Proview lawyer: iPad dispute is unrelated to high moral punishment is necessary

At 2 pm on March 10th, the Shenzhen Bar Association held a seminar on "IPAD trademark case and Chinese enterprises defending rights". Proviewer Xiao Caiyuan of the Proview "IPAD" litigation briefed the nearly 200 Shenzhen lawyers about the case of Proview and Apple. From the beginning to the end of the debate, several debates focused on the issues of the trial, and there was a lively atmosphere of confrontation.

Regarding the hot topic of “Who is not ethical for Apple and Proview,” Xiao Caiyuan stated that in this dispute over trademark rights, both parties fought against each other according to the game rules of intellectual property disputes. This business war and morality did not exist. Associations.

Participate in the discussion of lawyers packed aisle seminars held in the Shenzhen Association of Legalists conference room, about 200 people can sit in the conference room full of seats, some late lawyers can only stand in the aisle. As the prosecutor of Proview's "IPAD" lawsuit, Xiao Caiyuan, a senior partner of Guangdong Guanghe Law Firm, served as a guest speaker and described the whole story.

At the seminar, Li Menglong, director of the Shenzhen Intellectual Property Law Committee, said that as the "IPAD" trademark case that has continued to be of global concern, it has become a milestone for China's Shenzhen company's Proview and its well-known Apple Inc. .

Jin Yan, an attorney with Guangdong Eastern Jinyuan Law Firm, interpreted the Morning News reporter that the domestic awareness of intellectual property rights protection such as trademarks is relatively lacking, and that the incidents that caused domestic brands to be maliciously registered by other companies have repeatedly occurred. Crown and Apple's lawsuit is the use of its own rights to trademark registration rights, and "IPAD" has become a global well-known trademarks, so the impact of this lawsuit will exceed China's previous intellectual property disputes.

At the scene of the meeting, there were people asking questions. After the lawyers had a better understanding of the case, the meeting entered the stage where the two sides face each other and the confrontation took place on stage, and the atmosphere was warmed up. Xiao Caiyuan said: "Welcome everyone from the perspective of Apple to ask questions."

Immediately afterwards, a number of lawyers raised their hands to ask questions, and a lawyer immediately got up and preemptively asked questions: Does the Taiwan Proview Agreement bind Shenzhen Proview? Apple Corps exchanged trademark rights with Shenzhen Weiguan staff through email and Yang Rongshan, chairman of Taiwan Proview, was also the person in charge of Shenzhen Proview. Whether or not it signifies that it agrees to hold Shenzhen Proview’s “IPAD” trademark in the Mainland What about transfer? This question caused a round of applause.

In response, Xiao Caiyuan responded that when Apple sent an e-mail to Proview to purchase trademark rights, it clearly stated that the transfer of trademark rights must be signed by an authorized representative. Therefore, e-mail is not binding. In addition, Yang Rongshan has multiple identities. In the agreement, he represented Taiwan Proview to sell trademark rights. In mainland China, the "IPAD" trademark right was in the hands of Shenzhen Proview. The full text did not appear in Shenzhen, and the contents of the agreement were exactly the same. By the preparation of Apple, it can only be said that Apple made a low-level mistake."

At the scene of the conference there are ordinary citizens who have heard of the news. Citizens’ questions are closely linked with the ethical issues behind the business war. “Who is not moral about Apple and Proview? Is a small trademark claiming sky-high price? For these issues, Xiao Caiyuan said that from the legal game rules of the intellectual property dispute case, business warfare has nothing to do with morality, even if the sky-price claim is reasonable.

It is worth mentioning that during the debate, a lawyer took the stage to speak and expressed his tribute to Xiao Caiyuan and his team, saying that “this dispute case will greatly promote China’s efforts to protect intellectual property”.

Morning News reporter dialogue Proview lawyer Xiao Caiyuan Xiao Caiyuan: "I have confidence in winning."

