Apple v. Proview

Source: http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/apple_proviews_ipad_stance_in_china_misleading/

Apple v. Proview
Dispute Resolution Project
Instructions & Preparation Aide

This set of instructions is intended to (i) help you understand what is expected of your group and you for the dispute resolution assignment, (ii) more clearly explain how you and your group will be assessed for the dispute resolution assignment, and (iii) provide you with some practical tips to help you prepare.

Assignment Scenario:

A few years back, Apple and Proview had a legal dispute concerning the ownership of the “IPAD” trademark in China. There were multiple lawsuits, with Apple winning some and Proview winning others. In the end, they settled outside of court for a reported US$60,000,000.

In this assignment we are going to pretend that Apple failed to pay the US$60 million to Proview, and that the two sides are going to arbitration in Hong Kong to settle the dispute once and for all. Your group will represent either Apple or Proview, and will prepare a “legal brief” for submission to the arbitration panel stating your side’s case, and providing legal research backing up your position.

Instructions and Expectations

a. Venue of the Case

This dispute is going to take place as an arbitration in Hong Kong. Thus, the groups are to argue their sides as though you were arguing the case to a real arbitration panel.If you have any questions about what this means, please email or call Mr. Bishop.

b. Oral Argument

There will be no oral argument required.

c. Written Argument

Each group is required to turn in both a hard and soft copy of a “legal brief” explaining in writing their team’s legal argument. It is up to your group to determine how long or short to make the brief, but 8 to 10 pages is the suggested length.

While your group has significant intellectual freedom to determine how the brief should be structured, the following structure is commonly used in legal briefs and therefore may be helpful for your team. It is not necessary to use this format.

* Cover Page: You can include a cover page stating the group number, names of each group member, and which side you are representing. * Statement of Facts:Many briefs start with a statement of facts, concisely statingall of the facts that the arbitration panel will need to consider. Such a statement is not necessary for this assignment, as the facts of this case are fairly simple, and the judges should be familiar with the details. But if you think such a statement would be helpful, please be concise and only list the facts that are most helpful in making your case (but be fair and do not omit facts just because they are adverse to your position). * Argument: This is where the bulk of your energy should be spent. You should clearly and concisely lay out your group’s position based on (i) the facts of the case and (ii) the elements of the law that you feel best help your client to be successful. Roadmap: The arguments of most legal briefs begin with a summary paragraph that provides the major elements of the legal argument. This is often called a “roadmap” because it explains your argument in a linear way (much like a map helps lead you along a road). Feel free to use numbers, bullet points, or whatever else you need in order to clearly outline your roadmap. When drafting the argument, do not omit unfavorable facts or ignore the arguments of the other side. For each legal element of your answer, you probably should (i) persuasively state what your client’s position is, (ii) briefly highlight what you think the other side’s arguments are, and (iii) state the reasons you believe the other side’s arguments should not apply, or affirmatively state why your position trumps the other side’s arguments. By facing the other side’s arguments head on, you give your side credibility and help the judges understand why they should rule in your favor. (Note: Make sure any discussion of the other side’s arguments is very brief; you do not want to make their case for them. All of your writing should be persuasive in favor of your case, and not detract from your argument.) * Conclusion:Your conclusion should have two major elements: (i) a summary of the major points of your argument (i.e., a repeat of the “roadmap”) and (ii) a request for a remedy. The summary of your major elements in the conclusion is very similar to your roadmap introduction at the beginning of your argument. It should be concise and clear. (Note: Remember to put your arguments – whether in the body of your brief, or in the concluding remarks – in the order of strongest argument to weakest.) It is very important that your brief asks the arbitration panel for a particular form of relief or remedy. In other words, you need to tell the arbitration panel what you want them to do. You can, and probably should, have multiple requests for remedies. * Appendix: To the extent your group used legal citations and did not cite them within the body or footnotes of your brief, you should attach an appendix or some other list of sources. (But citing within the brief is more appropriate, and will be scored higher.)

If you would like an example of what a good legal brief (for this course) looks like, please contact Mr. Bishop and he will provide one for you.

