On February 24th, the case of Apple Inc and I iPplication Development Limited v. Shenzhen Proview iPad was heard in Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court. On that day, the fifteenth court of Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court was packed.
The dispute originated from a power of attorney. 65438+February 23rd On June 23rd, 2009, Proview Electronics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Taiwan Province Proview") authorized Mr. Mai, the company's legal adviser, to sign an agreement to transfer eight i-Pad trademarks to IPADL. According to the power of attorney obtained by this newspaper, the authorized party is Proview Electronics Co., Ltd., with the seal of Proview Electronics Co., Ltd., and the person in charge is Yang Rongshan.
IPADL transferred all its iPad trademarks to Apple on 20 10.
The dispute between the two parties lies in whether the authorized party Proview of Taiwan Province Province has the right to handle the iPad trademark in Chinese mainland on behalf of Proview of Shenzhen. According to the evidence submitted by Apple to Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court, two months before signing the power of attorney, representatives of IPADL signed by JonathanHargreaves and the legal department of Proview in Taiwan Province Province signed by Huiyuan started negotiations by email to discuss whether Proview in Taiwan Province Province could represent Proview in Shenzhen. In the email, Huiyuan informed I-PADL that Mr. Mai was the signing representative of Proview in Taiwan Province Province, and the agreement was signed in Taiwan Province Province.
According to public information, Taiwan Province Proview and Shenzhen Proview are both subsidiaries of Proview International (00334.hk), but there is no cross relationship between their shares. Xie Xianghui, another attorney of Shenzhen Proview, said that Proview of Taiwan Province Province has no right to represent the case because it has no ownership of the iPad trademark in mainland China. According to the mainland company law, although Proview Taiwan Province and Proview Shenzhen are both subsidiaries of Proview International, Proview Group still has no right to dispose of the assets of Proview Shenzhen, not to mention that the legal person of Proview Shenzhen is not Yang Rongshan.
However, Shenzhen Proview believes that the agreement 1 1 signed by Taiwan Province Proview and I-PADL Company on February 23, 2009 clearly stipulates that all correspondence and mails have been replaced by formal written agreement, which is not used as any basis.
"This is actually a ridiculous farce. After Apple discovered that the owner of the iPad mainland trademark did not belong to Proview in Taiwan Province Province but Proview in Shenzhen, it began to worry and take the lead. " Xiao Caiyuan said.
In fact, two dramatic factors make this case more confusing.
In the lawsuit filed by Apple in the Hong Kong court, the materials submitted show that IPADL is actually a company with special purpose established under the operation of Apple's lawyers, aiming at acquiring the trademark right of i-Pad in Proview's hands.
On April 3, 20 10, iPad products began to be sold to the public in the United States. 20 10 on April 7, IPADL transferred all its iPad trademarks to apple at the price of 10.
The OEM of a large enterprise said that Apple negotiated with Proview on the name of IPADL in order to prevent the other party from charging exorbitant prices, and the abbreviation of registered company IPADL can also explain the reason for the acquired trademark, but after the dispute, Apple's negligence will make Apple pay the price.
Xiao Caiyuan believes that Shenzhen Proview was originally a dispute with I-PADL, so Apple was strongly involved. IPADL's negligence is obvious. According to the relevant regulations, Apple's agent was not established at all.
More dramatically, the owner of the authorized representative mailbox of IPADL company-Onathanhargaves may not exist at all. Xiao Caiyuan said that he learned from the materials submitted by Apple to the Hong Kong High Court that there was no such natural person. It can be concluded that the plaintiff concealed this fact from the notary when applying for notarization.
Trademark door dilemma
Before the trademark door came to fruition, from September 20 10, Apple had delivered the iPad to cafes and fashionistas of all sizes.
On March 22nd, 20 10, the trademark of iPad was sealed up by eight creditor banks in Proview, Shenzhen. Apple filed a complaint with the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court, claiming that IPADL transferred the iPad trademark to Apple on April 7, 20 10.
"It is a farce for Apple and IPADL to sign a transfer agreement on trademarks that have been seized according to law. Moreover, the agreement was signed knowing that IPADL could not transfer our iPad trademark, which obviously has no effect and is malicious. " Xiao Caiyuan said.
After apple made the controversial trademark of iPad in mainland China a fait accompli. The reality is that Shenzhen Proview is unable to fight back.
According to relevant regulations, if Shenzhen Proview wants to sue Apple, it needs huge property guarantee. Shenzhen Proview, once one of the top 100 foreign trade exports in China, is now almost bankrupt. The question that Apple needs to face is, if it loses the case, what about its iPad trademark?
The above-mentioned agent said that Apple would definitely not allow the trademark to lose the case, and if it lost the case, it would have to settle, which is why Shenzhen Proview had to fight this lawsuit to the end in the case of near bankruptcy.
Lawyer Xie said that the losses caused by Apple to Shenzhen Proview were incalculable. According to the law of our country, if the loss of the injured party cannot be calculated, the profit of the profitable party can be used as the calculation standard. For this statement, Huang, director of entrepreneurial media, believes that because Apple has many processing foundries in the mainland, it produces in the mainland and sells overseas, this part of the loss needs to be calculated by the customs, so it is very complicated. It is understood that Hejun Venture is a company entrusted by Proview Electronics to handle this trademark dispute case.
The newspaper repeatedly contacted the staff of Apple China, but no one answered the phone. The person in charge of Apple's public relations company said that it had been replaced.
It is worth noting that before Apple's iPhone entered the mainland market, it also entered China first and then settled the transfer.
According to the information disclosed in Hanwang's prospectus, on July 18, 2009, Hanwang and Apple signed an iPhone trademark settlement and transfer agreement of $3.65 million. Prior to this, the iPhone has been on sale in the Mainland.