See How Jordan Lost To Jordan!

In July 27th, basketball superstar Michael Jordan sued the Chinese sports goods company Jordan sports "trademark dispute case" for three years, ushered in the final judgment. The Beijing Higher People's court made a final judgment on the 32 of the 78 Jordan sports trademark dispute case: the second trial upheld the original judgment, dismissed Michael Jordan's request to cancel the Jordan sports dispute trademark registration, and maintained the "Jordan sports" controversial trademark registration.

This "trademark controversy war" began in 2012 on the 10 month of the month. Jordan flew to the business jury for an application for disputes. He believed that the "Jordan sports" registration of the above-mentioned trademarks was contrary to the principle of honesty and credit referred to in the Anti Unfair Competition Act. The use of these trademarks would cause the public to misunderstand the source of the products and disrupt the normal market order. In order to apply for the registration of many controversial trademark trademarks such as "QIAODAN," "Qiao Dan" and "Jordan king", the judges should apply for the registration.

The flying man Jordan received the one-sided support from the public opinion, but superstar Jordan finally lost the "Shanzhai" lawsuit in the case of the moral high ground.

A trademark expert said, "the reason why the Beijing high court is such a decision is that there is a certain difference between the" Jordan "trademark and the" Michael Jordan "and" Michael Jordan ", and" Jordan "is a common surname in Britain and the United States, and it is hard to confirm that there is a corresponding relationship between Michael and Michael.

Although Jordan himself has a high degree of social popularity, this does not mean his surname enjoys privileges in product trademarks.

{page_break}

"Although Jordan sports did something morally wrong, but in China's legal level, it made the best use of the rules -- Jordan sports applied for registration of Jordan's trademark many years ago, and also had the exclusive right to use the trademark."

Entering the Chinese market

It should be borne in mind that the principle of "application first" adopted by the domestic trademark law.

Coincidentally, in the middle of this month, Cartire International Co., in Shanghai Pudong court, sued WAL-MART's "1 shop" against trademark rights and unfair competition, claiming more than one million claims.

Login "shop 1", will find that all the related commodities have been off shelves.

However, there are many other well-known e-commerce providers such as Dangdang, who are still selling Cartire products, and even to the media, "many brands have not authorized the website. We can get goods through agents, as long as they do not sell them."

Lawyers said that the current electricity supplier mentality is related to the low cost of infringement in the industry.

The head of Cartire's public relations department told reporters clearly that "no domestic website authorized to sell Cartire's products."

At present, the sales mode of Cartire in China has distribution system and proprietary system, and it can only buy Cartire products through stores.

"Luxury brand Cartire believes that when No. 1 shop sells products that are not Cartire's products on online shopping platforms, it emphasizes the use of Cartire, which is exactly the same as Cartire's.

"," Cartier "

The publicity of such words constitutes unfair competition against Cartire's exclusive right to use registered trademarks and false propaganda.

Last October, Chanel sued What About Yves to plagiarize the double C logo.

Accusing the brand of the latest t-shirt design - the animated ghost pattern printed in the movie Ghostbusters, allegedly embezzled the double C logo of Chanel.

What about Yves brand is well-known by the world under the slogan of "aint Laurent without Yves". Today, its founder Jeanine Heller has been sued by Chanel for trademark infringement.

Chanel, a fashion giant under the leadership of Karl Lagerfeld, claims that Heller is the symbol of the double C logo on its clothing, in essence, because the double C logo occupies the idol status and covet the name of Chanel.

{page_break}

In April this year, the company called What AboutYves launched this single T-shirt, called "Ain t Laurent Without Yves", plated into Chinese, meaning: "no Yi Fu, Saint Laurent or Saint Laurent?" in 2013, shortly after taking office, fashion director Hedi Slimane removed Yves (Yi Fu) from the name of Saint (Saint Laurent).

This satire

The company was so angry that they took the company to court on the grounds of infringing the exclusive right to trademark, false name of origin and unfair competition.

What About Yves and her founder, Jeanine Hellier, have not had a very good time recently.

Dating back to the 10 month of 2011, SWAROVSKI commissioned an agent to take photos and notarization on the two storefront appearance, store design and decoration, and store items of the Shenyang Swarovski company located in Taiyuan street and middle street in Shenyang, and subsequently sued the company to Shenyang intermediate people's court.

Shenyang Shihua Luo company was founded in 2009, in its "shiwaro wedding boutique concept hall" business premises, website publicity, a large number of "SWAROV," "Shi Luo" "Shi Hua Luo" text; store in the photo frame, publicity brochures, promotional cards, and so on, and "SWAROVSKI", "SWAROVSKI" and other words.

The court finally decided that the Shenyang swarovo company had infringed upon the exclusive right of the plaintiff SWAROVSKI's registered trademark and constituted unfair competition. Therefore, the defendant was ordered to stop infringing upon the exclusive right to use the registered trademark. He stopped using the unfair competition act containing the name of "Shi Hua Luo" and compensated the plaintiff for the economic loss of 100 thousand yuan.

After the defendant was appealed, the higher people's Court of Liaoning province dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

Lawsuit wins, win win, international

China's path of safeguarding rights is a long way to go.