The Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of
38
Jessie ZENG Tsinghua Law School 1 / 38 The Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China Administrative Judgment (C-E Translation) No.27 [2016], Retrial, Administrative Judgment, the Supreme People's Court Translator: Jessie ZENG, Juris Master, Tsinghua Law School Retrial Applicant (the plaintiff in the first instance, and the appellant in the second instance): Michael Jeffrey Jordan, male, born on February 17, 1963, United States Citizen, lives in Chicago, Illinois, United States. Authorized Representative: Tian Tian, Counsel of Fangda Partners Beijing Office. Authorized Representative: Qi Fang, Counsel of Fangda Partners Beijing Office. Respondent (the defendant in the first instance, and the appellee in the second instance): The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce. Its address is “No.1 of Cha Manan Street, Xicheng District, Beijing.”
The Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of
Jessie ZENG Tsinghua Law School1 / 38
The Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China
Administrative Judgment (C-E Translation)
the Supreme People's Court
Translator: Jessie ZENG, Juris Master, Tsinghua Law School
Retrial Applicant (the plaintiff in the first instance, and the
appellant
in the second instance): Michael Jeffrey Jordan, male, born on
February
17, 1963, United States Citizen, lives in Chicago, Illinois, United
States.
Authorized Representative: Tian Tian, Counsel of Fangda
Partners
Beijing Office.
Office.
Respondent (the defendant in the first instance, and the appellee
in the
second instance): The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of
the
State Administration for Industry and Commerce. Its address is
“No.1 of
Cha Manan Street, Xicheng District, Beijing.”
Jessie ZENG Tsinghua Law School
2 / 38
Adjudication Board.
Adjudication Board.
Adjudication Board.
Third Party: Qiao Dan Sports Inc. Its address is “Xi Bian
Industrial
District, Chen Dai, Jin Jiang, Fu Jian Province, People's Republic
of China.”
Legal Representative: Ding Guoxiong, Chairman of the Board of
Qiao
Dan Sports Inc.
Authorized Representative: Wei Zhi, Counsel of Zhong Lun Law
Firm
Beijing Office,
Authorized Representative: Ma Dong Xiao, Counsel of Zhong Lun
Law
Firm Beijing Office.
3 / 38
Whether the disputed trademark’s registration infringed the
retrial
applicant’s right of name on “”1 thereby violating article 31 of
the
Trademark Law regarding “[n]o trademark application shall infringe
upon
another party’s existing prior rights.”
The issue can be divided into 8 specific problems:
1. What is the legal basis for the retrial applicant’s claim on the
protection
for the right of name;
2. What does the right of name that the retrial applicant claims
specifically
protect;
3. How well-known is the retrial applicant in China, and what is
the extent;
4. Whether the retrial applicant and his authorized party Nike Inc.
have
actively used “”? What is the influence of this fact on
retrial
applicant’s claimed right of name;
5. Whether the disputed trademark’s specific circumstance misled
the
relevant public to falsely relate the disputed trademark with the
retrial
applicant;
6. Whether Qiao Dan Sports Inc.hereinafter referred to as “Qiao
Dan
Inc.” has manifest subjective malice on the registration of the
disputed
trademark;
1 Translator: “” is the Chinese translation of “Jordan”. Original
Chinese words “” in disputed trademark are used In the case
translation to avoid possible confusion.
Jessie ZENG Tsinghua Law School
4 / 38
7. What do Qiao Dan Inc.’s operation condition, its efforts in
related
trademarks’ publicity and use, as well as its related trademarks’
awarded
prizes and received protection influence this case;
8. Whether the retrial applicant is remiss in protecting its
claimed right of
name, and what is the influence of this factor;
Specific determination to each problem
1. What is the legal basis for the retrial applicant’s claim on
the
protection for the right of name
Firstly, according to Article 31 of the Trademark Law,“No
trademark
application shall infringe upon another party’s existing prior
rights.” Since
the civil subject legally enjoys various civil rights, and the
legislation can
hardly list every right, Article 31 of the Trademark Law does
not
specifically prescribe or list any specific type of the prior
right, but use the
term “prior rights” as general provisions to keep pace with the
development
of economy and society, and meet the need of protecting civil
party’s
legitimate rights and interests.
The court maintained that prior rights which have been
specifically
prescribed should be protected according to the special provisions
in
Trademark Law. However, as for those prior rights which have no
specific
corresponding provisions in Trademark Law, if General Principles of
the
Jessie ZENG Tsinghua Law School
5 / 38
Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred
to as
“General Principles of Civil Law”), the Tort Liability Law of the
People's
Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as “Tort Liability
Law”), and
other laws give them protection, and the civil subject has legally
enjoyed
these civil rights or interests before the disputed trademark’s
application
date, then these rights should be protected in the light of this
general
provision in Trademark Law. (“No trademark application shall
infringe
upon another party’s existing prior rights.”)
