The supreme people's court: The specific name which is advocated to enjoy a protection by natural person shall meet the following three conditions: first, the specific name shall has a certain popularity and is known by the relevant public; secondly, the relevant public shall using this name to substitute the natural person; third, there should be a stable relationship between this specific name and the natural person.
There are sufficient evidence in this case to prove that "Jordan" enjoy a high popularity and known by the relevant public in our country. For the public, "Jordan" is usually referred to the retrial applicant Michael Jeffrey Jordan. And there is already formed a stable relationship between the name "Jordan" and the retrial applicant. Thus, the retrial applicant enjoys the right of the name "Jordan".
Before the application day of the trademark dispute, until 2015, the retrial applicant has long been enjoyed a high popularity in China. The scope is not only limited in the field of basketball, but also the whole society.
The disputed trademark, NO.6020569 "Jordan", belongs to the Class28 commodity categories: "sports equipment, swimming pool (entertainment), roller skates, and Christmas tree decorations (except for lighting and candy)".
Among these, "sports equipment, swimming pool (entertainment), roller skates" belong to the common sports goods, while "Christmas tree decorations (except lighting and candy)" belongs to the common daily necessities.
The relevant Public of the above goods will easily misunderstand that there exist some specific endorsements and licensing relation between the disputed trademark and the retrial applicant. These kind misunderstandings will infringe the prior name right of retrial applicant. Thus, it is subjective and vicious for Jordan Company to register the disputed trademarks.
Considering the operating conditions of Jordan Company, as well as the publicity, usage, awards and protection of its name and brand, the registration of the disputed trademark has no legality. Therefore, the registration of disputed trademark is against the provisions of Article 31, Trademark law.