Yesterday, following the first trial failure in December last year, Apple v. Shenzhen Proview’s “iPad trademark infringement case†was held in the second instance of the Guangdong Provincial High Court. As one of the most concerned intellectual property cases in China, a large number of media before the court flocked. In this case, both the prosecution and the defense agents indicated that they needed to solicit the opinions of the client. After the court concluded the trial, the judges would be sent on a daily basis.
ã€on site】
Another three courts were opened for the media. According to the court staff, the iPad trademark was heard at the second hearing and attracted more than a hundred Chinese and foreign media. The court opened three courts for the media to conduct live video broadcasts.
In court, both litigation agents conducted fierce clashes. Shenzhen Proview Lawyer Xiao Caiyuan said that Apple has always been negotiating with Taiwan Proview, and the emails involved do not have legal effect; in addition, the transaction amount was only handed over to Taiwan Proview and had no relationship with Shenzhen Proview. .
"When consumers see the iPad, they know that it comes from Apple, not from other companies, and the iPad has become synonymous with Apple's tablet." Apple's agent said that if the court decides that the trademark belongs to the other party, it will inevitably cause confusion and damage consumers. Interests.
ã€Cross】
apple:
The defendant’s behavior violated public interests before the court session. Informed sources told reporters that although Apple originally negotiated with Proviewer, its “main force†was intellectual property lawyers from England and Wales. The reason why "Taiwan Proview" and "Shenzhen Proview" cannot be separated precisely because the lawyer "does not understand Chinese" confused the two companies.
In the first-instance suit, although a Chinese lawyer appeared in court, the behind-the-scenes command “litigation†was from Beacon, the largest law firm in the United States. After the losing of the trial in the first instance, Apple finally learned its lesson and changed the case to Beijing King & Wood, a well-known law firm in China. In the intellectual property field of Jindu Law, there is a heavyweight "legal advisor" - Jiang Zhipei, former President of the Intellectual Property Division of the Supreme People's Court.
In court, an attorney from Apple believes there is an entrustment relationship between Shenzhen Proview and Proview. The e-mail exchange between IP company and Proview employees can confirm that the trademark in question has been transferred to Apple.
Apple’s lawyers also stated that according to the agreement between the IP company and Taiwan Proview, Hong Kong law should be applied. The attorney also proposed that Shenzhen Proview's behavior "infringed on the public interest."
Proview:
Apple belongs to "referring to deer for horses"
Shenzhen Proview lawyer stated that the core evidence submitted by Apple in the case such as agreement, power of attorney, Barclays bank draft amounting to 35,000 pounds, etc., the transferor in the agreement, the authorizer in the power of attorney, and the bank draft record The recipients are Taiwan Proview, not Shenzhen Proview, and they are “referring to the deer for the horse†and they have no binding force on Shenzhen Proview.
For the “core†evidence submitted by Apple, e-mails, Shenzhen Proview lawyers “remind†each other to understand the basic legal requirements of China: The owner of the e-mail is a foreigner, and the conduct of the e-mail takes place overseas, in accordance with China’s civil lawsuits. Evidence rules, it must be notarized by a foreign local, Chinese embassies and consulates to be certified before they can be used as evidence.
[last statement]
Apple: If the award to Proview was unfair to us in the final statement of the court, the appellant stated that it was through the operation of Apple that the current value was formed. It would be unfair to Apple if the second-instance court finally ruled that the “iPad†trademark should be owned by Proview. Shenzhen Proview Firm insists that Taiwan Proview does not have the right to handle the trademarks of Shenzhen Proview. The contract reached by both parties does not have legal effect on Shenzhen Proview. Shenzhen Proview and IP Application Development Co., Ltd. have not reached any trademark transfer contract. relationship. After the court inquired whether or not to conduct mediation, the prosecution and the defense both expressed the need to solicit the opinions of the client. After the court concluded the trial, the judge would be sent to a judge.
ã€on site】
Another three courts were opened for the media. According to the court staff, the iPad trademark was heard at the second hearing and attracted more than a hundred Chinese and foreign media. The court opened three courts for the media to conduct live video broadcasts.
In court, both litigation agents conducted fierce clashes. Shenzhen Proview Lawyer Xiao Caiyuan said that Apple has always been negotiating with Taiwan Proview, and the emails involved do not have legal effect; in addition, the transaction amount was only handed over to Taiwan Proview and had no relationship with Shenzhen Proview. .
"When consumers see the iPad, they know that it comes from Apple, not from other companies, and the iPad has become synonymous with Apple's tablet." Apple's agent said that if the court decides that the trademark belongs to the other party, it will inevitably cause confusion and damage consumers. Interests.
ã€Cross】
apple:
The defendant’s behavior violated public interests before the court session. Informed sources told reporters that although Apple originally negotiated with Proviewer, its “main force†was intellectual property lawyers from England and Wales. The reason why "Taiwan Proview" and "Shenzhen Proview" cannot be separated precisely because the lawyer "does not understand Chinese" confused the two companies.
In the first-instance suit, although a Chinese lawyer appeared in court, the behind-the-scenes command “litigation†was from Beacon, the largest law firm in the United States. After the losing of the trial in the first instance, Apple finally learned its lesson and changed the case to Beijing King & Wood, a well-known law firm in China. In the intellectual property field of Jindu Law, there is a heavyweight "legal advisor" - Jiang Zhipei, former President of the Intellectual Property Division of the Supreme People's Court.
In court, an attorney from Apple believes there is an entrustment relationship between Shenzhen Proview and Proview. The e-mail exchange between IP company and Proview employees can confirm that the trademark in question has been transferred to Apple.
Apple’s lawyers also stated that according to the agreement between the IP company and Taiwan Proview, Hong Kong law should be applied. The attorney also proposed that Shenzhen Proview's behavior "infringed on the public interest."
Proview:
Apple belongs to "referring to deer for horses"
Shenzhen Proview lawyer stated that the core evidence submitted by Apple in the case such as agreement, power of attorney, Barclays bank draft amounting to 35,000 pounds, etc., the transferor in the agreement, the authorizer in the power of attorney, and the bank draft record The recipients are Taiwan Proview, not Shenzhen Proview, and they are “referring to the deer for the horse†and they have no binding force on Shenzhen Proview.
For the “core†evidence submitted by Apple, e-mails, Shenzhen Proview lawyers “remind†each other to understand the basic legal requirements of China: The owner of the e-mail is a foreigner, and the conduct of the e-mail takes place overseas, in accordance with China’s civil lawsuits. Evidence rules, it must be notarized by a foreign local, Chinese embassies and consulates to be certified before they can be used as evidence.
[last statement]
Apple: If the award to Proview was unfair to us in the final statement of the court, the appellant stated that it was through the operation of Apple that the current value was formed. It would be unfair to Apple if the second-instance court finally ruled that the “iPad†trademark should be owned by Proview. Shenzhen Proview Firm insists that Taiwan Proview does not have the right to handle the trademarks of Shenzhen Proview. The contract reached by both parties does not have legal effect on Shenzhen Proview. Shenzhen Proview and IP Application Development Co., Ltd. have not reached any trademark transfer contract. relationship. After the court inquired whether or not to conduct mediation, the prosecution and the defense both expressed the need to solicit the opinions of the client. After the court concluded the trial, the judge would be sent to a judge.
BBQ Grill,Fashion Barbecue Grill,Stainless Steel Grill,Smokeless BBQ Grill
Shaoxing Haoda Electrical Appliance Co.,Ltd , https://www.zjhaoda.com