Besides, as for the retrial applicant’s right of name in this case,
paragraph
1, article 99 of the General Principles of Civil Law prescribes
that “Citizens
shall enjoy the right of personal name and shall be entitled to
determine,
use or change their personal names in accordance with relevant
provisions.
Interference with, usurpation of and false representation of
personal names
shall be prohibited.” Meanwhile, paragraph 2, article 2 of the Tort
Liability
Law prescribes that “[F]or the purpose of this Law, civil rights
include right
to life, right to health, right to name….. and other personal
rights as well
as property rights.” Hence, right of name can be one of the “prior
rights”
in Article 31 of the Trademark Law. If the registration of the
disputed
trademark infringed other person’s prior right to name, then its
registration
infringed Article 31 of the Trademark Law. Therefore, the court
does not
support Qiao Dan Inc.’s claim that “article 31 of the Trademark Law
does
Jessie ZENG Tsinghua Law School
6 / 38
not have specific provision that prior rights include the right of
name,
therefore, one cannot use the miscellaneous provisions or give
liberal
interpretation to prior rights to limit others from obtaining
trademark
registration.”
Last but not least, the name is used to refer to, call, and
differentiate
particular natural person, and the right of name is an important
personal
right a natural person enjoyed on his or her name. With the
development
of our socialist market economy, it is common that people who
enjoyed
some popularity take commercial exploitation on their names
through
contracts or other methods to endorse commodities or services,
and
receive economic benefit in such business. Celebrity endorsement
becomes
an important marketing strategy for operators to enhance brand
image,
promote commodity or service, and expand popularity. Paragraph 5,
article
2 of Advertising Law of the People's Republic of China prescribes
that,
“Endorser in this Law shall mean natural person, legal person or
other
organization, other than the advertiser, that recommends and
testifies for
commodity or service in their own name or image.” Article 20 of
Tort
Liability law regarding property loss damages resulting from
infringing
other people’s personal rights also shows that China’s law
recognize and
protects the economic interest in people’s personal rights and
interest (right
of name included). Hence, when Article 31 of Trademark Law is
applied
Jessie ZENG Tsinghua Law School
7 / 38
to protect other’s prior right of name, this kind of protection
will not only
involve the protection for natural person’s dignity, but also cover
the
protection to natural person’s name, particularly the protection to
the
economic benefit included in the celebrity’s name. Since the
trademark’s
main function is to distinguish the source of product or service,
the
unauthorized trademark registration of the name which other
people
enjoyed prior right of name on will not only harm the natural
person’s
dignity, but also easily confuse the relevant public to relate the
commodity
or service, which has disputed trademark on, with this natural
person’s
endorsement and license. This action infringed the natural person’s
right of
name, and hurt the consumer’s legitimate interest and right at the
same time.
Based on the reasoning above, according to article 99 of the
General
Principles of Civil Law, Article 2 of Tort Liability law, the
natural person
legally enjoys the right of name. The unauthorized trademark
registration
of the name which other people enjoyed prior right of name on will
easily
confuse the relevant public to relate the commodity or service,
which has
this trademark on, with this natural person’s endorsement and
license. It
should be determined that the registration of this trademark
infringed other
people’s prior right of name, and violated provision in Article 31
of
Trademark Law.
8 / 38
2. What does the right of name that the retrial applicant
claims
specifically protect?
The underlying point of this problem is whether the retrial
applicant can
enjoy right of name on “”. This case involves the problem whether
the
retrial applicant can enjoy right of name on part of its foreign
name’s
Chinese translation, because “” is the Chinese translation of
retrial
applicant’s English name “Jordan” (in his full name “Michael
Jeffrey
Jordan”). The court believes that according to the requirement
for
protecting natural person’s right of name, the retrial applicant
enjoys right
of name on “”. Reasons are listed as below:
2.1 When the natural person claimed protection on the right of
name
for particular name according to Article 31 in Trademark Law,
several requirements have to be satisfied.
First, this particular name has to enjoy some reputation, should be
well-
known to relevant public, and should be used to refer to this
natural person.
To clarify the term “name” in article 5(3) of The Law of the
People's
Republic of China Against Unfair Competition, Interpretation of
the
Supreme People’s Court on Some Issues Concerning the Application
of
Law in the Trial of Civil Cases Involving Unfair Competition
prescribes
that “The pen name or stage name of any natural person that has
certain
market popularity and is known by the relevant public may be
affirmed as
Jessie ZENG Tsinghua Law School
9 / 38
a “name” prescribed in Article 5(3) of the Anti-unfair Competition
Law.”
Although this provision was aimed at circumstance about “using,
without
authorization, the enterprise names or personal names of others on
their
own goods, leading purchasers to mistake them for the goods of
others”,
this action of unfair competition is also an infringement action to
others’
right of name. The determination of this action involves the factor
“leading
purchasers to mistake them for the goods of others”. This factor
has a close
relationship with the problem “whether the disputed
trademark’s
registration will lead purchasers to mistakenly associate the
disputed
trademark with retrial applicant’s license and endorsement.”
Therefore,
this case can refer to provision in the above jurisdiction
interpretation to
determine the requirement for protecting the natural person’s right
of name.
Secondly, this particular name should have constituted stable
correspondent relationship with this natural person. Application of
the
provision “[n]o trademark application shall infringe upon another
party’s
existing prior rights” involves the right conflicts between the
prior right
and the right of registered trademark. In order to solve the
involved right
conflicts between the prior right and the right of registered
trademark in
this case, it is necessary to reasonably determine the protection
standard
for the prior right of name, and to balance the benefit between the
person
who enjoys prior right of name and the person who has the trademark
right.
Jessie ZENG Tsinghua Law School
10 / 38
It is wrong to determine that the disputed trademark’s registration
harms
this natural person’s right of name simply because this disputed
trademark
uses or includes natural person’s “name” which is only known to
some
people or is only used temporarily. In the meantime, it is also
wrong to
determine in the way of the Trademark Review and Adjudication
Board
who claimed that the precondition for protection is that the
natural person’s
claimed “right” should established sole correspondence to this
natural
person. This standard is too harsh for natural person to claim
protection on
right of name.
The court holds that according to paragraph 1, article 99 of the
General
Principles of Civil Law, the natural person enjoy the right of
personal name
and shall be entitled to determine, use or change their personal
names.
However, the right of name does not prohibit others from
legally
determining and using the same personal name in good faith. Because
of
duplication of name, it is hard for the name to constitute sole
corresponding
relationship with the natural person. Meanwhile, besides the
original name,
the natural person can also have stage name, pen name, translated
name or
other names. From the perspective of historical tradition, the
ancient people
can also have their style names, pseudonyms and etc. In
special
circumstances, the relevant public are more familiar with or get
used to
using other names, rather than the original name, to refer to the
natural
Jessie ZENG Tsinghua Law School
11 / 38
person. Other names are even more well-known than the original
name. If
the Trademark Review and Adjudication Boar’s claimed “sole
corresponding relationship” is the precondition for protecting the
right of
name, then people who have the same name with this natural person,
or the
person who have more names besides the original one are all unable
to
obtain protection on right of name no matter how well-known the
name is
or what is actually the recognition of the relevant public. Hence,
if
particular name the natural person claimed has already established
stable
corresponding relationship with this nature person, it shall obtain
the
protection for the right of name, even if the corresponding
relationship does
not achieve the extent of “sole correspondence”. The court does not
support
the “sole corresponding relationship” claimed by the Trademark
Review
and Adjudication Board because it is too harsh.
To sum up, the court believes that when article 31 of the Trademark
Law
regarding “[n]o trademark application shall infringe upon another
party’s
existing prior rights” is applied, and the natural person claimed
protection
for the right of name for particular name, this name has to satisfy
3
requirements:
1. This name must have certain reputation and is well known to
relevant
public;
2. The relevant public use this name to refer to this natural
person;
Jessie ZENG Tsinghua Law School
12 / 38
relationship with this natural person.
2.2 Whether foreigners can claim protection for right of name on
part
of his or her foreign name’s translated Chinese name.
The court holds that the relevant public in China get used to
referring to
and calling the foreigner with his or her Chinese name which is
part of
foreigner name’s Chinese translation. Many Chinese will not use the
full
translated version of original foreign name, and sometimes are not
familiar
with or do not even know the full translated Chinese name, because
of the
language and culture difference as well as the convenience to call.
Hence,
it is necessary to take relevant public’s appellation habit into
account when
judging whether the foreigner can claim protection for right of
name on
part of his or her foreign name’s translated Chinese name. In this
case, both
“ ” as claimed by the retrial applicant, or “ . ”, as
wrongfully determined by Trademark Review and Adjudication Board
as
the retrial applicant’s full name in the sued adjudication, are
part of the
retrial applicant’s full English name’s (Michael Jeffrey Jordan)
translated
Chinese name. These two names are all used by the relevant public
to call
or refer to the retrial applicant. The court does not support Qiao
Dan Inc’s
claim that simple family name or its translation cannot be the
object for the
right of name.
13 / 38
2.3 Evidence in this case can prove that “” as claimed by the
retrial applicant satisfies 3 requirements previously elaborated by
this
court, hence the retrial applicant has the right of name on
“”.
2.3.1 In the light of the evidence submitted by the retrial
applicant, many
articles in China’s newspapers, periodicals, websites regarding the
retrial
applicant, and many books and special journals have used “” to
refer
to the retrial applicant. These evidences can prove that relevant
public in
China, and China’s mass media extensively used “” to indicate
the
retrial applicant, and “” has already established stable
corresponding
relationship with retrial applicant.
