EMC and apple trademark dispute, the line of the bankrupt enterprise, is the largest IT company to contend with. In the lost the Shenzhen intermediate people?s Court of first round contest, the second is the apple to a last chance. This is the ant and the elephant in the battlefield, the weak hand weapon only has bling cases one, is invisible, but it is enough to move the global variable leverage ? is the trademark.
Contract disputes apples are hard to win
February 29th morning 9 when, apple v. director trademark disputes in the Guangdong Provincial Higher People?s Court of second instance. Request the spectators from around the world come to, people consciously ranked 100 meters long, waiting for the orderly put people into. Iron gates set up black camera, TV station in the hope that after the trial, the first time from both agents expression captures may be the result of.
Review of the trademark dispute, can be summarized as: Apple want from only the coronal group bought the 10 IPAD trademark, did not think of the signing of the contract, after the payment, but not only in Shenzhen said that he was not? representative?, the domestic two IPAD trademark with the assignment of the contract No. Due to prior to communication are Shenzhen ?s men, Apple was unable to accept the same face? a team? SAPO shamelessly, let themselves once again to pay.
Due to trademark transfer contract is not? Shenzhen ? seal, no ? Shenzhen? authorized signature, apple lawyer struggle to prove that? Shenzhen? is no name, actually involved in the transaction. Due to the procedure of second instance is the basis of adjudication of first instance, apple as the appellant proof is very difficult. Apple first need to prove that one instance is not adopted as the mail is the effective evidence, at the same time for their new evidence is presented to stand each other again cross-examination.
Court, the apples display nearly 80 letters between the two sides of the mail, and please involved foreign investigators. Apple ?s lawyer tries to sign personnel director multiple identities of the analysis, that this contract is sufficient to represent the Shenzhen transfer of two IPAD trademark. While only coronal rebuttal is much more relaxed, they only need to emphasize contract only parties: Shenzhen and apple does not exist any contract relationship, also do not talk to go up the establishment of the contract, not to mention the entry into force of the contract. This is the basic principle of contract law.
On the other hand, the only crown also proposed transaction occurs due to disputes, apple in the trademark ownership review? made mistakes?, most probably it did not actually happen that two mark can be transferred together. This ?mistakes? not only makes sense, but also can pierce to the heart of the matter. Any large company in the sale of trademarks, will send the intellectual property investigation, apple in the acquisition of trademark not only employ occupation before investigators, contract signing process also have lawyers and notaries.
If this field is slightly high-end intellectual property disputes, to common people more often swarovski iphone cases exposed to the sale of housing, the apple is a real estate tycoon, wanting to pass intermediary agent from a homeowner only crown bought two suites. Buy a house in talks over, make money, homeowners suddenly jump out of a? twin brother?, said one set of house property belongs to myself. Even the? twins? exposed ambition is even, also have evil bad apple, but the law will not pity before payment is not? real evidence? stupid.
In the National Trademark Bureau website, anyone can check to every particular brand of all information, from the actual ownership, effective, to the trademark application date, preliminary announcement, announcement of registration, to obtain these information just a few seconds. For Apple such pursuit of each 1mm industrial progress of the company, if there are two trademark? dirty?, did not seem to see the truth.
Apple only coronal iPad fight for Chinese social universal Trademark Law
election results 2011 board of elections board of elections senate bill 5 senate bill 5 joe paterno press conference joe paterno scandal
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.