{{ searchResult.published_at | date:'d MMMM yyyy' }}

Loading ...
Loading ...

Enter a search term such as “mobile analytics” or browse our content using the filters above.


That’s not only a poor Scrabble score but we also couldn’t find any results matching “”.
Check your spelling or try broadening your search.


Sorry about this, there is a problem with our search at the moment.
Please try again later.

The iPad may be one of Apple's most important products. The dominant tablet device has been selling at an impressive rate, and that only looks to continue when Apple releases the iPad 3, something that could happen as early as March.

But there's just one problem: according to a Chinese firm, Apple doesn't own the 'iPad' trademark.

Proview Technology claims it's the owner of the mark in China and other key Asian markets. And it appears to be serious about defending its rights. Li Su, the chairman of the company responsible for restructuring Proview Technology, says "Right now we are selecting from three American law firms to sue Apple in the United States for $2 billion in compensation."

What isn't in doubt is that Proview Technology did hold the 'iPad' trademark in China and other countries well before Apple started working on its tablet device. But Apple contends that it struck a licensing agreement that addressed the matter. Apple has documents showing that the rights to the trademarks in question were sold to a UK company, IP Applications, which then sold them to Apple in 2010.

Proview Technology, however, claims that those documents don't mean much because the deal with IP Applications was made by its Taiwanese subsidiary, not the company's Shenzhen parent.

One thing is for sure: this is a mess and it probably isn't going to be resolved overnight, putting Apple in a precarious situation in a market that is increasingly one of its most important. The good news for Apple is that it's no stranger to litigation, even if it prefers to play the role of plaintiff.

Patricio Robles

Published 17 February, 2012 by Patricio Robles

Patricio Robles is a tech reporter at Econsultancy. Follow him on Twitter.

2419 more posts from this author

Comments (2)

John Courtney

John Courtney, CEO and Executive Chairman at Pay on Results SEO, Content Marketing, Social Media, Digital PR, PPC & CRO from Strategy Digital


over 4 years ago

Guy Harvey

Guy Harvey, Marketing Consultant - Social Media and Media Relations at Human Factors International

OK. So basically the subsidiary sold the goods. Parent company says nothing, happy for their subsidiary to take the cash. Ipad becomes one of the world's most famous brands. Parent company decides they didn't really authorize their subsidiary to sell the trademark. Am I missing something here? They probably sold it for a less than a million and then work up one morning and decide they'd rather have $2 billion. Who wouldn't!

over 4 years ago

Save or Cancel

Enjoying this article?

Get more just like this, delivered to your inbox.

Keep up to date with the latest analysis, inspiration and learning from the Econsultancy blog with our free Daily Pulse newsletter. Each weekday, you ll receive a hand-picked digest of the latest and greatest articles, as well as snippets of new market data, best practice guides and trends research.