Assessment Considerations

* Quality of Argument: (analysis & interpretation; persuasive;use of legal theories)____/15

* Support: (relevant primary & secondary sources bolster and shape arguments) ____/10

* Organization: (clear and focused; concise; consistent formatting; transitions) _____/5

* Expression: (precise word choice; typos; sentence quality; etc.) ____/10

TOTAL: ____/40

APPENDIX:
Summary of the case; Examples of Representative Sources (not exhaustive):
The following sources are to help you begin your research and should not be considered an exhaustive list. They should be used to help you familiarize yourself with the case, and to help direct your research going forward. The instructor does not vouch for the accuracy of the information contained in the sources.
HK Court Decision: http://www.hklii.hk/cgi-bin/sinodisp/eng/hk/cases/hkcfi/2011/1375.html WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304363104577392582465423086.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304363104577392582465423086.html#articleTabs%3Dvideo [video 8 May 2012] http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/apple_proviews_ipad_stance_in_china_misleading/ [13 Mar 2012] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304363104577392582465423086.html All Things D: http://allthingsd.com/20120216/take-a-look-at-some-of-apples-evidence-in-proview-ipad-dispute/ http://allthingsd.com/20120216/heres-the-chinese-court-ruling-backing-apple-in-ipad-trademark-tiff/ http://allthingsd.com/20120216/apple-chinas-proview-trying-to-weasel-out-of-ipad-trademark-deal/ http://allthingsd.com/20120229/who-really-owns-the-ipad-trademark-in-china/ http://allthingsd.com/20120227/proviews-new-pr-attack-apple-cheated-us-out-of-the-ipad-trademark/ China Law Blog: http://www.chinalawblog.com/2012/02/the_proview_v_apple_china_trademark_dispute_wanna_buy_the_brooklyn_bridge-2.html http://www.chinalawblog.com/2012/02/apple_v_proview_so_much_to_learn.html

The Register: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/28/proview_international_sues_apple/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/08/apple_rights_ipad_china/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/07/proview_shenzhen_demands_apple_apology/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/17/proview_ipad/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/29/apple_guangdong_proview_court/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/28/proview_apple_ipad_deceit/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/21/apple_proview_defamation/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/23/apple_proview_bank_of_china/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/17/proview_pics_shenzhen_offices/ Guangdong court’s real time “tweets” of the court proceedings 29 Feb 2012 http://zhibo.qq.com/mblive/91/index.html Xinhua Net: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-05/07/c_131572732.htm (7 May 2012) http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-04/25/c_131549814.htm (25 Apr 2012) http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/special/2012-02/29/c_131437889.htm http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-04/24/c_131548628.htm (24 Apr 2012) http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-02/27/c_131433629.htm (27 Feb 2012) http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/video/2011-12/09/c_131297760.htm (9 Dec 2011)

People’s Daily Online: http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90882/7730571.html 16 Feb 2012

China Daily: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-04/01/content_14962735.htm Bloomberg/Buisnessweek: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-07/proview-sees-big-gap-after-apple-offers-to-settle-ipad-dispute.html http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-03-14/apple-asks-hong-kong-court-to-continue-proview-ipad-case http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-29/apple-says-allowing-china-s-proview-to-use-ipad-brand-would-harm-consumers.html http://www.bloomberg.com/video/87362184-apple-battles-proview-over-ipad-brand-name.html (video)

Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/14/us-apple-proview-idUSTRE81D0GS20120214 http://ca.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idCATRE7B519320111206 6 Dec 2011 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/08/us-apple-proview-idUSBRE8471GM20120508?feedType=RSS (18 May 2012) http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/15/us-apple-proview-idUSTRE81E0BE20120215 Financial Times: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/4e10735e-e1f3-11df-a064-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1flqYjpi2 27 Oct 2012

Mac Observer: http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/shanghai_court_sorry_proview_no_ipad_ban/ http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/proview_brings_ipad_trademark_battle_to_the_states/

