Recently, the Supreme People’s Court (hereinafter referred to as the Supreme Court) made a retrial decision on the administrative dispute over trademark disputes of “Jordan” and its picture, and found that Jordan Sports Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Jordan Sports Company) knew that Michael Jeffrey Jordan (hereinafter referred to as Michael Jordan) has a long-term and widespread reputation in China, and still uses "Jordan" to apply for the registration of disputed trademarks, which may easily lead the relevant public to mistakenly believe that the products marked with the disputed trademark have specific links with Michael Jordan, such as endorsements and licenses, which damages Michael Jordan’s prior name right, the judgment revoked the first-instance, second-instance judgment and the defendant ’s decision.  So far, this high-profile case ended with the trapeze Jordan victory.

The Supreme Court believes that before the filing date of the disputed trademark in this case, until 2015, Michael Jordan had a high reputation in China, and its reputation has not only been limited to the field of basketball, but has become a high-profile public figures.  Jordan Sports Company knows that Michael Jordan has a long-term and widespread reputation in China, and still uses "Jordan" to apply for the registration of disputed trademarks, which may easily lead the relevant public to mistakenly believe that the products marked with the disputed trademark have specific links with Michael Jordan, such as endorsements and licensing, which damaged Michael Jordan's prior name rights.  However, on the other hand, the human figure in the graphic part of the disputed trademark logo is only a black human-shaped silhouette.  Apart from the body outline, it does not contain any personal characteristics related to Michael Jordan.  In addition, Michael Jordan does not have other legal rights regarding the actions corresponding to the logo itself, and other natural persons can also make the same or similar actions.  Therefore, Michael Jordan cannot enjoy the right of portrait with respect to the logo, and his claim that the registration of the disputed trademark damages his portrait right cannot be established.

                                              From PEOPLE.CN

April 10th, 2020