US judge throws out Proview's iPad suit

 

Apple paid for iPad name.

A California judge tossed out a lawsuit in which the Chinese firm Proview Electronics accused Apple of tricking them into selling the "iPad" name for less than it might have.

Proview, which is also suing Apple in China over alleged illegal use of the iPad name, filed a lawsuit in California superior court in February, saying the US consumer electronics company deceived it by purchasing the rights to the name through a special-purpose vehicle.

Last week, judge Mark Pierce dismissed the case, agreeing with Apple's argument that the two parties had agreed to settle any disagreements in Hong Kong.

Apple says it bought ownership of the trademark in various countries from Proview, once a global monitor maker, but the Chinese company argues that the US firm dealt with only one unit of Proview and it retains rights to the iPad name in China.

An Apple spokeswoman reiterated the company's previous statement that Proview is "unfairly trying to get more from Apple for a trademark we already paid for."

(Reporting By Poornima Gupta and Edwin Chan; Editing by Gary Hill)


US judge throws out Proview's iPad suit
 
 
 
Top Stories
Beyond ACORN: Cracking the infosec skills nut
[Blog post] Could the Government's cybercrime focus be a catalyst for change?
 
The iTnews Benchmark Awards
Meet the best of the best.
 
Telstra hands over copper, HFC in new $11bn NBN deal
Value of 2011 deal remains intact.
 
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...
Latest Comments
Polls
Who do you trust most to protect your private data?







   |   View results
Your bank
  39%
 
Your insurance company
  4%
 
A technology company (Google, Facebook et al)
  8%
 
Your telco, ISP or utility
  7%
 
A retailer (Coles, Woolworths et al)
  2%
 
A Federal Government agency (ATO, Centrelink etc)
  20%
 
An Australian law enforcement agency (AFP, ASIO et al)
  14%
 
A State Government agency (Health dept, etc)
  6%
TOTAL VOTES: 1769

Vote
Do you support the abolition of the Office of the Information Commissioner?