Apple and Proview are apparently in talks to settle the case of who has rights to the iPad trademark in China, and rumor has it Apple's initial offer was $16 million. This is after Proview's initial ask of a whooping $2 billion in February, which they've since lowered to $63 400 million according to anonymous sources. Although it might seem like an obscene amount to ask, it's worth noting that Proview is a company on the verge of economic collapse with creditors knocking on their door.

Proview has claimed that the UK-based middle-man that had originally sold the rights to Apple a few years ago actually didn't have the authority to do so, thus nullifying any earlier agreement, while Apple is contending that the original agreement was legitimate.

This trademark hurdle is slowing down the new iPad's arrival in China, but by the sounds of it, Apple's patience will outlast Proview's needs to pay off debts. Anyone want to take bets on how long it will take for this trademark battle to conclude?

Source: Sina via TNW

Apple and Proview are duking it out in China over the iPad trademark, but stateside, a California judge recently tossed out the case. Judge Mark Pierce from the Superior Court in Santa Clara dismissed the comaplaint, letting it fall to Hong Kong courts to decide what happens with the iPad name. Apparently leaving the fight in Hong Kong is what Apple and Proview had originally agreed on, though Proview later said it was unfair to do so, but didn't provide any evidence of why that might be. Still, Proview lawyers weren't too happy with this outcome and issued a statement:

We are looking forward to presenting the facts in the case to the appellate court, and we are confident that the facts will show that Apple fraudulently obtained the iPad trademarks.

I can only imagine that Proview has asked an exorbitant settlement fee from Apple; the question that remains is whether Apple should just cough up to get this over with, or hold out and likely win the case, but severely slow (or stop) the sale of iPads in China over what will likely be a long legal battle.

Source: WSJ

Proview lawyers recently said that Apple has had a change of heart and are discussing settlements with the LED manufacturer over the use of the iPad name in China. One of Proview's attorneys said in an interview:

We feel that the attitude of Apple Inc. has changed. Although they expressed that they were willing to negotiate, they have never taken any action before. But now, they are having conversations with us, and we have begun to consult on the case.

Seeing as Apple has more money than God, I'm surprised they aren't just throwing a brick of cash at these guys so they can get on with the business of selling tons of iPads in China. The iPhone 4S made a huge splash in China, and no doubt the new iPad stands to be just as big of a hit provided it can wrestle its way through this legal quagmire.

Source: Xinhuanet via iClarified

Apple had to attend a court in China last night as it became embroiled in a battle over the rights to the iPad name in China.  Proview, a company which has already filed for bankruptcy claims that Apple does not own the trademark for the iPad in China. Proview has already caused disruption to the sale of the iPad in China and is looking to gain a complete ban.

The case was heard at the Shanghai Pudong New Area People’s Court on Wednesday where both parties were represented. A heated four hour session ended without any rulings or indications as to how the case may be resolved. Proview has already successfully blocked sales of the iPad in several smaller Chinese cities and even managed to get the authorities to seize iPads from the shelves of some retailers. Apple believes that it bought the rights for the iPad name from Proview back in 2009 and this should cover China.

“We bought Proview’s worldwide rights to the iPad trademark in 10 different countries several years ago. Proview refuses to honor their agreement with Apple in China and a Hong Kong court has sided with Apple in this matter. Our case is still pending in mainland China.” But Proview claims that Apple did not obtain all the rights, and contends its Shenzhen subsidiary retains the rights in China.

Source: The New York Times

Chinese courts have quickly ruled in favour of Proview's trademark infringement case against Apple's iPad. One of the Intermediate People's Courts in China's Guangdong province has decided that local distributors need to stop selling iPads because Proview had a previous claim to the name. Of course, the case still has to go to Shanghai, where Apple will make a concerted resistance.

Apple has certainly had their fair share of trademark issues, but the fact that some courts in China are already calling for a ban on iPad sales shows this may be a tougher fight than usual. Of course, China will have a hard time blocking imports, but Apple has such a huge local retail presence that a permanent ban on iPad sales would be a considerable blow.  Massive population aside, China's passion for Apple products is sizable, and even a slight lapse in sales could mean a lot of lost revenue. Here's hoping Apple can squash this complaint when the case gets to Shanghai this week.

