Apple vs Proveiw

Ann Siriwan Baker 5280760

Apple vs Proview – Assignment The main direct legal issue concerns the transferring and ownership of the ‘iPad’ trademark. I believe that it is a direct issue because it is what ignited the whole problem when Proview Technology claimed Apple to be in violation of the ‘iPad’ trademark. This is because Apple bought the ‘iPad’ trademark from Proview Electronics (Taiwan), when at the time Proview Technology (Shenzhen) actually owned it. Thus it seems Proview Electronics sold the trademark to Apple, but did not actually own it. Therefore the question is whether Proview Technology gave any authority to Proview Electronics to sell the ‘iPad’ trademark, or whether Proview Electronics had the right to sell the trademark, which it seems that they did not. To avoid this, Apple should have checked carefully who owned the trademark before entering into the contract. Another direct legal issue is the contract that was signed between Apple and Proview Electronics (Taiwan). I believe this to be a direct issue because the contract was not clear, which consequently led Apple to believe that they had purchased the ‘Global Trademark’ which entitled them to sell the iPad in many different countries, including China – but it didn’t. If it was clear and Apple had known that they had not received the rights to sell in China, they would not have sold the iPads there in the first place. One important question is also whether Proview Technology and Proview Electronics, has joined together to mislead and induce Apple, as this would be an issue of misrepresentation. Additionally, the Proview companies did not offer to amend the contract, but rather chose to take the issue to court and claim many millions of Dollars from Apple, which makes it even more suspicious that they may have intended to take advantage of Apple from the beginning An indirect legal issue is that the two companies use different legal systems - Apple (United States) uses common law where as Proview Technology (China) uses civil law. Therefore, many global strategies cannot be used in China because of the different law systems. For example in this case, under the Contract law of China, both companies (Proview Technology and Proview Electronics) were treated as two separate entities, even though one is a subsidiary and the other is the mother company. It is also important to note that in Hong Kong which adopts common law, Apple won the case, however in China, under civil law, the court sided with Proview. This is evidence how two different courts, with two different legal systems can read the same evidence differently. To conclude, I believe that the direct legal issues include the ownership and transferring of the ‘iPad’ trademark, as well as contractual problems. This is because both of these are what started the big dispute between the two companies. In addition to this I believe the different legal systems the companies use is an indirect issue, because it is not what started the problem, but rather what may have influenced the outcome.