7 ms·
Apple can't call an iPad an iPad in China, says court.
- mrkmcknz 15y agoFor some bizarre reason this made me smile.
- ploxination 15y agobecause you are an android fanboy?
- zalew 15y agoI'd smile even more if the chinese company was a manufacturer of those cheap knock-offs
- elithrar 15y agoI think it's extremely unlikely Apple would sell the iPad under any other name. The 'brand' is too strong—and is probably worth $1.6b to them.
- nodata 15y ago$1.6b in lost sales? Even if Apple call it something else, everyone will still call it an iPad. If I were Apple I'd come up with a name unique to the Chinese market.
- martingordon 15y ago$1.6B is nothing to Apple. They had $80B in cash at the end of September and could very well pass $100B after the holidays. I don't think there's any way Apple will dilute the brand of one of their flagship products in their hottest market. Plus, it works both ways: they would have to find a trademark that works everywhere else so that competitors don't snatch up the new trademark in other countries.
- Tyrannosaurs 15y agoHaving the money and it being nothing are different. If I need to I could come up with $10,000 for something. That doesn't mean that it's not significant and it doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do if I have an alternative.
- martingordon 15y agoThe cost of switching to a different name isn't $0, though. Both the cost and added complexity is significant. Some considerations: * Cost of finding and registering a different trademark that's available worldwide. * Cost of developing new marketing materials. * Cost of tweaking software to use new name. * Cost of tweaking production lines to print new name on devices and packaging. * Cost of lost sales due to customer confusion (Chinese traveling to America; Foreigners traveling to China).
- Tyrannosaurs 15y agoI'm not saying that there are no costs, there clearly are, the most significant of which is brand dilution. What I'm saying is that $1.6bn is clearly not nothing, not to Apple, not to anyone.
- astrodust 15y agoYou know how many lawyers you can buy for $1.6B? Here's a hint: LOTS OF LAWYERS.
- yiran 15y agoYou know how many officials you can bribe with $1.6 B? Here's a hint: LOTS OF THEM.
- sirn 15y ago> If I were Apple I'd come up with a name unique to the Chinese market. Apple has done this for their lesser product. AirPort is released as AirMac in Japan, for example.
- jcampbell1 15y agoIn China, all laws can be trumped by what is good for the people. It is written in their constitution. Since Apple provides something like 1M jobs in China, it is unlikely a court ruling would be enforced. This problem will go away with one phone call.
- ugh 15y ago“Their copyright infringement is very clear.” Wrong translation, wrong statement or different laws? Other than that: Boring.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- tomp 15y agoCorrect translation, correct statement, same laws. The article describes a case of a Chinese company that registered the iPad trademark long before Apple used it. Apple bought it from this company, except for use in mainland China. Now, Apple is selling iPads under the name iPad in mainland China, so it's infringing on this Chinese company's trademark.
- PakG1 15y agoWhen I read the article, it actually seems a bit complicated and not so cut and dry. If foreign companies want to enter China, they need to obey Chinese law, especially when those laws aren't malicious, make sense, and are enforced correctly, even if the result is ludicrous. Any country should expect the same when a foreign company comes to compete within their shores. And in this particular case, it doesn't seem ludicrous. Here's a ludicrous example, a close cousin to domain name squatting: http://www.chinahearsay.com/coca-cola-plays-it-smart-in-its-ip-fight-with-nongfu-spring/ http://www.chinahearsay.com/coca-cola-plays-it-smart-in-its-... What Apple has going for it here is the fact that it has Foxconn as a key manufacturing partner, which is a huge employer in China. That may give it some political power. Who knows. In the end, $1.6b is chump change for Apple, and it may be worth it for them to just settle.
- pjin 15y agoWhat Apple has going for it here is the fact that it has Foxconn as a key manufacturing partner, which is a huge employer in China. That may give it some political power. Foxconn is a Taiwanese company. That doesn't count as "political power" in China.
