Third Cases Of Jordan Sports Company Trademark Dispute Administrative Disputes 10 Cases

The Supreme People's Court opened the court for 26 days and tried to rehear Michael.

And the respondent, the State Administration for Industry and commerce, the trademark review board and the first instance third people, Jordan sports Limited by Share Ltd.

10 cases of administrative disputes.

It is reported that Michael Jordan, a retrial applicant, is a retired basketball star in the US professional basketball league.

Jordan, the third person in first instance, is a well-known company in China.

Enterprises have registered trademarks such as "Jordan", "QIAODAN" and so on in international classification twenty-fifth categories, twenty-eighth categories and other commodities or services.

In 2015, Michael Jordan refused to accept the second instance judgment of 68 trademark dispute administrative disputes, and applied for retrial to the Supreme People's court.

In December 2015, the Supreme People's court ruled that Michael Jordan's retrial application was in conformity with the provisions of article ninety-first (six) of the administrative procedure law of the People's Republic of China, and the court ordered the 10 cases of the public trial.

The Supreme People's court constituted a collegial panel of five people, headed by deputy president Tao Kaiyuan and chief justice, to hear the case.

The case was heard at 9 a.m.

The presiding judge presided over court proceedings, court debates and final statements.

Prior to this, the Supreme People's court conducted a court hearing in April 19th, organized parties to exchange evidence, made cross examination of new evidence, and initially summarized the controversial issues in this case.

In the 26 day's trial, the main controversial points of the parties were two aspects.

The first aspect is the object and legal basis of the right of name advocated by Michael Jordan, including the specific contents protected by the name right advocated by Michael Jordan; the extent and scope of Michael Jordan's reputation in China; whether Michael Jordan and his authorized Nike company actively use "Jordan" and Pinyin, and whether their active use has any influence on the right of name advocated by Michael Jordan in this case; and what the legal basis for protecting the right of name is 4 specific problems.

The second issue is whether the registration of disputed trademarks will damage Michael Jordan's right to name, including whether the specific circumstances of the disputed trademarks will make the relevant public wrongly believe that they are related to Michael Jordan. What is the impact of Jordan's operation on the company's name, the publicity and use of the trademarks, the awarding and protection of the trademark, and whether there are obvious subjective malicities in Jordan's registration of the disputed trademarks, whether Michael Jordan has the right to name the right to protect his claim, how the situation affects the case, and so on 4 specific questions.

"Today is the World Intellectual Property Day. The supreme law publicly examines these cases, which reflects the protection of intellectual property rights by courts in China, as well as the protection and attention to the right of names of citizens and foreigners in China."

Xue Jun, vice president of Law School of Peking University, said that the series of cases are special cases with legal boundaries, and also reflect the problems existing in the brand operation of some enterprises in China.

Whether the brand used by Jordan company infringes Michael Jordan's right to name should also be judged by the judge according to the specific circumstances of the case.