Firstly, from June 26, 1984, to May 22, 2010, influential and
important
newspaper in China, namely People’s Daily, Reference News,
Economic
Daily, published 282 articles about the retrial applicant, for
instances
“”Qiao Dan Win the Award of “Champion of
Champions”, Qiao Dan Joined the Celebrity Circle
and etc. From June 1985 to January 2012, around 1376 articles about
the
retrial applicant like VS King&King Qiao
Dan VS Kobe,(Stories about Qiao Dan) were published
in sports , news, operating management, study, education
periodicals. Most
articles used “”, and others used “”Flying Man Qiao Dan
“.”(Chinese translation of Michael Jordan), “”Flying
Jessie ZENG Tsinghua Law School
14 / 38
Manto refer to the retrial applicant when the article title
involves the
retrial applicant.
Secondly, from 1984 to 2011, 26 kinds of books and monographs
related
with the retrial applicant published and issued articles like
(Qiao Dan’s Photo Album),(Last Qiao Dan) and etc. Within
these books and monographs, 14 books names or monographs names
used
“” to refer to the retrial applicant, and 7 books names or
monographs
names used “.”(Chinese translation of Michael Jordan) to
refer to the retrial applicant.
Thirdly, in October 2015, on Tencent.com, China News, Shanghai
Hotline,
China Daily, Netease and other influential websites, articles
like
(Chinese Basketball Game
Became A Mysterious Trip for Qiao Dan. Many People Spends A Lot
for
This Pilgrimage ), NBA
(Qiao Dan Became the Hero for NBA China. The God of Basketball
Takes
the Shine off the Game ),
(Qiao Dan is a Symbol for the Youth of This Generation.
Shanghai Press: This Night is Only for the God of Basketball)
were
published about the retrial applicant’s business trip in China.
Most of these
article titles used “” to refer to the retrial applicant.
Jessie ZENG Tsinghua Law School
15 / 38
2.3.2 In the first instance’s trial record, Qiao Dan Inc. admitted
that “
” has association with the retrial applicant, but it maintained
that this
kind of association is not “sole” or “only“. Qiao Dan Inc. also
admitted
that related public in China used “” to refer to the retrial
applicant, but
when one mentions “”, this two words does not necessarily refer
to
the plaintiff (retrial applicant). In the first instance, the court
asked Qiao
Dan Inc., “Are there anyone else who also used ‘’ besides Qiao
Dan
Inc. in mainland China? Have they obtained persistent influence
and
reputation in mainland China?” Qiao Dan Inc. replied, “In the
evidence
we submitted, no. After our registration, this kind of thing is
impossible.
Besides, we have not found this kind of thing before the disputes.
”
2.3.3 In Qiao Dan Inc.’s prospectus, the “Brand Risk” part gave
clear
indication “[a]ttention to Investors: Some consumers may relate the
issuer
and its products with Michael Jordan thereby facing
misunderstanding or
confusion. Here we gave our special notice to investors.” It is
clear that
Qiao Dan Inc. also realized that the related public may relate the
retrial
applicant with “”.
2.3.4 Two survey reports can further prove that the related public
used “
” to refer to the retrial applicant, and “” has already
established
stable corresponding relationship with the retrial applicant.
Jessie ZENG Tsinghua Law School
16 / 38
Firstly, reasons about why the court admitted these two survey
report are
listed as below.
The fact as well as the application of the law in this case is
closed related
with the related public’s recognition and knowledge. Hence,
objective, fair,
normative, transparent market survey is helpful for the court to
make clear
about the public’s real recognition on “”. According to the survey
facts,
two survey reports were made by Horizon Research Consultancy
Group.
The survey was done in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Chengdu,
Changshu to obtain ordinary consumer’s recognition about the
relationship
between Qiao Dan brand and the retrial applicant. These two
survey
report’s survey procedure was notarized by Beijing Chang’an
Notary
Public Office and Shanghai Oriental Notary Public Office. These
two
offices made detailed explanation to the interviewees’ composition,
survey
method, sampling method, procedure for producing the survey
conclusion
and etc. “Technical Specification”, “Questionnaire”, and “Cards”
for
questions are also attached to the survey reports. Hence, this
survey
conclusion has high authenticity and strong probative force. It can
be used
together with other evidences in this case to prove related facts.
Although
Trademark Review and Adjudication Board and Qiao Dan Inc.
impeached
these two reports, they neither provide disproof, nor gave any
sound
objection reason. Hence, the court does not support their claims
here.
Jessie ZENG Tsinghua Law School
17 / 38
Second, content about the survey reports are as below. Two survey
reports
shows, when interviewees were asked “what will you firstly refer to
when
one mentions ‘’?”, 85% and 63.8% of interviews replied
respectively
that they came up with the retrial applicant, and 14.5% and 24%
of
interviewees answered that they came up with “Qiao Dan Sports”.
This
survey data can inter-prove other evidences admitted by this court,
and
demonstrated that the related public often use “” to refer to the
retrial
applicant, and“” as well as the retrial applicant has already
established
stable corresponding relationship.
To sum up, current evidence in this case already prove that “”
enjoys
considerable reputation and was well-known to the related
public.
