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 2025

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

The tie-up could result in the firm’s German and France-based teams, which both have strong UPC expertise, becoming independent
News of a slowdown in the UK’s clean energy IP landscape and an EPO report on unitary patent uptake were also among the top talking points
Price hikes at ‘big law’ firms are pushing some clients toward boutiques that offer predictable fees, specialised expertise, and a model built around prioritising IP
The Australian side, in particular, can benefit by capitalising on its independent status to bring in more work from Western countries while still working with its former Chinese partner
Koen Bijvank of Brinkhof and Johannes Heselberger of Bardehle Pagenberg discuss the Amgen v Sanofi case and why it will be cited frequently
View the official winners of the 2025 Social Impact EMEA Awards
King & Wood Mallesons will break into two entities, 14 years after a merger between a Chinese and an Australian firm created the combined outfit
Teams from Shakespeare Martineau and DWF will take centre stage in a dispute concerning the registrability of dairy terminology in plant-based products
Senem Kayahan, attorney and founder at PatentSe, discusses how she divides prosecution tasks, and reveals the importance of empathetic client advice
The association’s Australian group has filed a formal complaint against the choice of venue, citing Dubai as an unsafe environment for the LGBTQIA+ community
Gift this article