Update: It looks like Apple is threatening to countersue Proview with defamation if it keeps talking about how it owns the iPad name. Such a defamation claims seems like a bit of stretch since it's begging the original question, but these kind of moves aren't uncommon in protracted engagements. At very least, maybe a countersuit will slow down Proview enough that Apple will have enough time to further cement themselves in Chinese retail, making a ban unfeasible.

Source: Reuters

Apple has addressed concerns over the iPad trademark case brought by Proview that has recently had online retailers in China removing iPad's from their inventory. In a statement issued to China Daily, Apple asserts that Proview is simply not honoring the agreement in place.

“We bought Proview’s worldwide rights to the iPad trademark in 10 different countries several years ago. Proview refuses to honor their agreement with Apple, and a Hong Kong court has sided with Apple in this matter,” according to the statement, which also said the case is still pending on the Chinese mainland.”

When Apple purchased the iPad trademark, it was from a UK firm who had purchased it from Proview Taiwan, the sister company of Proview Shenzhen who didn't have the rights to actually sell the trademark.

Xie Xianghui, a lawyer representing Proview Shenzhen responded to Apple's statements, claiming that Apple meant to confuse the public. He said that the outcome in Hong Kong would have no bearing on other court cases because of how different the legal systems are.

“Apple is worried the iPad trademark will be resold before the hearing is finished, so it asked the Hong Kong court to forbid Proview Shenzhen from doing that,” , adding that the court’s decision to prevent the trademark from being transferred cannot be seen as showing that it has ruled in favor of Apple.

As the proceedings move on slowly, many retailers have stated they'll not stop selling the iPad in China but it's viewed by some that it might just be easier to settle on a deal with Proview Shenzhen rather then fighting the legal system in China. At least then, Apple would own the trademark fully without question and they could continue on without wondering if they may have to deal with the issue at some other point in time.

Source: People Daily via: 9to5Mac

While Apple probably wishes they'd really locked down the trademark rights to the iPad name long ago, the folks at Proview Technology in Shenzhen have a prior claim to the name and they're taking Apple to court over it. They're asking Apple stop selling the iPad in China (which only went on sale in the area recently), and demand an apology. Proview Shenzhen had registered the trademark in 2001, but their sister company, Proview Taiwan, had sold the rights to the iPad name to a UK firm, even though the Taiwanese company didn't have rights to the trademark. Despite that, a UK company then sold the rights to Apple, which now counts iPad on their official trademark list. Apple had known about this whole mess, and had sued Proview Shenzhen last year to assert their claim to "iPad", but had lost the suit. Now it looks like Proview is taking the fight to Apple.

Apple still doesn't own ipad.com, and with this trademark issue lingering, there's a clear gap in their IP rights. It's not like they don't have enough money to throw at the problem, and that said, odds are slim that this trademark suit will pose any serious roadblock to the advance of iPad in China.

Proview makes outdoor LED lighting, so it's not like there's any real competitive overlap here; they probably just want a big fat payoff, and it's hard to blame them. 

We'll be keeping an eye on the lawsuit's progress following the initial hearing this month.

Source: China Daily

KO Gadget posted up on their Facebook page this morning that they have received a cease and desist order from Apple over their glowing light mods. The order states what you would assume about trademark infringement -

The website, http://store.kogadget.com/, is offering for sale and selling merchandise bearing counterfeit Apple trademark(s). Such illegal use of Apple Trademark(s) is a violation of federal and State trademark laws.

There are tons of third party manufacturers out there that distribute colored and custom backs for the iPhone (I order many of them for color swaps). I don't think that Apple issued this order on the basis of infringing on the Apple logo alone. I believe it's due to safety concerns as well. I personally don't feel these modifications are safe from a technical standpoint.

KO Gadgets is claiming all orders have shipped but that they won't be selling any additional units. If you've ordered one of these light mods recently, has your shipping status changed or has your order been cancelled?

Source: KO Gadget Facebook

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has formally denied Apple's application for a trademark on multi-touch. The USPTO denied Apple's original request but Apple decided to appeal the decision. The decision was upheld and Apple was denied again. They originally applied for the trademark in January of 2007.

