Apple’s iPad taken off the shelves in north China

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Cookies Settings

Apple’s iPad taken off the shelves in north China

Chinese officials have confiscated Apple’s iPad devices from shops as Proview Technology began to assert its trade mark rights against the US company

Earlier this week, China Daily reported that officials from the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (AIC) took some of Apple’s iPad devices from reseller’s shelves in Xinhua district of Shijiazhuang, the largest city in Hebei province.

This is the latest development in a long-running dispute between Apple and Shenzhen based Proview Technology.

In 2001, Proview Technology registered the iPad mark in China. A year earlier, parent company Proview in Taipei had registered the mark across Asia and Europe. Apple bought the iPad marks through a UK company for $55,000 from Proview Taipei. That agreement included the China mark, but Proview Taipei is not the owner; Proview Shenzhen is.

“The China marks were in the agreement apparently, but what happened was [Apple] did not do the due diligence with regards to the owner of the China mark and what is less clear is why they did not mandate a transfer at closing,” said Stan Abrams, of counsel at Golden Gate Lawyers. Apple could have gone to the PRC Trademark Office and initiated the transfer.

A source close to the case said that because the sale included iPad marks from multiple countries, it is possible that the transfer was overlooked. Transferring of marks becomes much more complex when dealing with several trade marks, commented the source.

In 2009, Apple took Proview to court asking for the mark to be transferred in its name and the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court rejected Apple’s lawsuit. Apple appealed the decision earlier this year and is awaiting judgment. Simultaneously, Proview sent complaints to several AICs across China claiming that Apple’s iPad products infringe its trade marks and should not be on sale. The Shijiazhuang AIC is the first to confiscate iPad and represents another victory for Shenzhen Proview.

AICs are not under a central authority in China. Those AICs that received complaints from Proview can carry out raids at their discretion. According to Abrams, it is legal to carry out actions with a pending appeal before the court. “The trade mark is not under dispute by the Trade Mark Office, which means Proview is the trade mark owner and it is clear sailing for the AICs,” he said.

Proview is also suing Apple in Shanghai for trade mark infringement under the PRC Trademark Law (中华人民共和国商标法) asking for Rmb 10 billion ($1.6 billion) in damages. The court is due to give its judgment on February 22.

Sina reported this week that Proview plans to file applications before China Customs. This could hinder the export of iPad products, although Apple would be able to justify the exports on the grounds that they have the iPad mark registered in all countries that the goods would be destined for. “Proview is going through the motions, with the AICs, filing court actions and talking to Customs. They are doing all the things you would do as a trade mark owner protecting your rights,” said Abrams.

The high-profile dispute is likely to end in a settlement in the next few months. Apple paid a Chinese company $3.65 million for the iPhone trademark last decade. It may have to pay considerably more to win back the iPad. Alternatively, perhaps iPad will become iTab, but only in China. 


This article originally appeared on the website of China Law & Practice .

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
David Rodrigues and Evan Lazerowitz – attorneys at Robinson & Cole – offer practical guidance on the steps a business might consider to preserve and maximise IP value before entering financial distress or insolvency
Daniel Law CEO Alicia Daniel-Shores may have stepped into a family business, but she has spent two decades building her own vision around technology and litigation
Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
The IP boutique is betting that growing investment in quantum and semiconductors will fuel demand as technology shifts toward physical systems
Lawyers say the overhaul better reflects commercial reality, with changes spanning novelty searches, digital designs and access to a small claims track, but stopping short of criminalising unregistered design infringement
Carpmaels & Ransford hires its fourth partner of the year and wins access to UPC files, as fresh orders address costs, confidentiality and the use of divisional patents
Gift this article