China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) recently overturned an earlier ruling by Beijing courts to favor Michael Jordan’s trademark appeal against a Chinese firm that allegedly infringed upon the name right of the NBA icon.

The SPC issued different judgments in the 10 combined cases. It approved Jordan’s appeal that the trademark of his name’s translation in Chinese characters infringed on his rights to own his name and violated the trademark law of P.R.C. The top court ordered the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) under the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) to recall its previous verdict and to issue a new ruling on the use of the Chinese characters in the brand. Meanwhile, the court ruled that Jordan does not own the rights of name for QIAODAN or qiaodan, Chinese pinyin transcription of his surname  Jordan, and held that the Qiaodan Sports Co. Ltd, a Fujian based  sportswear and shoe maker, did not violate Jordan’s name rights.

Almost a decade ago, Qiaodan company registered multiple trademarks by using“Qiaodan”“乔丹”, on Class 25 and Class 28. Years later, Jordan lodged an appeal to the TRAB to revoke the trademarks in dispute, but was rejected. Later, Jordan filed lawsuits against TRAB but lost. Beijing Higher People’s court originally upheld TRAB’S decision and rejected Jordan’s requests involving 68 cases in the second instance decision. In 2015, Jordan appealed to the SPC, which accepted the case the following December on the basis of the Administrative Procedural Law. The SPC heard ten cases mentioned above, suspended examination of eight cases and rejected Jordan’s retrial applications in fifty cases.

The SPC’s rulings in the ten cases mentioned above further made clear the scope of name protected by name rights. In three cases involving“乔丹” trademark, the SPC overturned previous verdicts supporting three of the Chinese company’s trademarks and specified the protection standards and conditions of name rights. The SPC added that Qiaodan company’s actions had displayed malicious intent by registering trademarks for“乔丹”, Jordan’s Chinese translated name. Meanwhile, SPC’s rulings were also based on the state of operation of Qiaodan Company and its usage of company name, propaganda and usage of related trademarks. Meanwhile, the court ruled that the former Chicago Bulls star did not own the right of name for qiaodan or QIAODAN, Chinese pinyin transcription of his surname Jordan, and held that the Qiaodan Company did not violate trademark laws.

It is worth mentioning that there have been no unified opinions among Chinese judicial circles on protection standards and conditions of name rights regarding to trademark administrative cases. The SPC’s rulings made clear the protection standards and conditions of name rights in such cases and legitimately balanced Jordan’s and Qiaodan company’s interests. Views held that SPC’s rulings could exert an important influence on unifying criterion in law application in such trademark administrative cases.

(by Feng Fei)

(Source: CHINA REPORT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY)