The ownership and assignment dispute between Apple Inc. and Shenzhen Proview Technology over the 'iPad' trademark is a representative case of a multinational company hitting a trademark barrier in the Chinese market. After losing at first instance before the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court, the case was mediated on second instance by the Guangdong Provincial Higher People's Court; Apple ultimately obtained the exclusive right to the 'IPAD' trademark at a price of USD 60 million, avoiding the risk of a sales ban on its tablet in the Chinese market.
Case Overview
Shenzhen Proview Technology Co., Ltd. had registered the 'IPAD' trademark on goods including Class 9. In December 2009, Taiwan Proview signed a Trademark Assignment Agreement with IP Application Development Ltd. of the UK, assigning a batch of trademarks including the one at issue for GBP 35,000; in February 2010, IP Company assigned the relevant trademarks to Apple. Apple contended that the right to the 'IPAD' trademark had passed accordingly, while Shenzhen Proview argued that the assignment agreement was not binding on it. On April 19, 2010, Apple and IP Company sued Shenzhen Proview before the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court of Guangdong Province.
Issues in Dispute
- Whether Taiwan Proview had the right to dispose of the 'IPAD' trademark registered in Shenzhen Proview's name;
- Whether the trademark assignment agreement was binding on Shenzhen Proview, and whether it constituted apparent agency;
- The ownership of the exclusive right to the trademark at issue, and the legality of Apple's use of the 'iPad' sign.
Judgments and Case Numbers
- First instance: the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court of Guangdong Province held that the assignment agreement at issue had been signed by Taiwan Proview, was not binding on Shenzhen Proview, and did not constitute apparent agency, and dismissed Apple's claims;
- Second instance: Apple appealed to the Guangdong Provincial Higher People's Court. During the second instance, after repeated court mediation, the parties reached a settlement in June 2012: Apple would pay USD 60 million, and Shenzhen Proview would transfer the 'IPAD' trademark at issue to Apple. The settlement took effect on June 25, 2012; Apple applied for enforcement on June 28, and the Shenzhen Intermediate Court served the transfer ruling and notice of assistance on execution on the CNIPA, completing the transfer;
- Note on case numbers: the specific case numbers of the first and second instances were not disclosed in public sources, so this section relies on court level, timing, and outcome;
- Sources: 'Typical Cases of Trademark Cases Tried by People's Courts' (Case 1) published in the Gazette of the Supreme People's Court; public reports by China Economic Net and CNTV ('iPad trademark dispute settled; Apple the biggest winner', July 2012).
Key Takeaways
- Trademark assignment takes effect upon approval and announcement: the assignment of the exclusive right to a trademark takes effect after approval and announcement by the CNIPA; a mere agreement between overseas affiliates cannot dispose of a trademark registered in mainland China;
- The cost of chaotic intra-group trademark management: unclear ownership of trademarks among different legal persons of the same group created a major loophole in external dealings;
- Injunction pressure was a key driver of settlement: the risk of a sales ban on Apple products was the core reason it was willing to pay a high settlement;
- Mediated settlements also establish rules: the case fixed the basic understanding in practice that trademark assignments require approval and announcement, and that overseas affiliates have no right to dispose of trademarks registered within the territory.
Lessons for Businesses
When a multinational group acquires trademarks, it must verify the registrant entity mark by mark, ensure the party signing the assignment agreement is the trademark owner itself, and promptly complete the assignment approval and announcement formalities; core trademarks should undergo ownership due diligence to prevent defects caused by intra-group entity confusion; commercial resolution paths for trademark disputes (settlement, acquisition) are often better than protracted litigation, though the price depends on the parties' bargaining positions; and facing possible injunction risks, alternative plans and settlement room should be assessed early.
For the specific procedures above, you may book a trademark assignment on MyTMBee, and a filed trademark agent will provide full assistance.