Apple pays Proview $60 million for Chinese iPad trade mark

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 pays Proview $60 million for Chinese iPad trade mark

Apple and Proview are to settle their dispute over the iPad trade mark in China for $60 million

Proview had originally sought $1.2 billion from the Californian company.

The Guangdong High People’s Court in Shenzhen announced that the two sides reached an agreement last week and that the mark is in the process of being transferred.

A company named IP Application Development initially bought from Proview what it believed to be the global rights to the iPad mark in 2006. IP Application Development assigned the mark to Apple, but when Apple tried to record the transfer, the China Trademark Office refused, on the grounds that it belonged to Proview.

Officials in China have already said that the mark is owned by Proview.

IP attorneys have been paying close attention to the case, saying that it raised a number of legal issues, including trade mark transfer, ostensible agency and contract law in China.

In an article published in Managing IP, Zhu Zhigang and Paul Ranjard of Wan Hui Da in Beijing said that for an assignee to receive a trade mark legally, there must be: (1) the signing of a contract, and (2) the approval of the contract by the Trademark Office and the publication of the assignment with the issuance of a new trade mark certificate.

An attorney for Proview told the Press Association that the financially troubled company had been looking for a settlement of about $400 million, but it felt pressure from its creditors.

“Proview owes Chinese banks 400 million”, said one attorney who spoke anonymously. “That means the banks are only going to get a fraction of what they are due.”

“It could have been a lot worse (for Apple),” he added.



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