The decision to deny the patent was on the basis that the term "multi-touch" has become somewhat generic. It's now used to describe touchscreen technology in not only Apple products but pretty much every touchscreen smartphone and tablet on the market. Apple did not pass tests that determine "acquired distinctiveness", according to the Board of Appeals.

Thus, from the foregoing, we find that “multi-touch” not only identifies the technology, but also describes how a user of the goods operates the device. Based on the evidence discussed above, as well as other evidence in the record, we agree with the examining attorney that MULTI-TOUCH indeed is highly descriptive of a feature of the identified goods. We now consider whether applicant has submitted sufficient evidence to establish acquired distinctiveness of this highly descriptive term.

Even though the first iPhone somewhat started the whole multi-touch market, the term has been used extensively since then and has taken on a much broader base than just Apple products. Do you think Apple should have been given the trademark or do you think the decision was fair?

MacRumors

Microsoft does not want Apple to gain a trademark for the term "App Store" and is currently fighting to be able to use the term for its own mobile application store. They have recently asked the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office to refuse the trademark on the term "App Store" for Apple because they claim it is too generic of a name and they feel Apple doesn't have the right to lay claim to the term.

Any secondary meaning or fame Apple has in 'App Store' is de facto secondary meaning that cannot convert the generic term 'app store' into a protectable trademark. Apple cannot block competitors from using a generic name. 'App store' is generic and therefore in the public domain and free for all competitors to use.

Microsoft is also pointing out that the media commonly refers to application stores across all mobile platforms as "App Stores" and they even go as far as stating that Steve Jobs himself has used the term as a generic form when referring to the Android "App Store."

Apple stands by the fact that when people think of and refer to "App Store" it is in reference to Apple's App Store and is not being used as a generic term.

The vastly predominant usage of the expression 'app store' in trade press is as a reference to Apple’s extraordinarily well-known APP STORE mark and the services rendered by Apple thereunder.

As of now Microsoft and others will have to stick with their current application store names until the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office makes their final ruling. It doesn't seem to make sense for Microsoft to want to rename their current application store nor would it seem worth it for Google to rename it's store but when it comes to competition and technology you never know. What are your thoughts on this matter? Do you think Apple has a right to what Microsoft refers to as a generic term or should it be available for anyone to use?

[ TechFlash ]

Since the birth of the App Store and their ever popular commercials back in 2009, Apple and iOS devices have always been associated with the popular slogan "There's an app for that".  It only makes sense Apple would want to trademark the slogan that made the App Store so popular.  It's not just an advertising tool anymore, it's become so much more than that within our culture.  I frequently joke around when someone asks me how to do something, a frequent response to any iOS device user is "There's an app for that."  And normally, there is.

Apple originally filed for the trademark back in December 2009.  The first use sited in their trademark application was in January 2009.  The trademark will cover retail store services, computer software services provided via retail or internet, and handheld mobile electronic devices, and other consumer electronics.  Basically, Apple is trying to cover all bases to make sure that consumers only associate their popular catch phrase with iOS devices and not other mobile brands that may offer similar services (i.e. - Android, Blackberry, etc..).

[via Mashable! Tech, via TUAW]

Apple has secured the trademark for "iPad" from Fujitsu. Though details are non-existant, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) shows the name changed hands on March 17. Much like when Apple secured the iPhone name from Cisco, it should put to rest any lingering doubts about a last minute name change to iMagical or iRevolutionary iNew iDevice.

What, if anything, will happen to Fujitsu's iPAD point-of-sale Windows CE device is also unknown (but we suspect when the much sexier iPhone and iPod touch-based solutions from Square, mophie, Apple Store EasyPay and others begin wide roll-outs, it might kill more than just the name...)

[Patent Authority via Nick Denton via Engadget]

Patently Apple reports that, more than 3 years after Steve Jobs announced the iPhone on the stage at Macworld 2007, Apple has finally secured the trademark:

iPhone is a registered trademark of Apple Inc. – officially as of Feb 09, 2010. The registration number 3,746,840 covers International Classes 9, 28 and 38 which are presented in this report for clarification.

This follows a very public back-and-forth with Cisco in the US and Comwave in Canada, who were marketing VoIP products under the same name.

Round 2, of course, will be for the iPad trademark, though they believe Apple's position there may be stronger than widely believed.

MacRumors, who originally dug up Apple's involvement with the iSlate and iGuide names, has come across a trademark filing that suggests iPad may now be in the lead:

A search in the Canadian trademark database reveals that Apple's dummy corporation Slate Computing, LLC also applied for a trademark for "iPad" under the categories of handheld mobile digital electronic devices with a broad range of applications. This application was filed in July 2009 -- much more recently than the original iSlate trademarks which date back to 2006-2007. Slate Computing, LLC did not apply for a similar trademark in the U.S. due to the fact that Fujitsu appears to control the U.S. trademark as it relates to handheld computing. Of course, this didn't stop Apple from using the iPhone name despite it being owned by Cisco in the U.S. at the time of the iPhone's launch.

International filings also exist, though under the name IP Application Development, which thus far can't be linked back to Apple.

So, iTablet, iSlate, iPad, does it matter to you what Apple calls their new mega-iPhone, as long as they don't call it delayed for the Jan. 27 "Come see our latest creation" event? Right? Right? Sigh.

The Woolworths department store chain in Australia is being taken to court by Apple due to their new logo... looking too much like Apple's. Apple is required by law to defend their trademarks, lest they lose them, and they're concerned Woolworth may sell computers (or smartphones?) under the new, Apple-esque logo.

If the stylized W in Woolworths' logo didn't have that little leaf on top, we'd think Apple was a little over-litigious. As it is, we're not sure why the W needs a leaf, or if it looks more like an Apple than the "Great Pumpkin" from Charlie Brown (maybe Peanuts can sue as well?)

Take a look at the comparisons above and let us know how close you think the logos are.

[via AppleInsider]

It's morning; the dull Canadian sun seeps in through the blinds and the alarm sounds on my iPhone. I flip over, swipe to silence, grab the phone from off the side table, and quickly check my email for anything urgent. The weather widget shows clear skies, Twitter is abuzz with the latest SDK updates, and PhoneDifferent.com tells me Apple made a bit of money this year. Closing the browser, I flip on a podcast for some easy-learning and try to decide whether the day needs facing.

Sounds pretty normal, right? Actually, it's still pretty revolutionary, really. One device to rule them all, as the meme goes. The iPhone. Apple’s gift to the mobile world. And something that, as a Canadian, I can't legitimately own or use.

Biggest NAFTA- and Free Trade-powered partner, friendliest borders in the world, and seemingly endless source of hot singers and gifted comedians, and while we Canadians can buy every other bit of gear Apple produces, we get absolutely no iPhone love.

Why is that exactly? Read on.

Every cell phone needs a network to function. Voice, data, sms, etc. all requires an existing infrastructure, and the iPhone in particular needs the most prevalent global cellular infrastructure, GSM. Like the United States, Canada has both GSM and CDMA cell providers. Unlike the US, however, where there’s GSM competition between AT&T and T-Mobile, following a merger a few years ago, Canada has only one (1) GSM provider: Rogers.

Reason 1: GSM Monopoly

Way back in 1925, Ted Rogers Sr. invented the first radio tube to work off alternating current (AC), revolutionizing the industry and helping make the radio ubiquitous. Before his untimely death, he was even granted a television license which was still in the experimental stages at the time.

Ted Rogers jr. followed in his father’s footsteps, pioneering stereo broadcasting in 1962 with CHFI-FM. Come 1967, after helping popularize the FM system, Rogers moved into cable television, and by 1985 he entered the cell market with Rogers Cantel Inc.

Rogers began its cellular service with an AMPS network and later transitioned through IS-136 before adopting the de facto global standard of GSM in the 90s. (Currently Rogers is deploying their 3G/3.5G UMTS/HSDPA network to major cities with future plans to expand from there.)

During the early 2000s, Rogers faced GSM competition in the form of Fido. Originally known as Microcell, it was funded in part by T-Mobile and made its bones through (then) innovative and customer-friendly practices like per-second billing and, at one time, unlimited internet access. Due to the competition from Fido and similar upstart, Clearnet, Rogers and the two other large Canadian cell providers, CDMA monoliths Bell Mobility and Telus Mobility, began trying to match per-second billing or start their own boutique operations, like Bell’s Solo brand.

