China's customs authorities were recently asked to make a choice between Apple and one of their own country's companies. They chose Apple.
In an interview posted today by Reuters, Proview Technology, which is suing Apple over its use of the iPad name, said that it was told by Chinese customs that the popularity of devices like the iPhone and
"The customs have told us that it will be difficult to implement a ban because many Chinese consumers love Apple products," Proview chief executive Yang Long-san told Reuters. "The sheer size of the market is very big. We have applied to some local customs for the ban and they'll report to the headquarters in Beijing."
The trouble between the firms started in 2010 after Apple unveiled the iPad. The Cupertino, Calif.-based company sued Proview, saying that its use of the term "iPad" was in violation of its trademark. Proview soon countered, saying that it registered for the trademark back in 2000--six years before Apple claims to have acquired the iPad trademark.
Late last year, a Chinese court rejected Apple's claims,. Meanwhile, Proview filed a temporary restraining order against Apple, requesting it stop using the iPad name. This week, .
Those requests seemed to be working earlier this week, as the. Based on what the company said today, though, it appears that its chances of getting the Chinese government to play nice over the long term are slim. Apple is simply too important to China--from both a jobs and revenue perspective--for the country to allow a single company to upend its relationship with the iPhone maker.
Even so, if Proview can't ban the iPad, a court victory could see it earn about $1.6 billion from Apple in damages.
Apple did not immediately respond to CNET's request for comment on the Reuters report.
Apple - USE TAG
reading•A ban on iPads in China? Not a chance, Beijing says
Jan 20•Been sleeping on smart lights? Time to wake up
Jan 19•Here's every iPhone ever made from 2007 to today
Jan 19•iPhone XS, iPhone XR: What you need to know about Apple's Smart Battery Case
Jan 18•Qualcomm didn't have all the license negotiating power, exec testifies