Generally speaking, the related public China used “” to refer to
the
retrial applicant, and“ ” and the retrial applicant have
already
established stable correspondence. Hence, the retrial applicant has
the right
of name on “”.
Qiao Dan Inc. believes that there are other natural persons in
China also
named “” and some press also use “” to refer to other
foreigners,
therefore the retrial applicant cannot have the right of name on
“”. The
court holds that although some other natural persons also have
their
original name or Chinese translated name as “” or include words
“
Jessie ZENG Tsinghua Law School
18 / 38
”, they are not extensively known by the public. No evidence
showed
that related public in China extensively know or relate other
natural persons
with “”. In particular, in the first instance’s trial record, Qiao
Dan Inc.
also admitted that besides Qiao Dan Inc. and the retrial applicant,
no one
else “obtained persistent influence and reputation in mainland
China.”
Therefore, the court does not support Qiao Dan Inc.’s claim
here.
Qiao Dan Inc. also maintained that the retrial applicant had
already
exclusively licensed the property right and interest on his name to
Nike
Inc., hence he does not have the right to claim property right and
interests
on the right of name. The court holds that the right of name is a
kind of
personal right. Although the right of name can include economic
interest,
for instance the right owner can license his or her name to others
to make
commercial exploitation, the right of name itself cannot fully be
separated
from the right owner, and cannot be fully transferred. Hence, even
if the
retrial applicant exclusively licensed his name to Nike Inc. to
make
commercial exploitation, he can still enjoy the right of name by
himself,
and is entitled to independently require application revocation.
Therefore,
the court does not support Qiao Dan Inc.’s claim here.
3. How well-known is the retrial applicant in China, and what is
the
extent of the fame?
19 / 38
In this case, correct determination about how well-known is the
retrial
applicant in China, and what is the extent is very significant for
the court
to determine the following issue: whether the retrial applicant can
enjoy
the right of name on “”; whether Qiao Dan Inc. has obvious
subjective
malice on its registration of the disputed trademark; whether the
related
public would mistakenly associate commodities with disputed
trademark
with the retrial applicant. The court holds that the evidence in
this case can
prove that before the disputed trademark’s application date, until
2015, the
retrial applicant consistently enjoyed high reputation in China. He
is not
only well-known in basketball circle, but also become a high
profile public
figure. Reasons are as below:
3.1 As previously mentioned, the retrial applicant submitted
evidence
including 1658 articles about himself on China’s related
newspapers,
periodicals, as well as 26 kind of books and monographs. Although
some
articles were mainly about the retrial applicant’s sports
activities, the mass
media types were not limited to sports periodicals like Modern
Sports,
Basketball and etc., types also include news, operation management,
study,
education and other kinds of periodicals. In particular, some
very
influential and authoritative newspapers including People’s
Daily,
Reference News, and Economic Daily also made extensive and
continuous
news report to the retrial applicant. Take into account the
authority, type,
Jessie ZENG Tsinghua Law School
20 / 38
scope as well as age of the audience of the mass media, and the
publish
date, number and content of related articles, together with a large
number
of books and monographs about the applicants, it is clear that
current
evidence can already prove that the retrial applicant enjoyed
high
reputation in related public in China, and his fame is no longer
limited to
basketball field.
3.2 In 2015, around the time when the retrial applicant visited
China,
Tencent.com, China News, Netease and other famous Chinese
websites
published many articles about retrial applicant’s participation in
related
business activities. These report can prove that currently, the
retrial
applicant still enjoy great reputation in China. Judging from the
words used
in these articles, for instance “Many People Spends A Lot for
This
Pilgrimage”, “the God of Basketball”, “a Symbol for the Youth of
This
Generation” and other emotional dictions, even if some
exaggeration
rhetoric has been used, it is evident enough that the retrial
applicant still
enjoys great fame in related public in China.
3.3 Two survey reports can further prove the extent and degree of
the retrial
applicant’s reputation. According to these two survey reports,
interviewees
are around 28 to 60 years old, and are local residents who lived in
surveyed
area for more than 2 years. The population distribution
characteristic of this
Jessie ZENG Tsinghua Law School
21 / 38
survey is consistent with that of the 6th National Census in 2010.
When
interviewees were asked “what will you firstly refer to when one
mentions
‘’? ”, 85% and 63.8% of interviews replied respectively that they
came
up with the retrial applicant. Hence, interviewees and data of two
survey
reports can further prove that retrial applicant is extensively
well-known in
China, and his reputation was not limited to basketball
field.
3.4 Besides retrial applicant’s endorsement for “AIR JORDAN” series
of
Nike Inc., he also endorsed the drink “Gatorade”, the underwear
“Hanes”,
the cornmeal “Wheaties Box”, and other commodities which has no
direct
relationship with basketball. Endorsement activities actually show
that
retrial applicant’s image and reputation have already been
extensively
recognized by related commodity operators. Meanwhile, the related
public
can also have more chance to know and come into contact with the
retrial
applicant by advertisement and mass media thereby further enhancing
and
expanding retrial applicant’s reputation in China.
