Is Evasi0n 7.0 Illegal to Install Software for iOS Jailbreak Device?


(By You Yunting) Recently, Evad3rs released a new jailbreak tool called Evasi0n7.0 for Apple’s iOS 7 with Chinese name “太极7”. Due to Evasi0n 7.0 forcing Chinese jailbreak users to the default installation of TaiG app store in China, all public opinions on domestic Internet websites are criticism-oriented and most reports stated that Evasi0n 7.0 was a counterfeit software tool.

The principal Pod2g of Evad3rs team today expressed his opinions on Twitter that Evad3rs have decided to remotely disable the default installation of TaiG app store in China for further investigations on the piracy issue. As an intellectual property lawyer, I paid great attention to this issue. I hope this post has broached several legal problems as follows.


Why Did Apple Filed the First “iWatch” Trademark In Jamaica?

(By You Yunting) According to media reports, Apple Inc. (“Apple”) has filed for “iWatch” trademark in several countries and regions, including: Japan, Mexico, Russia and Taiwan. Searching the trademark database in mainland China and Taiwan, the author discovered that Apple filed its iWatch trademark in Taiwan in June 2013.As for the trademark application in mainland China, because it takes a longer period of time for trademark application to be recorded on China Trademark Office’s website, we could only check the information concerning applications made several months ago. Therefore, if Apple filed the application in early June, then we would have no way to confirm it right now. Furthermore, we have found no records regarding Apple’s iWatch trademark application in China. The following are information of Apple’s “iWatch” trademark application in Taiwan:


China’s Latest Laws and Regulations in April 2013

I. The Supreme People’s Court and Local People’s Courts Successively Released White Books on Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property in 2012 and Model Cases.

On April 22, before World Intellectual Property Day, the Supreme People’s Court released the White Book on Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property By Chinese Courts in 2012 (the ”White Book”) and Model Cases embodying new Issues related to intellectual property protection.

Afterwards, the local people’s courts successively released local white books on local intellectual property protection and local model cases. On April 25, the Shanghai High People’s Court held a press conference and released the White Book of the Shanghai People’s Court on Intellectual Property Adjudication in 2012 and Ten Key Cases.


Why did the US Rule that iPhone Jailbreaking is Legal, but iPad Jailbreaking is Illegal?

Record III of Day Four of Our Visit to the United States

(By You Yunting) At the end of this past March, on the invitation of the US government, the author visited America with other Chinese legal experts with the goal of better understanding its IPR system. On the fourth day of the journey, the author visited the Copyright Office of the US Library of Congress (the “US Copyright Office”). The following is the brief record of the visit on that day.


Another iPad Like Battle for WeChat (微信) Trademark Dispute?


 (By Albert Chen) In yesterday’s post, we analyzed why Tencent would confront with the trademark squatting, and mainly blamed it for the defect on the internal management. Today, we would continue our discussion, and share our opinions on how could Tencent take back or stop the first application by others.

Before the end of this year, no one would oppose “iPad battle” shall be the trademark dispute of the year, and yet with the breaking out of conflict on the trademark of “微信”, a LBS software from Tencent Inc. (the “Tencent”) and its English name is WeChat, that affirmation would be challenged.


Encyclopedia vs Apple: Why AppStore Could Not Ship into Safe Harbor?

By You Yunting

As reported by media, Beijing No.2 Intermediate People’s Court made the first instance decision for infringement claims made by Encyclopedia of China Publishing House (Encyclopedia) agains Apple’s AppStore. With the decision, Apple shall compensate Encyclopedia RMB 520, 000 yuan and immediately cease the infringement. In current, no intention to appeal has been expressed by Apple.

Case: Encyclopedia discovered Apple’s user could purchase and download apps of its copyrighted works, which could be read in iPhone and iPad. With the anger of the infringement, Encyclopedia filed a lawsuit against Apple, who counter-stroke that the actuall operator of AppStore is a company registered in Luxembourg, not Apple. And Apple provided no services in the process of software uploading, and therefore Apple shall be with no engagement in the dispute.


