• Home
  • 1st Annual Symposium
  • About
  • Available Positions
  • Issues
    • Vol. 4 Issue 2
    • Vol. 4 Issue 1
    • Vol. 3 Issue 3
    • Vol. 3, Issue 2
    • Vol. 3, Issue 1
    • Vol. 2, Issue 3
    • Vol. 2, Issue 2
    • Vol. 2, Issue 1
    • Vol. 1, Issue 1
  • Staff
    • 2009-2010 Staff
    • 2010-2011 Staff
    • 2011-2012 Staff
    • 2012-2013 Staff
  • Submissions
  • Subscribe
Featured Article

A featured article from the current issue of the Intellectual Property Brief.

Daily Blog

A daily blog of IP-related news and issues

Articles

All of the Intellectual Property Brief’s published articles. All articles are hand-selected from outside submissions and from our very own IPB staff members.

Issues

PDF versions of each of the Intellectual Property Brief’s issues.

Short Circuit

Case-by-case summaries of intellectual property related opinions from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Home » Daily Blog, Featured, Trademark

Update on Apple’s Trademark Woes – Court Urges Parties to Settle

Submitted by Seth Dennis on April 26, 2012 – 8:46 AM5223No Commenthttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2012%2F04%2F26%2Fupdate-on-apple%25e2%2580%2599s-trademark-woes-%25e2%2580%2593-court-urges-parties-to-settle%2FUpdate+on+Apple%E2%80%99s+Trademark+Woes+%E2%80%93+Court+Urges+Parties+to+Settle2012-04-26+12%3A46%3A45Seth+Dennishttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D5223

About two months ago I wrote about Apple’s ongoing trademark woes in China (see post here). To briefly recap – Proview, a Chinese display manufacturer, had trademarked IPAD in China in 2001. Apple thought it had purchased the rights to this mark, but Proview contended that the agreement covered ten other countries and not China. Both parties received favorable and unfavorable court rulings on the agreement in different countries, but the end result was ambiguity surrounding who is the rightful owner of the mark, leading to several large Chinese retailers halting sales of Apple’s iPad.

A prior court ruling in China presented Apple with potentially enormous fines that hinged on the outcome of future litigation. Fast-forwarding to today, the Chinese court is urging the two parties to settle their differences by mediating the dispute. The Chinese court is certainly aware of the water Apple draws from its wells, and this move is most likely an attempt to avoid the economic and political effects that an unfavorable ruling against Apple may incite.

It has been suggested that the law favors Proview in this situation, but a lawyer for Proview recently expressed his view that the case would likely settle out of court. This sentiment is undermined by Apple’s litigious reputation and its release of a large collection of documents earlier this year supporting its position.

So what is likely to happen? Apple appears to firmly believe that it is correct in this situation, but is also aware that the law favors Proview. I feel that if Steve Jobs were around he would throw good money in after bad, fighting tooth and nail for a victory. That isn’t necessarily the best strategy though. It may be a lot easier, cheaper, and safer to simply settle, rather than risking an enormous fine and losing the trademark rights altogether.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare

About the Author:

Author: Seth Dennis

Seth Dennis is a 2L at Washington College of Law. He is interested in trademark law, copyright law, and business law. Seth is originally from North Carolina and attended Appalachian State University where he received a B.A. in Philosophy with a minor in Business.

Seth Dennis has written 17 posts for the IPB.

Leave a comment!

Click here to cancel reply »

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.

Copyright »

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Mr. Brainwash’s works recently joined the increasing number of cases on appropriation art after photographer Dennis Morris sued the street artist for use of his 1977 picture of Sid Vicious.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Patents »

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Shortly after the oral arguments between Monsanto and Bowman, WCL hosted both parties for a post argument discussion. Recently the Supreme Court ruled on the case, requiring annual purchases of Monsanto’s soybeans.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Trademark »

Can “Boston Strong” be Trademarked?

Can “Boston Strong” be Trademarked?

Following the explosions on April 15, “Boston Strong” emerged as a viral hashtag on Twitter, a rallying cry at public events, and a logo on all kinds of apparels. It does not take too long for business opportunists to take advantage of this national tragedy.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Facebook

Accepting Submissions

The IP Brief is currently accepting submissions. We are looking for papers that address a legal topic relating to any area of intellectual property. Please submit completed papers and a cover page with the name and title of the article to ipbrief [at] wcl.american.edu. Any questions can also be sent to this e-mail address.

Blogroll

  • American University Washington College of Law
  • Carrollogos
  • Copyright Blog
  • GamePolitics
  • Intellectual Property Watch
  • PatentlyO
  • Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
  • Spicy IP
  • The TTABlog®
  • ©ollectanea

Tags

Archives

  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • January 2010

Random Posts

Video(game) Killed the Radio Star:  EMI Sues Def Jam Over Video Game’s Unlicensed Use of Rap Songs Norton for Toasters ASCAP Using Fightin’ Words Against Creative Commons and Company 8th Circuit Reinstates $ 222,000 Verdict Against Thomas, Says Public Policy Justifies High Award for Copyright Infringement Short Circuit: August 15 - September 4, 2012 Short Circuit: November 18 - 24, 2012 Virginia Tech Settles Trademark Dispute with Hokie Real Estate Company Microsoft v. i4i Decided: IP Community Crisis Averted? In-N-Out Redux: So-Cal Burgers in Shanghai Trade“mark Halal Meat Monitoring Company Accused of Bullying in UK
(refresh random posts)

Latest Video Post

Relatively New Anti-Piracy PSA: Another Analogy Comparison of Piracy to Stealing Cars or an Effective Message?

Recent Posts

  • Can “Boston Strong” be Trademarked?
  • Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business
  • Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million
  • Appropriating Sid Vicious
  • Chick-Fil-A’s ‘Eat Mor Chikin’ Trumps Kale-Promotion Slogan

Twitter

  • No public Twitter messages.
  • Copy / Paste
  • Site Search
  • Wikipedia
  • Google
  • Facts
  • Amazon
  • eBay
  • Outlook
  • Gmail
  • Y! Mail
  • Twitter
  • Search & Share
Powered by WordPress | Log in | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Arthemia Premium theme by Colorlabs Project
The American University Intellectual Property Brief is licensed by the staff of the American University Intellectual Property Brief under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License. IPBrief.net is hosted by Dan Rosenthal. For technical queries, contact dan@danrosenthal.org

Creative Commons License