4. Whether the retrial applicant and his authorized party Nike
Inc.
have actively used “”? What is the influence of this fact on
the
retrial applicant’s claimed right of name.
Firstly, the court holds that, according to paragraph 1, article 99
of the
General Principles of Civil Law, “Citizens shall enjoy the right of
personal
Jessie ZENG Tsinghua Law School
22 / 38
name and shall be entitled to determine, use or change their
personal names
in accordance with relevant provisions. Interference with,
usurpation of
and false representation of personal names shall be prohibited.”
Therefore,
“use” is one of right owner’s right, rather than right owner’s
duty. Moreover,
“use” is not the legal prerequisite for the right owner to prohibit
others from
interfering, usurping, false representing his or her personal
names; it is not
the precondition for the right owner to claim the protection for
his or her
right of name.
Secondly, when article 31 of the Trademark Law is applied to
protect other
people’s prior rights, whether related public would easily be
confused to
mistakenly associate the commodities or service, which has
disputed
trademark on, with this natural person’s endorsement and license,
is an
important factor for the court to determine whether disputed
trademark’s
registration will infringe this natural person’s right of name.
Hence,
according to article 31 of the Trademark Law, when three
requirements for
the protection of right of name, as previously mentioned, are
satisfied,
natural person are entitled to obtain protection for the right of
name even
if he or she has not actively used the name. This solution is not
only
beneficial for the natural person to protect his or her dignity,
and economic
value in his or her name, but also good for preventing related
public from
confusion. Consumer’s legitimate right and interest can be
protected.
Jessie ZENG Tsinghua Law School
23 / 38
Last but not least, the retrial applicant is an U.S. citizen. For
foreigners who
enjoyed considerable reputation in China, this person or related
interest
group may have not actively used their names. Sometimes, related
public,
mass media in China may use or be familiar with the name which are
not
the same with the name this person actively used, due to the
appellation
and language habit, as well as culture difference. For instance, in
this case,
related public and news media in China extensively use “” to refer
to
the retrial applicant, but the retrial applicant, and Nike Inc. use
“.
” to stand for retrial applicant. Both “.” and “” enjoy
high reputation in related public, and are both extensively used to
refer to
the retrial applicant. Besides, the retrial applicant never make
objection
about the above fact. Hence, the court does not support Trademark
Review
and Adjudication Board and Qiao Dan Inc.’s claim that retrial
applicant
does not have right of name because retrial applicant and Nike Inc.
have
never actively used “”.
5. Whether the disputed trademark’s specific circumstance misled
the
relevant public to falsely relate the disputed trademark with
the
retrial applicant;
The specified commodity type for the disputed trademark,
No.6020569“
” band, is type 28, namely “apparatus for physical exercises,
swimming
pool (for entertainment), roller skates, decoration to Christmas
trees
Jessie ZENG Tsinghua Law School
24 / 38
swimming pool (for entertainment), roller skates are all
common
commodities in sports, and Christmas trees (except light-fixtures
and
Candies) are common commodities in daily life. The court holds
that
related public can easily be confused to associate commodities,
which have
disputed trademark o, with retrial applicant’s license and
endorsement.
Reasons are as below:
First, evidence in this case can already prove that retrial
applicant and his
name “” have established long term and extensive reputation in
China.
Meanwhile, related public extensively used and were already used to
using
“” to refer to retrial applicant. “” and the retrial applicant
have
established stable correspondence relationship. The disputed
trademark
only includes words “”, hence when related public see the
trademark,
they may soon associate it with retrial applicant. Consequently,
the related
public may mistakenly regard that the commodity with disputed
trademark
has particular relationship with the retrial applicant’s license
and
endorsement.
Besides, In Qiao Dan Inc.’s prospectus, the “Brand Risk” part gave
clear
indication “[a]ttention to Investors: Some consumers may relate the
issuer
and its products with Michael Jordan thereby causing
misunderstanding or
Jessie ZENG Tsinghua Law School
25 / 38
confusion. Here we gave our special notice to investors.” This
notice shows
that Qiao Dan Inc. has already realized that related public may
easily
associate “” with retrial applicant thereby facing confusion. In
the first
instance’s trial record, Qiao Dan Inc. also admitted that “it is
possible that
some people who have not bought our products may made such
association.”
Last but not least, two survey reports together with other
evidences can
further prove that related public may easily be misled to associate
“”
with retrial applicant. Two survey reports show that 68.1% and
58.1% of
interviewees respectively think that retrial applicant has
association with
“”2. As for interviewees who have bought commodities branded
“”, 93.5% and 78.1% of the interviewees respectively hold
that
retrial applicant is related with “”. When it comes to the
specific
relationship between “” and the retrial applicant,
interviewees
believe that the relationship may be endorsement, authorization of
the
name, the enterprise operator and etc. (results list by proportion;
from high
to low) Although the above survey data is aimed at the related
public’s
recognition between retrial applicant and “”, these two
survey
reports can still further prove that related public can be easily
misled to
associate disputed trademark with the retrial applicant, because
“
2 “” means “Qiao Dan Sports”.