Then, in 2004, Rogers bought Fido. Per-second-billing had already been dropped by the 3 major telcos following Telus’ purchase of Clearnet in 2000, and with Rogers’ purchase of Fido, unlimited internet also disappeared for users not locked into a grand-fathered contract. Rogers wasted no time in integrating Fido into their own network, even while keeping it as a distinct brand and giving “Fido” customers the option of paying an additional $5 a month the “roam” on the Rogers network proper, or pay-per-minute at $0.30.

And with that, the Rogers' GSM monopoly began.

How does this effect the iPhone in Canada? In the US and EU, carriers competed to get the iPhone, and agreed to revenue-sharing models with Apple in order to lure valuable data-centric customers to their networks. As a the GSM monopoly in Canada, there is no other carrier that could deploy the GSM-bound iPhone, and hence no one for them to compete with.

Perhaps the iPhone could help Rogers lure customers away from their CDMA-based competition, Bell and Telus, but not only is this a partial consideration, it is more than a little muted by the existence of gray-market unlocked iPhones already on the Rogers network. (In other regions, regions without a monopoly, GSM providers would still have to compete even for unlocked iPhones.)

Even if Apple chose to sell unlocked iPhones themselves, directly through Apple Online and retail or, as past rumors have gone so far as to suggest, through ultra-high end retailer Holt Renfrew at a steep $799 a pop, it would still have to run on Rogers' network.

It's widely speculated that Apple used the iPhone to get many carriers to agree to unprecedented unlimited data plans at reasonable rates as a condition of their agreements. Lacking competition, Rogers has no incentive to cut its own data rates, which are highly limited and anything but reasonable.

Reason 2: Of Data Rates and Third World Countries

AT&T offers unlimited iPhone data plans for $20 a month. As recently as 2007, before Rogers’ made such information much harder to find on their site, their top-tier data option was $200 a month for 100MB. That’s literally 10x as much for an infinitely smaller amount of data. Leading Canadian newspaper, the Financial Post, has guesstimated that, given Canadian data rates, an iPhone plan would cost $295 a month and still include fewer minutes and less data.

This has led to companies such as RIM, Canada's homegrown pride and joy and makers of the market-leading Blackberry line, along with the likes of Google, to publicly blast the Canadian telcos for their data rates.

Recently, due to pressure from Bell and Telus, rates are coming down, but in only the most confusing manner possible. You can now find $7 - $15 data plans, but only for certain phones (e.g. only Blackberry Pearl or only HTC Touch), or only for certain services (e.g. only for email or only for wall-gardened browsers).

On February 5th, 2008, Rogers joined the fray with an "unlimited" mobile browsing plan for $7. The restrictions? Only Rogers- and Fido-branded phones qualify. No smart phones. No Blackberries. No Windows Mobiles. And certainly no iPhone. Further, access will only be permitted on Rogers' branded WAP browser. No Pocket IE. No Opera Mini or Mobile. (Reportedly, Rogers will check IMEI numbers to enforce the plans, and bill non-qualifying phones and non-Rogers' WAP usage at the usually steep rate of $0.05/KB (do the math).

Notwithstanding the near-impenetrable specials, standard monthly plans for Windows Mobile-based smart phones on Rogers remain from $15 for 2MB ($10 per MB overage) to $80 for 500MB ($3 per MB overage).

The embarrassing state of Canadian cellular data has led some to use the phrase "worse than a third world country". Indeed, the now-classic graph illustrating the phrase shows costs for 500MB of data transfer starting at $41 in New Zealand, climbing to $74 in Rowanda, stepping up to $102 in the UK, and then soaring the $375 on Telus in Canada, before exploding upwards of $1600 on Rogers.

As mentioned previously, Apple has widely been seen as pushing for fairly priced data plans to go along with their data-centric iPhone. Rather than applying the leadership they showed in radio, or even show basic grasp of economies of scale and volume pricing models (one wealthy/desperate business user @ $200 is dwarfed by $1000 casual users @$20), Rogers has resisted anything approaching fair (by international standards) data plans.

