud and/or malice" - what a lot of nonsense.

Having sold the trademark before the iPad boom, Proview withhold its transfer and then want 2 billion when iPad sales are phenomenal.

Just shows why Apple went to the trouble of buying the trademark through a third party.

crowley 16 Years · 10431 comments

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider

The suit alleges that Apple acted "with oppression, fraud and/or malice"

I'm sure Proview can prove that.