Jessie ZENG Tsinghua Law School
26 / 38
” is the trademark owner of the disputed trademark, and two words
“
” are the most distinguish part in the term “” while other
two
words“” are too ordinary to distinguish the source of goods.
6. Whether Qiao Dan Inc. has manifest subjective malice on
the
registration of the disputed trademark.
In this case, whether Qiao Dan Inc. has obvious subjective malice
on the
registration of the disputed trademark is a very significant factor
for the
court to determine whether the disputed trademark’s registration
would
infringe retrial applicant’s right of name. The court holds that
evidence in
this case can prove that Qiao Dan Inc. registered a lot of
trademarks
closely related with the retrial applicant when Qiao Dan Inc. was
fully
aware of the reputation of retrial applicant and his name “”.
Qiao
Dan Inc. had not consulted or negotiated with retrial applicant to
obtain
license or authorization. Instead, it enjoyed retrial
applicant’s
“endorsement” with few cost, and was permissive to the damage
result that
the related public mistakenly associate commodities, which has
disputed
trademark on, with retrial applicant. Qiao Dan Inc.’s action goes
against
principle in article 4 of General Principles of Civil Law. Its
action shows
manifest subjective malice. Specific reasons are listed as
below:
First, from 1984 to 2015, retrial applicant enjoyed long term and
extensive
Jessie ZENG Tsinghua Law School
27 / 38
reputation. Related public in China mainly use “” to refer to the
retrial
applicant. Qiao Dan Inc.’s original name is “
” Fu Jian Province Jin Jiang City Chen Dai Xi Bian Commodity
Factory II. This name has nothing to do with “”, but was
changed
to “”Jin Jiang City Qiao Dan Sports
Commodity Inc.in September 2000, and then renamed with current
name
in December 2009. Qiao Dan Inc.’s main business are “design,
production
and sale of sports shoes, sportswear, sports accessories.” The
business is
highly related with retrial applicant’s profession, and should
have
considerable knowledge of the retrial applicant and his reputation.
In fact,
Qiao Dan Inc. clearly admitted in first instance’s trial record
that it did
register (the disputed trademark) when they are aware of the
(retrial’s)
reputation.
Secondly, as for the reason why Qiao Dan Inc. used “” to register
the
disputed trademark, Qiao Dan Inc. gave three totally different
explanations
in the court’s hearing, in the first instance, and in the Second
Intermediate
People’s Court of Shanghai’s trial about the lawsuit between
retrial
applicant and Qiao Dan Inc. on the infringement of right of name
disputes.
These explanations, for instance “” meanings “southern grass
and
trees” or “wonderful” or “general meaningful of good will”, or
“when Qiao
Dan Inc. was only a village-run enterprise, the company asked the
local
Jessie ZENG Tsinghua Law School
28 / 38
trademark agency in Jin Jiang City to come up names, and ‘’ is one
of
these proposed names”, can hardly convince the court because it
obviously
runs counter to the common sense and lacks factual basis. Hence,
Qiao
Dan Inc. cannot gave a justified and reasonable explanation for
using “
” to register the disputed trademark.
Lastly, besides the registration for this disputed trademark, Qiao
Dan Inc.
and other related companies have successively registered a series
of
trademarks closely related with retrial applicants. These
registrations
further showed the subjective malice of Qiao Dan Inc. These
trademarks
includes:
1. Qiao Dan Inc. registered a number of trademarks on Qiao Dan’s
two
children’s names, namely “.”Chinese Translation of “Jeffrey
Jordan”, “.” Chinese Translation of “Marcus Jordan”,
and these two names’ Chinese Pinyin. Qiao Dan Inc.’s
controlling
shareholder, Fu Jian Bai Qun Company, the party not involved in
this case,
applied for 16 trademarks on “” Chinese Translation of
“Jeffrey”,
“” Chinese Translation of “Marcus”,”JIEFULI”(Chinese Pinyin
of “”), “MAKUSI”(Chinese Pinyin of “”) respectively.
2. Qiao Dan Inc. used the picture , which has the same body shape
as
that of retrial applicant’s basketball playing picture published on
NBA
Jessie ZENG Tsinghua Law School
29 / 38
PICTORIAL in 1998, as elements for independent trademark
registration,
or as elements to combines with “”, “QIAODAN”, or the retrial
applicant’s basketball jersey number 23 to register a number of
trademarks.
3. The affiliated company, Mai Ke Company, use image in Nike
Inc.’s No.643806 trademark, and No.4932232 trademark to apply for
a
composed mark, No.1407911 trademark.
