Jordan'S Dispute On The Right To Name Is Now In Court. Jordan Claims 1 Million 140 Thousand

< p > yesterday, the dispute over the name right of American basketball superstar Jordan flew to court in second middle court of Shanghai. The case was officially accepted by the second middle court for 1 years. The case is in the second half of.

< /p >

< p > at the beginning of last year, on the eve of the listing of "Jordan sports", a petition of "flying man Jordan" promoted the vortex of public opinion.

IPO's blocked "Jordan sports" filed a lawsuit in March 29th this year, demanding that "flying Jordan" stop infringing on the reputation right of Jordan sports, clarify facts and restore "Jordan sports" reputation, and compensate for economic losses of 8 million US dollars.

In April 2nd, the court of Quanzhou formally accepted the case.

< /p >

The P morning trial attracted many scholars, lawyers, college students and media in the field of intellectual property.

At the beginning of the trial, the lawyer of the "flying Jordan" of the plaintiff opened a statement. "Litigation is not only protecting the plaintiff's right to name, but also protecting the Chinese consumers from being misled."

He also raised the amount of claims from the original 4 yuan to 114 yuan.

The move is also thought to be a response to Jordan's claim of $8 million in Quanzhou.

< /p >

In the trial, the disputes between the two sides mainly include: 1. Whether the plaintiff can claim the right of name in China according to the general principles of the civil law and the tort liability act of China; 2, can the relationship between the plaintiff Michael Jordan's English name and the Chinese Jordan used by Jordan Sports be formed, whether the plaintiff enjoys the title of Jordan's two words; 3, the defendant Jordan's "Sports" uses two words of Jordan to infringe the plaintiff's name right; 4, the defendant "Jordan sports" has the legal application trademark, whether it can be used as a basis for non invasion; 5, whether the plaintiff's claim amount is reasonable; 6, and whether the limitation of action has passed.

< /p >

< p > in the trial, the plaintiff cited a large number of media reports, pointing out that "Jordan" refers specifically to his plaintiff.

The defendant believed that in these reports, there were specific qualifiers before the two words of Jordan, such as basketball stars, basketball players and so on.

< /p >

< p > in addition, the defendant "Jordan sports" claims that the protection of the right of name in the general principles of civil law applies to foreigners and stateless persons in the Chinese field.

Jordan is an American citizen and has never lived in China. He is not a foreigner in the Chinese field. His quotation of the general principles of civil law does not conform to the law in China and does not have the qualification of litigant.

According to Chinese law, the object of the right of name to constitute legal protection must be the name decided or used by citizens.

Chinese "Jordan" is not the name of Michael Jordan. It is only the Chinese common plation of the English and American common surname "Jordan". It does not constitute the object of the right of name in Chinese law.

< /p >

< p > defendant "Jordan sports" points out that there is no unique correspondence between Chinese "Jordan" and Michael Jordan (Michael Jordan). Only in the household registration of Chinese public security organs, there are more than 4600 Chinese citizens called "Jordan", and "Jordan" does not belong exclusively to Michael Jordan.

The plaintiff rebutted that Yao Ming and Lining were also many in China, but they could not be considered that the names of sports stars Yao Ming and Lining should not be protected.

< /p >