9to5Mac.com: http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/14/proview-tries-to-block-ipads-from-coming-in-or-going-out-of-china/ http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/13/chinese-authorities-in-shijiazhuang-begin-snatching-up-ipads-from-retailers-over-ipad-name-trademark-dispute/ http://9to5mac.com/2011/12/06/a-court-decision-today-indicates-that-apple-may-not-own-the-ipad-name-in-china/ http://9to5mac.com/2011/12/07/proview-sues-retailers-in-southern-china-seeking-ban-on-ipad-sales/ http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/15/chinese-customs-ipad-too-powerful-and-popular-to-be-banned/ Venture Beat: http://venturebeat.com/2012/05/07/apple-proview-settlement/ (7 May 2012) http://venturebeat.com/2012/02/16/apple-proview/ China Hearsay: http://www.chinahearsay.com/apple-vs-proview-assignment-agreement/ http://www.chinahearsay.com/what-have-we-learned-about-chinas-ip-system-answer-nothing/ http://www.chinahearsay.com/apple-vs-proview-media-is-embarrassing-itself/ http://www.chinahearsay.com/apple-proview-and-a-whole-lot-of-speculation/ http://www.chinahearsay.com/apple-vs-proview-getting-pythonesque/ http://www.chinahearsay.com/the-natives-are-restless-proviews-latest-ipad-threatdown/ http://www.chinahearsay.com/apple-vs-proview-shanghai-court-punts/ http://www.chinahearsay.com/proview-apple-customs-reality-check/ http://www.chinahearsay.com/shanghai-court-hears-ipad-dispute-a-quick-qa/ http://www.chinahearsay.com/apple-loses-ipad-infringement-suit-in-guangdong-is-it-time-to-panic-yet/ http://www.chinahearsay.com/proview-apple-customs-reality-check/ http://www.chinahearsay.com/todays-ipad-trademark-news-what-happens-if-proview-goes-to-customs-update/

Caixin (photos): http://photos.caixin.com/2012-02-16/100357151_4.html http://photos.caixin.com/2012-02-16/100357151.html

WebProNews: http://www.webpronews.com/proview-ipad-suit-tossed-by-u-s-judge-2012-05 http://www.webpronews.com/apple-proview-china-ipads-2012-02 http://www.webpronews.com/ipads-should-be-pulled-from-shops-lower-chinese-court-says-2012-02 http://www.webpronews.com/apple-vs-proview-hong-kong-court-dismisses-some-of-proviews-evidence-2012-05 http://www.webpronews.com/proview-rejected-apples-16m-offer-wanted-400m-2012-05 http://www.webpronews.com/beijing-regards-proview-as-owner-of-ipad-name-2012-04

Slashgear: http://www.chinalawblog.com/2012/02/apple_v_proview_so_much_to_learn.html Digital Trends: http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/proview-vs-apple-the-ipad-trademark-battle-explained/ http://www.digitaltrends.com/international/proview-brings-ipad-trademark-case-against-apple-in-the-u-s/

Apple’s Letter to Proview Founder http://fortunebrainstormtech.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/82173020-apple-letter-to-proview-founder.pdf or: http://www.scribd.com/doc/82173020/Apple-letter-to-Proview-founder Mayer Brown: http://www.mayerbrown.com/publications/detail.aspx?publication=4813 http://www.mayerbrown.com/files/Publication/396c5ed6-8dcd-4c04-bc40-eaa58184e988/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/8a93b5b5-3831-4251-aee6-f57988a589a4/NEWSL_IPIT_FEB12_UPDATE_IPAD-TM-DISPUTE.PDF

Deacons: http://www.deacons.com.hk/upload/other/20120420_HKIPBulletin.pdf Stein McEwen Blog: http://smiplaw.wordpress.com/2012/03/19/fortune-apple-falls-on-the-head-of-proview-proview-shenzhen-sees-a-new-way-to-get-out-of-its-debt/ Vivien Chan & Co: http://www.vcclawservices.com/sources/publications/2012_Issue1.pdf MacNewsWorld: http://www.macnewsworld.com/rsstory/75084.html Macworld: http://www.macworld.co.uk/ipad-iphone/news/?newsid=3359178 http://www.macworld.co.uk/apple-business/news/?newsid=3356655 http://www.macworld.co.uk/ipad-iphone/news/?newsid=3356944 WIPO (refusal of Apple’s TM registration by Chinese TM Office; contains relevant China TM regulations in English): http://www.wipo.int/romarin//pdf/59/74/5974510.pdf http://www.wipo.int/romarin//pdf/66/84/6684286.pdf

Random: http://chinhdangvu.blogspot.hk/2012/02/ipad-battle-reveals-bank-of-china-as.html http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2012/02/13/apple_proview_china_ipad/ 13 Feb 2012 http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2012/02/14/proview_seeks_ipad_export_ban/ http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/Editorial_-_The_Orgins_of_the_Apple_iPhone_Name/ http://pad.zol.com.cn/273/2732962.html (Chinese language)

Source: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-04/25/content_15132324.htm