Jordan'S Trademark Dispute Was Fermented Again And The Court Judged That The "Jordan" Trademark Was Deceptive.

The court of cognizance of Beijing informed the plaintiff that the "Jordan" trademark damaged Michael Jeffrey Jordan's prior right of name, and found that the trademark was deceptive and dismissed the plaintiff's claim from Jordan sports company.

In order to retain the trademark "Jordan QIAODAN", Jordan sports Limited by Share Ltd and the State Administration for Industry and Commerce Trademark Review and Adjudication Board played a lawsuit.

Recently, the court of know production in Beijing concluded the case and dismissed the demands of the plaintiff Jordan sports company.

As the Chinese public generally "Jordan" corresponds to the famous basketball player of the United States, "Michael Jeffrey Jordan", in this series of cases, whether the trademark "Jordan QIAODAN" is deceptive has become the focus of the case.

Application for registration of trademark is refute

It is understood that the defendant's trademark review and Adjudication Board decided that Jordan was a well-known professional basketball player in the United States, and that the trademark was designated to be used in Jordan sports multi commodity. It was easy for the relevant public to misunderstand. According to the provisions of the Trademark Law of China, the defendant decided to dismiss the application for trademark registration.

The plaintiff Jordan sports company refused to accept the decision of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board and prosecuted the court of know production in Beijing.

The court held that, according to the judgment of the Supreme People's court in December 7, 2016, the Michael Jeffrey Jordan v. trademark review board and the third person Jordan sports Limited by Share Ltd dispute over administrative disputes, "Jordan" has a high reputation in China and is known to the relevant public. The relevant public in China usually refers to Michael Jeffrey and Jordan as "Jordan", and "Jordan" has formed a stable corresponding relationship with it.

Michael Jeffrey Jordan has always had a high reputation in China. In addition to endorsing the "AIR JORDAN" series of products for Nike, he has endorsed "Gatorade" drinks, "Heng Shi" underwear, "WheatiesBox" cereal and many other commodities that are not directly related to basketball. The well-known range has not only been confined to basketball, but has become a high-profile public figure.

The judgment dismissed the original request.

The court held that Jordan sports company knew that Michael Jeffrey Jordan had long and broad popularity in China, and still used the "Jordan" to apply for the registration of the controversial trademark. It is easy to lead the relevant public to misunderstand that the goods marked with controversial trademarks and Michael Jeffrey Jordan have specific connections such as endorsement and permission, thereby damaging the prior right of Michael Jeffrey Jordan.

In this case, the contention trademark is composed of the Chinese character "Jordan" and the pinyin "QIAODAN". Its distinguishing part is the Chinese character "Jordan".

According to the above-mentioned Supreme People's court's affirmation, Michael Jeffrey Jordan, a famous basketball player in the United States, is a well-known public figure in China. "Jordan" has formed a stable correspondence with Michael Jeffrey Jordan.

The trademark "Jordan" is used in the related commodities. The relevant public may easily mistake the trademark marked for trademark infringement. It has a specific relationship with the famous basketball player Michael Jeffrey Jordan, such as endorsement and permission, which leads to a false understanding of the source or quality of the goods and is deceptive.

Therefore, trademark infringement shall not be used as a trademark under the trademark law, and shall not be registered.

In addition, the conditions stipulated in the trademark law are absolute provisions prohibiting the use, so the trademark is not allowed to be registered through the use of publicity.

In summary, the court of informed consent of Beijing informed the Supreme People's court that in the judgement of Mr. Jordan, the plaintiff's "Michael Jeffrey Jordan" trademark damaged the identification of the prior right of Michael Jeffrey Jordan, and found that the trademark was deceptive and dismissed the plaintiff's claim from the sports company.