Shenzhen Proview blocked iPad3 plan unchanged

The iPad Trademark between Apple and Shenzhen Proview was widely held in the second instance of the Guangdong Higher People's Court on the 29th. However, the court did not pronounce in court and it is still suspense that the iPad trademark should belong. In the context of the iPad3 listing rumor growing, Shenzhen Proview lawyer told the “IT Times” reporter that the blocking plan for iPad3 will not change!

Apple's new card or difficult to substantive changes Apple and Proview launched a six-hour trial debate in court, Apple has thrown nine new evidence.

An industry insider who asked not to be named said: "The nine new evidences of Apple are indeed as indicted by Fang Fang Guan, who said that it is not too new evidence. The accused party refuted one by one. But two of them are comparative. It is worth mentioning that one mentions a trademark transfer signature letter written by Shenzhen Weiguan letterhead and the chairman of the company; the other is to prove that Hui Yuan, Yuan Hui, who was deemed unable to correspond to the corresponding natural person in the first instance. It is indeed a Shenzhen Wei crown employee, and participated in the mail exchanges with the IP company on the transfer matters."

However, the reporter noticed during the live broadcast of several pages of the Weibo Broadcasting in the Guangdong Higher People’s Court that when several issues concerning the signature letter were referred to, Shenzhen Weiguan Fang was photocopyed instead of the original, and the authenticity was doubtful as the reason. The person in the industry stated that he had the same confusion: “This is the evidence presented in Hong Kong courts. It is reasonable to have time to prove its authenticity through a certain procedure and transfer it to the trial. I wonder if Apple did not even do this. Yuan Hui should also find out where this person is in advance and make him appear in court and everything is clear, and he does not understand why Apple can only attack him in court to prove his identity."

On the contrary, the person felt that Shenzhen Proview's attorney had fully prepared for the second instance. "It seems to guess what the other party will say and respond freely." The reporter called Shenzhen Maguan attorney Ma Dongxiao on the evening of the 29th. There was also a voice around the phone discussing the case. Ma Dongxiao told reporters that although Apple had taken Yuan Hui’s identity as new evidence in the court, he repeatedly emphasized that he was involved in the e-mail exchanges with Shenzhen Weiguan as an employee. He had reason to believe that he had confirmed the transfer of the Chinese mainland trademark on behalf of Shenzhen Weiguan. However, these results will not change: “We clearly pointed out in the courtroom that because the other party was British, Yuan Hui only assisted Taiwan’s Prosecco’s Mai Shihong to negotiate with the other party because the English was good. It can also be a contract, but in reality it is only a negotiation process and mail exchanges cannot be used as an agreement basis."

Ma Dongxiao also emphasized that Yuan Hui’s identity and who he represents in the end are not based on the guesswork of Apple’s own interests. Ultimately, he still looks at the contract of agreement: “On the contract, the only chapter is Taiwan Proview, but there is no Shenzhen Proview. It shows everything.”

As both parties in the court did not express their consent to mediation, Ma Dongxiao said that for the forthcoming iPad3, it will still block and have a strategy.

The legal community has created a great discussion. Regardless of the outcome, the iPad trademark case has become a classic case in the eyes of the legal community.

On the evening of February 29, Liu Chunquan, a senior partner of Shanghai Panyang Law Firm, told reporters that due to the fact that many people only understand the court debate from webcasts and other channels, it may be slightly different from the actual situation, so the result of the second instance is still not easy to say. . However, as a result of this case's thinking, on March 3, a special seminar will be held at the University of Shanghai for Science and Technology to gather representatives of the legal profession, intellectual property circles, and major companies to analyze this case.

"Many well-known lawyers and well-known companies are very active in requesting participation. Dozens of people's lecture halls are expected to sit still at that time," said lawyer Liu Chunquan. There are many similar seminars in Shanghai recently.

However, some foreign companies are arrogant in their liaison and respond negatively: “Why is such a great company like Apple so passive in this case? What are the new issues facing large companies in the acquisition and acquisition of intellectual property rights? These are all through this case. It is worth reflecting on this. This is not an isolated incident. Can companies not pay attention?"