"We bought Proview's worldwide rights to the iPad trademark in 10 different countries several years ago. Proview refuses to honour their agreement with Apple in China and a Hong Kong court has sided with Apple in this matter. Our case is still pending in mainland China," Apple told the BBC on Tuesday – its latest response in its high-profile dispute with Proview Technology Shenzhen.

Apple’s statement is part of a battle for publicity that is running in parallel with the litigation in the courts. “They are projecting that China’s legal system is complicated and Hong Kong’s is unbiased. Hong Kong courts say Apple should win so the public believes Apple should win in China as well,” says Kenny Wong, partner at Mayer Brown JSM in Hong Kong.

The Hong Kong courts granted an interlocutory judgement as Proview Shenzhen attempted to transfer the mark to Yoke Technology, another company based in Shenzhen. This occurred around the same time Apple took Proview to court for not transferring the mark.

The court in Hong Kong found in Apple’s favour on several points and the judge stated: “It is plainly arguable that the circumstances of the present case are such that the court may order specific performance if IP Application succeeds in its claim for breach of contract. There is accordingly clearly a serious question to be tried that Proview Shenzhen now holds the China Trademarks on trust for Apple and IP Application.”

But does this interlocutory judgment matter? The PRC and Hong Kong have an agreement over reciprocal enforcement of court judgments. A Hong Kong judgment may be refused in the PRC if it is contrary to the social and public interests of the PRC. In Hong Kong, a PRC judgement is enforceable if it is not contrary to public policy. But this agreement only relates to monetary judgements. Moving from a victory in a Hong Kong court to a successful transfer of a trademark in China would be almost impossible. DT