If Apple can not get fair pricing, it's difficult to see an iPhone launch in Canada. And even if Apple is willing to bend on the fair pricing (as it has has already by accepting data caps in some EU countries), it's almost impossible to believe they would launch in a country where any reasonable use would result in $1000 monthly data bills. Would you pay that much for an iPhone? Or, rather, an "Apple" Phone...?

Reason 3: Oh, That Other iPhone, Eh?

Almost immediately after the iPhone was introduced by Steve Jobs, high atop the Macworld 2007 stage, ads began to appear for the iPhone in Canada. What's that you say? Ads in Canada for the iPhone? Yup, just not Apple's iPhone. It turns out a Canadian company named Comwave had been selling their own VoIP device, called the iPhone, since 2004. And boy did they jump on the newfound, Apple-powered buzz.

Some, including Canadian public broadcaster, CBC, have commented that a trademark dispute between Apple and Comwave over the iPhone name is a roadblock that could take up to 2 years to resolve.

Of course, this isn't the only iPhone related trademark dispute Apple has had to face. The moment Steve Jobs pulled his revolutionary new device from his pocket and called it the iPhone, no doubt other phones started going off -- at the Cisco legal offices in the United States. At the time of the iPhone introduction, Cisco -- not Apple -- held the registered trademark on iPhone in the US. And almost immediately Cisco made an announcement of their own: lawsuit.

Apple and Cisco settled their dispute just over a month later. That Apple didn't own the iPhone trademark in the US and went ahead with its introduction there, however, could cast some doubt on how much of a factor Comwave's claim is when it comes to delaying the iPhone launch in Canada.

On the flip side, settling a lawsuit after announcement but prior to launch, and settling one post-launch are different situations, and different intellectual property rights laws between Canada and the US could also be a consideration for Apple.

But let's face it, when you say iPhone in Canada, people don't think of Comwave -- they think of Apple.

The Great Gray North

Regardless of whether it's Rogers' GSM monopoly, ludicrously high data rates, Comwave's iPhone patent, or simply Apple's lack of urgency in the Canadian market (ranked 15th, after Mexico and before South Africa), as it stands right now there's no iPhone in Canada.

Or is there?

Rumor has it there are tens of thousands, bought in the US and unlocked in Canada. The same rumor holds that they are one of the more popular single devices on the Rogers network already -- so popular they are unofficially sanctioned by Rogers tech and customer support. Numerous forum posts comment on getting help choosing iPhone plans (exorbitant as they may be) from Rogers reps.

As far back as firmware versions 1.1.1 and 1.1.2, when unlocking iPhones was still a fairly tricky proposition, I routinely saw them being sold to Canadians via the web, and in person at mall kiosks. I also saw them at big box retailers being used by employees and customers alike. Now with virtually one-click, automated jailbreaking, activating, and unlocking tools available for firmware 1.1.4, gray market iPhone use in Canada can only be on the rise. And that's not even counting the inevitable increase in buzz come June and the iPhone 2.0 and SDK release, and the almost certain arrival of the second generation, 3G data-capable iPhone.

(No guesses yet on what size data bill a 3G iPhone would generate on Rogers...)

To Be Continued...

So this is where we are with the iPhone officially coming to Canada.

Nowhere.

Gossip lingers on, month after month. Every time another country mentions the possibility of an iPhone launch, a "Canada too!" rumor pops up.

Some of us write to Apple and to Rogers to show them the demand. Some of us complain to the Canadian Radio-Televison and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC - similar to the US FCC) and the Minister of Industry, desperate for some government intervention on the monopolistic abuse with regards to data rates.

Meanwhile, Canadians make do with the iPod Touch and a second device for voice and data, or go to a gray market, unlocked iPhone to save the pocket-space.

I'm in the second category, of course. And every night, I check my news feeds, watch a video, and put on a podcast (set on a 15 min. auto-timer) as I drift off to sleep, hoping and dreaming for an iPhone announcement come morning...

(Want to see the iPhone in Canada? Contact Apple, Rogers, the CRTC, and Ministry of Trade via the links above, and Digg this story to help spread the word!)