AAPL Stock: 118.03 ( -0.85 )

Printed from

Proview amends US iPad lawsuit with new claims

updated 03:35 pm EST, Mon February 27, 2012

Says Apple frontman dodged questions

Proview has amended its California lawsuit against Apple with new claims about the latter party's alleged fraud. Newly referenced is the managing director of Farncombe International, Graham Robinson, who Proview says was instrumental in helping Apple create IP Application Development (IPAD) Limited, the firm which bought rights to the iPad trademark in December 2009. Robinson is said to have used an alias when negotiating with Proview Taiwan -- Jonathan Hargreaves -- and moreover dodged questions from Proview about the nature of IPAD's business.

"[IPAD Ltd.] is a newly formed company, and I'm sure you can understand that we are not ready to publicize what the company's business is, since we have not yet made any public announcements," Robinson allegedly stated at one point. "As I said in my last message, I can assure you that the company will not compete with Proview." Apple is accused of fraud by intentional misrepresentation, fraud by concealment, fraudulent inducement, and unfair competition. Robinson reportedly told Proview that IPAD wanted the iPad trademark to match its name.

In announcing the amended complaint, Proview suggests that Apple was "pressed for time" in getting the trademark. The first-generation iPad would be announced roughly a month after Apple secured naming rights, and Proview argues that Apple was "predisposed to use deception to obtain the trademarks from Proview Taiwan because it knew from prior dealings with Proview Taiwan that Proview Taiwan opposed Apple's use of similar trademarks."

The California lawsuit is notably separate from one taking place in China. There the plaintiff is Proview Shenzhen, which has accused Apple of not securing local rights to the iPad name, rather than obtaining them fraudulently.

by MacNN Staff



  1. Bobfozz

    Joined: Dec 1969


    Fatso Chance-o

    Are these people really this dumb? All ProView had to say was, "If you don't tell us we won't give you the rights." It looks like Apple DID tell them it was for iPad. If the iPad had been a flop you wouldn't have heard from them.
    What's more, they were pressed for cash and I have this funny feeling they didn't care all that much.

  1. global.philosopher

    Joined: Dec 1969



    He said she said. Proview are flogging this dead horse because they think they will win the court of public opinion.
    All of Proview's queries are irrelvant to selling a trademark. What/whom the trademark was being purchased is irrelevant. As long as they stuck to the terms of the agreement (non-compete) then that is ALL Proview needed to worry about.

    "Apple was "pressed for time"" what!

    "Proview Taiwan opposed Apple's use of similar trademarks".....what difference does that make. If that was true then they would have a clause in the contract that the trademark was never to be sold by IP Application Development to Apple and that this clause is a condition to any sale of the trademark to any other company/individual --- but that is anti-competitive because you can't put such clauses into business dealings so this whole statement is hogwash.

  1. driven

    Joined: Dec 1969


    Need to pull a Howard Hughes move ...

    Buy Proview and fire everyone. Be done with this.

  1. pairof9s

    Joined: Dec 1969


    Upon inspection...

    "[IPAD Ltd.] is a newly formed company..." - Yes

    "...I'm sure you can understand that we are not ready to publicize what the company's business is, since we have not yet made any public announcements," - classic Apple approach on new products

    "I can assure you that the company will not compete with Proview." - And what product does Apple sell that competes with any product Proview sells/sold?

    I'm not sure I see a strong intent on any part shown here. Maybe not forthcoming but by no means deceptive ("oh we sell products people use in their house") or fraudulent ("we sell brake pads.")


  1. Geoduck

    Joined: Dec 1969


    This Just in

    Proview has again amended their lawsuit to add the claims that Apple also set the Reichstag Fire, was on the Grassy Knoll, and knows where Elvis is and refuses to say...

  1. FireWire

    Joined: Dec 1969


    sob sob

    "it's not fair! had we known we were selling to a billionnaire company we would have tried to rip them off and charge 100 times higer"

  1. facebook_Rsdofny

    Via Facebook

    Joined: Feb 2012


    Useless lawyers

    Once again, it proves to me that the lawyers and bankers are just as useless. The society will be much better without them. Can Obama regulate this industry? Oh no, They are sponsors for the Democratic party.

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.


Network Headlines

Follow us on Facebook


Most Popular


Recent Reviews

Ultimate Ears Megaboom Bluetooth Speaker

Ultimate Ears (now owned by Logitech) has found great success in the marketplace with its "Boom" series of Bluetooth speakers, a mod ...

Kinivo URBN Premium Bluetooth Headphones

We love music, and we're willing to bet that you do, too. If you're like us, you probably spend a good portion of your time wearing ...

Jamstik+ MIDI Controller

For a long time the MIDI world has been dominated by keyboard-inspired controllers. Times are changing however, and we are slowly star ...


Most Commented