By You Yunting
We have reported that the iPad trademark battle in China has come to its end, with Apple paid the reconciliation fee of $ 60 million to Shenzhen Proview. But the story seems to not end there, Grandall Law Firm, the attorney of Shenzhen Proview filed a lawsuit to local people’s court on 23rd July demanding the lawyer’s fee of $ 2.4 million.
And as said by the latest news of the case, Grandall Law Firm, GH Law Firm, Hejun Vanguard Group and other units providing legal or agency service to Proview applied to Shenzhen Yantian People’s Court in written for the freezing of iPad trademark in China, also they have submitted the guarantee of RMB 300 million.
So far there has published any news on Yantian Court’s approval on that application, yet by Article 92 of the Civil Procedure Law of PRC:
“After receiving a party’s application, if the case is urgent, the people’s court must make an order regarding property preservation within 48 hours; if a people’s court makes an order for property preservation, it shall enforce the preservation immediately.”
Therefore, once the application of preservation was not filed, the iPad trademark shall be transferred to Apple next week, and this application is apparently the one in emergency. We will keep a close look on the case.
Other recommended posts on our website:
1. The Actual Term of Trademark Registration in China
2. How to Apply for the Trademark Record in China Custom
3. How to improve the success rate of trademark registration in China?
4. Matters for Attention in Trademark Refusal Review in China
5. Introduction of China’s Legal System of Trademark Renewal
6. Introduction on the Regulations concerning the Capital Contribution in IPR or Domain Name in China
7. The Copyright Registration in China Could Be FREE?
8. China Copyright Protection Term Longer than EU’s?
9. Matters for Attention in the Patent Preliminary Injunction Application in China(I)
Lawyer Contacts
You Yunting
86-21-52134918
youyunting@debund.com, yytbest@gmail.com
For further information, please contact the lawyer as listed above or through the methods in our CONTACTS.
Bridge IP Law Commentary’s posts, including the comments and opinions contained herein, shall not be construed as the legal advice on any issues related. The contents are for general information purposes only. Anyone willing to quote or refer the posts to any other publications or for any other purposes, no matter there’s benefits gained or not, shall first get the written consent from Bridge IP Law Commentary and used under the discretion of us. As to the application of the reprint permission for any of our posts, please email us to the above addresses. The publication of this post or transmission of it through mail, internet or other methods does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. The views set forth here are of due diligence, neutrality and impartiality, representing our own opinions only and are our original works.
Short Link: