JURISDICTION REPORT: CHINA APPLE V PROVIEW:
LESSONS FOR BUSINESS IN CHINA Xiang Gao
Peksung Intellectual Property Ltd
On July 2, 2012, Guangdong Higher People's Court announced that the trademark dispute between Apple Inc and Proview Technology (Proview Shenzhen) had been settled through mediation. Apple agreed to pay $60 million to Proview Shenzhen for assignment of IPAD trademarks registered by Proview Shenzhen in China.
First of all, it is necessary to know the legal status of Proview Shenzhen and other Proview-related companies.
Proview International Holdings, based in Hong Kong (Proview
International), has seven subsidiary companies worldwide (collectively, the Proview Group) including Proview Shenzhen and Proview Electronic, located in Taiwan (Proview Taiwan).
In 2000, Proview Taiwan applied for registration of IPAD in some countries and regions excluding mainland China. Meanwhile, Proview Shenzhen filed two trademark applications in China which successfully matured into registrations for IPAD and
in respect of Class 9 goods including computers.
It is obvious that the two trademarks were filed and registered much earlier than Apple’s iPad computers were brought to the market of mainland China.
In 2009, IP Application Development Limited (IPADL), which had been set up by Apple in the UK, contacted Proview’s UK subsidiary company and then Proview Taiwan in respect of purchase of all IPAD trademarks owned by Proview Group. On December 17, 2009, an agreement was reached between IPADL and Proview Taiwan that IPADL bought all IPAD trademarks including the two Chinese registrations for £35,000. Apple and IPADL thought the person they contracted with represented the Proview Group.
However, the applications for recordal of assignment of two Chinese
registrations were rejected by the China Trademark Office. Proview Shenzhen, the actual owner of the two Chinese registrations, said it was not aware of the Taiwan deal and not party to the agreement at all, and the person the plaintiffs dealt with had no authority to represent Proview Shenzhen when he signed the agreement. Proview Shenzhen’s refusal to execute the necessary transfer documents required by the China Trademark Office made Apple unable to be recorded as the new owner of the two Chinese registrations.
On April 19, 2010, Apple and IPADL, as co-plaintiffs, brought a lawsuit to Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court to request that the registrations for IPAD and
be transferred to Apple Inc.
On February 23, August 21, and October 18, 2011, the court opened three public hearings on the case. During the hearings, the focus of the dispute was whether the agreement between IPADL and Proview Taiwan was
www.worldipreview.com
Xiang Gao is a partner at Peksung Intellectual Property Ltd and head of its trademarks department. He can be contacted at:
gxiang@peksung.com
World Intellectual Property Review September/October 2012 97
binding to Proview Shenzhen, and whether implied agency existed in the course of negotiation. Te court finally held that when wishing to obtain another party's trademarks for commercial purposes, plaintiffs should bear a higher duty of care, and should, in accordance with Chinese law and regulations, execute a contract of assignment with the trademark owner and complete necessary procedures of assignment. Because the original contract of assignment was executed between IPADL and Proview Taiwan, and implied agency of Proview Shenzhen was not established, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims.
Aſter the verdict, Proview Shenzhen took action against Apple’s dealers in China by initiating several lawsuits and submitting complaints to nearly 40 Administrations for Industry and Commerce at provincial and municipal levels.
On January 5, 2012, Apple appealed the first instance decision to Guangdong Higher People's Court. On June 25, 2012, the Higher Court served a verdict of civil mediation to both parties, and the dispute reached a resolution. Te court-mediated settlement was a win-win. According to Proview Shenzhen, $60 million was “not satisfactory but acceptable” (it originally expected $400 million). On the other hand, Apple will not risk losing even more than $60 million without ownership of the IPAD trademarks in China, and it can now accelerate importing new iPad products to China.
This case demonstrates the importance of ownership and the value of IP rights. Foreign companies must do business in China according to Chinese law to avoid potential risks, including performing adequate due diligence to understand law and practice. They must also know the background of collaborators and competitors thoroughly, and locate the true owner of a particular right.
“PROVIEW SHENZHEN SAID IT WAS NOT AWARE OF THE TAIWAN DEAL AND NOT PARTY TO THE AGREEMENT, AND THE PERSON THE PLAINTIFFS DEALT WITH HAD NO AUTHORITY TO REPRESENT PROVIEW.”
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128