Apple is looking for a way to end the legal fight with Proview over who owns the iPad trademark in China. According to The Next Web, Apple is willing to pay Proview to make the issue go away.
According to Proview lawyer Xie Zianghui,
”[It feels] that the attitude of Apple Inc. has changed. Although they expressed that they were willing to negotiate, they have never taken any action before. But now, they are having conversations with us, and we have begun to consult on the case.”
As such, Apple is said to have offered a settlement figure. However, as of now, Proview has yet to agree to a deal.
This isn’t the first time we heard Apple was willing to settle to end the legal fight. Last month, another lawyer representing Proview made similar claims.
As a review, Proview Electronics said it was bullied by Apple “with oppression, fraud and/or malice,” when it agreed to sell its worldwide iPad trademark in 2009 for just $55,000. At the time, Proview believed it was selling the name to a “special purpose” entity, IP Application Development Limited. Only later, when the first-generation iPad was released, was this entity confirmed to be a front for the technology giant.
Since then, Proview has sued Apple in China and in the U.S. While the case has yet to proceed here, it is definitely moving forward in Beijing.
What happens if Apple loses in China?
If Proview’s claim proves successful in China, it could mean Apple will be forced to stop using the iPad name on any product in that country. However, a ruling such as this would have no legal standing elsewhere. Still, a Proview victory in China could influence courts in this country and abroad.
While we’re still confident both sides will come together and resolve their issues, comments such as those from Fu suggest no immediate resolution is coming. In fact, today it appears less likely Apple would see a ruling in their favor if it were left to a Chinese court to decide who owns the iPad trademark.
Could Apple really lose the iPad trademark in China, and if so, do you think it could influence courts in the U.S. and elsewhere?