Morning News reporter: Why did a small dispute over trademark rights evolve into a global concern? Where do you think will eventually go?

Xiao Caiyuan: Proview and Apple have disputes over trademark rights. The lawsuit has been in place for more than two years. We have never closed the channel of reconciliation, but Apple seems to lack sincerity. This situation (litigation) is entirely caused by the arrogance of Apple and its refusal to admit it.

Apple has at least 3 chances to resolve trademark disputes. For the first time, after the “Oolong Contract” (that is, Taiwan Proview sold the trademark right of the Mainland for Shenzhen Proview), Apple could not handle the transfer of the “IPAD” trademark from the Mainland. The formalities were then resolved with Shenzhen Weiguan. Subsequently, when Apple forcibly landed on the Chinese mainland market and faced no choice in correcting litigation choices, it also continuously missed two opportunities. Now the cost of settlement will be higher and higher.

If Apple loses its case and does not want to replace the "IPAD" brand in the mainland, it must buy out the trademark right. This price will be very high. Even if the case is successful, since the trademark right is mortgaged by the proteo creditor, Apple needs to talk to the creditor if it wants to transfer, and the price will not be low.

Of course, the outcome of the final trial was decided by the court. I am not qualified to express my opinion as a lawyer, but I do have confidence in winning the case.

Morning Reporter: The outside world is quite controversial about this "high price", and believes that Proview is on the verge of bankruptcy. Is there any immoral suspicion of biting Apple?

Xiao Caiyuan: Litigation is a legal issue. It is not appropriate to use moral considerations. Proview claims are indeed a very high figure, but from the perspective of foreign intellectual property litigation experience and the protection of corporate intellectual property from the legal system, this figure is not critical. With regard to the protection of corporate intellectual property systems and increasing the cost of infringement, high penalties are necessary.

Apple's behavior (infringement) poses a challenge to the protection system of intellectual property rights. Problems must be solved in the game rules of intellectual property disputes, and it will inevitably impact people's originally thin intellectual property concepts.

Significant product benefits include:
1)A wide variety of standard spool sizes.
2)Custom spools for applications including: Coaxial cable, rope, speaker wire, THHN wire, CATV wire, hose, chain, tubing, packing material and fabrics.
3)Industry-leading spool technology and ongoing innovation
4)High impact recyclable engineering materials
5)Structural integrity and impact resistance

6)Zero corrosion


Type Weight
(g)
d1
(mm)
D1
(mm)
d2
(mm)
D2
(mm)
H1
(mm)
H2
(mm)
d3
(mm)
A1
(mm)
A2
(mm)
d4
(mm)
E
(mm)
DIN-125 170 125 80 100 125 20 12.5 12.5 7 20
DIN-160 350 160 100 128 160 22 16 16 13 32
DIN-200A 600 200 125 160 200 22 20 20 13.5 32
DIN-200B 600 200 125 160 200 32 20 20 13.5 32
DIN-200C 650 200 125 160 200 32 20 20

DIN-250A 1050/1200 250 160 160 200 22 20 20 13 32
DIN-250B 1050 250 160 160 200 32 20 20 13 32
S-250 1230 250 160 157 197 127 20 20

NP-13A 885 202 119 154 188 32 17 17 9/14 49/26.75
NP-13B 885 202 119 154 188 33 17 17 9.5/12.5 50.25/26.25
NS-4 225 120 75 130 150 16/20 10 10 10 22
NS-5A 220 120 54 130 150 16/20 10 10

NS-5B 220 120 54 130 150 22 10 10

LH-120 170 120 50 100 120 16/20 10 10 6 17



 

PP Wire Spool

PP Wire Spool, Plastic Thread Spools, Small Plastic Wire Spool, Clear Plastic Spool

NINGBO BEILUN TIAOYUE MACHINE CO., LTD. , https://www.spool-manufacturer.com

This entry was posted in on