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

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

Apple’s lawsuit against OpenAI, which features Tier 1-ranked disputes firms on both sides, reflects how trade secrets litigation is becoming a prominent competition feature
Drew & Napier’s leadership appointments show one way full-service firms can back up claims about the strategic importance of IP
Strike-out application will hear claims that the copyright aspect of an IP infringement claim brought by a gambling and sports betting group should be dropped
Amongst a sea of mergers, Lathrop GPM and HG Law have set out plans to combine, positioning themselves to compete with both IP boutiques and full-service firms
Patrícia Paias explains why she loves the science and business behind an idea and why potential rights owners must avoid the ‘file and forget’ philosophy
Lawyers eagerly await news of what IP specialist Sir Colin Birss will bring to one of the England and Wales judiciary’s most important roles
María Aurora García of Berken IP explains how intellectual property rights holders can use customs monitoring and online enforcement tools to identify parallel imports and support compliance with consumer protection rules
The Jakarta-based firm says personal networks and a distinctive strategy can help it guide foreign clients through what can be a tricky IP landscape
Munich litigation boutique formed by former Taylor Wessing partners continues expansion as it seeks to cement its position in the UPC market
Yvonne Tang and Siau Wen Lim, the second and third IP specialists to sit on the firm’s management committee, say IP is ‘uniquely positioned’ to support cross-practice work
Gift this article