- zephjc 15y agoI'm sure whoever decided this got a nice kickback.
- xedarius 15y agoiPad is a strong brand, and I can't see Apple selling it as anything else. However it is not worth $1.6b. If the company holding the copyright wasn't about to go to the dogs I'd be more concerned. Apple can enter into a lengthy legal wrangle and wait for the company in question to fold.
- philhippus 15y agoEven if the company folds, the name 'iPad' had already been registered before Apple decided to use it, and the more 'iPad's' Apple sells in China, the more they will have to pay up eventually.
- Angostura 15y agoTrade mark, not copyright.
- ChrisArchitect 15y agoSo I can't get a real iPad from a fake Apple store in China? I guess Apple will have to open some more real stores and sell renamed 'fake' iPads under another name. haha
- pi18n 15y agoAlthough I don't know if it's fair to tar them all with the same brush, I find it ironic that a Chinese company would cry foul on trademarks.
- dasil003 15y agoIt's just a desperate company approaching bankruptcy doing what they can to stay alive.
- valnour 15y agoThey may be a desperate company approaching bankruptcy, but they did own the trademark for the name long before Apple wanted to use it.
- dasil003 15y agoWhat does it take to own a trademark in China? What is the actual value of their trademark? Until I know that I'm more inclined to think they've won the lottery than built any value on the name iPad.
- est 15y agoQFT > Proview Technology (Shenzhen) is a subsidiary of Hong Kong-headquartered Proview International Holdings Limited, which also has a branch in Taipei.
- shimon_e 15y agoWow $1.6 billion. I remember a case in China few years ago when a peasant found a 3cm bug in a bottle of Sprite. He sued Coca-Cola for 4 rmb ($0.64). The court ruled in his favor but only awarded him 2.05 rmb. I wonder if this is a change in heart in how much the Chinese courts will be awarding in future cases.
- PakG1 15y agoThat's like comparing an ant and an elephant.... how does it even compare? One is a bottle of Sprite, and not even a class action lawsuit, the other is a trademark for selling rights in the entire country.
- shimon_e 15y agoI was making a point that Chinese courts generally don't award large lawsuits. The peasant sued for 4 rmb but the court felt that was too much. Here is the news article if you are interested: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2010-02/04/content_9429513.htm http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2010-02/04/content_942... Here is another case dealing with trademarks where the Chinese courts awarded nickels on dimes. http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2006/01/11/afx2444090.html http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2006/01/11/afx2444090.html
- PakG1 15y agoOK, got it. But it would have been easier to accept your point from the beginning if you'd have used the chocolate example in the first place. That's a much better comparison.
- PakG1 15y agoI used to own a Proview CRT monitor back in the day. My, my, how things have changed.
- mdonahoe 15y agoWhat does the word "iPad" look like in Chinese?
- jcampbell1 15y agoApple doesn't use Chinese characters in their Chinese branding, so it looks like "iPad". Also chinese has adopted quite a bit of English these days, for instance a music player is an MP3, and a portable video player like and iPod touch is an MP4. The M and P are pronounced like English, and the number is spoken in chinese. Interestingly, "Apple" is almost always written and spoken in Chinese: 苹果 - ping guo - which has the same meaning as the English.
- mikhailt 15y agoWe don't really have the whole story here. If you read the news story here from China: http://topics.scmp.com/news/china-business-watch/article/Apple-faces-fight-or-big-payout http://topics.scmp.com/news/china-business-watch/article/App... > The Hong Kong court found that Apple and IP Application, while drawing up the agreement for that sale, discovered the two mainland iPad trademarks were not owned by Taipei-based Proview Electronics as they were led to believe, but by Proview Technology. > Apple said the defendants, while acknowledging the mistake, refused to rectify the matter and asked Apple to pay US$10 million for the two trademarks. Apple and IP began their action against the Proview group on May 20 last year. All of this points that Apple didn't exactly do this intentionally.