App Store: Duty Free for Safe Harbor Principle in China?

By You Yunting

In March of 2012, 22 Chinese authors filed a lawsuit against Apple in Beijing No.2 Intermediate People’s Court and claimed  compensation of more than ten million. In the case, the plaintiffs stated that their works have been adapted into apps used on iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch, free of being charged at App Store. The case is the first lawsuit with the operator of App Store being the defendants, and will produce a prominent influence on the newly developed online store, which was launched in 2008 and with more than 360 million users . Now the litigation is under the spotlight, and this essay is focusing on the legal status of Apple and the defects in the process complaints of the store.


Proview Was Charged by Its Lawyer for Fee Payment Failure

By You Yunting

According to a news report (note: the link is in Chinese), the iPad battle in China has ended in reconciliation with Apple’s payment of 60 million dollars to Proview by the agreement. However it seems that Proview will soon be trapped in another dispute afterwards and related to the battle, its agents of Grandall Law Firm (the “Grandall”) filed a lawsuit to the local court on the 23rd of July, demanding the professional fee of 2.4 million dollars.

As introduced by the attorneys from Grandall, their entrustment by Shenzhen Proview was on a contingent fee, by which it could gain 4% of the total conciliation expenses or the compensation (namely 2.4 million dollars by the final settlement agreement). Also all the litigation fee or expenditures paid for custom record in the trademark battle was firstly paid by Grandall. However, after the end of the dispute, Proview refused to cash the fees into Grandall’s account as agreed and has even collected the money paid by Apple at the end of June.


Analysis of App Store’s Obligation under China Copyright Law

By Zhan Yi


At the beginning of 2012, Apple Inc. (the “Apple”) was sued by some noted local writers in China for copyright infringement. This aroused wide concentration amongst the public on the copyright issue in App Store. Will Apple be liable for the free or paid download by law? The answer to this question, in my perspective, shall focus on the determination of its legal nature which shall be considered within the regulations of the copyright law based on App Store’s commercial and technological model of App Store.


The Latest Progress of iPad Lawsuits

The two lawsuits concerning the iPad trademarks have both gained the new progress in this month (2012.6)

For the trial between Apple and Proview, as introduced by the spokesman of the Guangdong People’s High Court’s Foreign Affair Office, the case will not be judged in recent for the companies are in the negotiation for the renegotiation with the presiding of the court. By the Civil Procedure Law

“In trying an appealed case against a judgment, the people s court shall make a final judgment within three months after the case was filed as one of second instance. Any extension of the term necessitated by special circumstances shall be subject to the approval of the president of the said court.”


App Store Fraud Applications: Apple Shall Investigate Dereliction of Duty of Its Staffs

By You Yunting

The App Store of Apple is kind of online store to sell applications to mobile terminal users; however, since last year, we have seen the store has been puzzled by the criticism of fraudulence apps in China, which is lasting to now. In my opinion, there’re obviously overall flaws of the examination system of App Store, which shall make Apple be liable to the fraudulence in the store, and therefore a making-up of the flaws and the investigation over the claimed dereliction of duty or the bribery by its staffs is urgently demanded. The following is my analysis:


No “iPad” Chinese trademark right for Apple after payment in the transaction, and our analysis.

—-the Key points to the trademark transaction under the frame of China laws

Highlight:Apple gets involved in the litigation against a Chinese company for the ownership of iPad trademark, which Apple has claimed the property from purchase. However, such conflict could be averted if proper preparation has been done before the trademark transaction.

Recently, the trademark conflict over “iPad” initiated by Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL, the “Apple”) against Proview Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (the “Proview”) was heard for the third time on Shenzhen Intermediate Court. In the trial, Apple affirmed it owns the global trademark right of “iPad”, which was stroke back by Proview that such right in mainland China is exclusively held by Proview and the claimed transaction of Apple for the acquisition of such right has no permission or authorization from it, furthermore, Apple was also accused of its malicious purchase of the registered “iPad” behind the IP Application Development Company worldwide.