As for NBA team LAKERS, Qiao Dan Inc.’s affiliated company Hu
Ren
Dui Sports Company applied for the registration of
No.1905046,
No.1967177, and No.2009309 “LAKERS TEAM” trademark as well as
No.1905050, No.1967878, and No.1961198 “ HURENDUI”
LAKERS TEAM’s Chinese translation and its Chinese Pinyin
trademark. Meanwhile, this company also used “”Chinese
translation of LAKERS TEAMas enterprise name. Based on the
facts
listed above, Qiao Dan Inc.’s use of “”, as a disputed
registration
trademark, is not an happenstance or an isolated event. Instead, it
is only
one of the examples that Qiao Dan Inc. and other affiliated
companies
registered a series of related trademarks on retrial applicant when
they
are fully aware of retrial applicant’s high reputation. Qiao Dan
Inc. has
no prior right on retrial applicant’s name “”, and his
basketball
jersey number “23”, and particularly names of retrial applicant’s
two
Jessie ZENG Tsinghua Law School
30 / 38
children’s names. Qiao Dan Inc. and the Trademark Review and
Adjudication Board’s claim that Qiao Dan Inc.’s action is a kind
of
renewal registration or defensive registration has no factual and
legal
basis, hence the court does not support such claim.
7. What do Qiao Dan Inc.’s operation condition, its efforts in
related
trademarks’ publicity and use, as well as its related
trademarks’
awarded prizes and received protection influence this case.
The court holds that Qiao Dan Inc. did achieve a relatively large
scale, and
has large market share as well as considerable reputation in
related business
after years of operation, according to the first instance court and
this court’s
ascertained facts. In No.9 Civil Judgment, final trial, 2002, this
court has
determined that “sneakers packaged by Fujian Province Qiao Dan
Sports
Co., Ltd.’s prior used shoe boxes are well-known commodities, and
the
decoration for these shoe boxes is well-known commodity’s
distinctive
decoration.” In June, 2005, Qiao Dan Inc.’s No.870 trademark
has
been affirmed by the Trademark Office as well-known marks on
commodities of sneakers and sportswear. Besides, Qiao Dan Inc. has
also
done extensive advertisement, sponsored sports games, philanthropy
and
other activities with impressive investment and effort. However,
the above
fact cannot influence the court’s determination that disputed
trademark’s
registration infringed retrial applicant’s prior right of name.
Reasons are
Jessie ZENG Tsinghua Law School
31 / 38
listed below:
First, judging from the right’s nature, as well as the
constitutive
requirements for infringing prior right of name, the name is used
to refer
to, call, and distinguish specific individuals, and the right of
name is
personal right enjoyed by individuals on his or her name.
Trademark’s main
function is to distinguish the commodities or source of goods. It
is a kind
of property right which has different nature from the right of
name. As
previously mentioned, the key for determining whether
disputed
trademark’s registration harms other people’s prior right of name
is
whether this trademark will easily misled the associate public to
mistakenly
relate commodities, which have disputed trademark on, with the
retrial
applicant’s endorsement, license and etc. In fact, Qiao Dan Inc.’s
use of
retrial applicant’s basketball jersey number “23”, name of
retrial
applicant’s two children, and other registration trademarks closely
related
with retrial applicant, shows that Qiao Dan Inc. turned a blind eye
to the
damage result. Hence, the court does not support Trademark Review
and
Adjudication Board’s claims which fails to affirm that ’s
correspondence relationship with retrial applicant is obviously
stronger
than relationship with Qiao Dan Inc., and meanwhile falsely
determined
that retrial applicant does not enjoyed right of name on “”, and
related
public will not be misled and etc.
Jessie ZENG Tsinghua Law School
32 / 38
Secondly, the specified commodity type for the disputed trademark
is type
28, namely “apparatus for physical exercises, swimming pool
(for
entertainment), roller skates, the decoration of Christmas trees
(except
light-fixtures and Candies).” Qiao Dan Inc. does not submit
evidence to
show that the publicity and use of the disputed trademark on
above
mentioned commodities thereby proving that disputed trademark
enjoyed
high reputation or distinctiveness. Moreover, the above
mentioned
commodities are somewhat different from Qiao Dan Inc.’s main
business,
namely “the design, production and sale of sneakers, sportswear,
and sports
accessories.” Therefore, the court can hardly determine that
disputed
trademark has high reputation or distinctiveness on disputed
trademark’s
specified commodity type.
Lastly, according to article 4 of the General Principles of Civil
Law, “In
civil activities, the principles of ….. honesty and credibility
shall be
observed.” Qiao Dan Inc. applies for the registration of the
disputed
trademark in bad faith. It harms the retrial applicant’s prior
right of name
and accordingly goes against the principle of honesty and
credibility.
Hence, Trademark Review and Adjudication Board and Qiao Dan
Inc.’s
claim on market order or business success is actually not totally
the
legitimate outcome under Qiao Dan Inc.’s honest operation and
efforts, but
is to some extent, an achievement based on related public’s
Jessie ZENG Tsinghua Law School
33 / 38
misidentification. Safeguarding this kind of market order or
business
success is not only harmful to the protection of the right owner’s
legitimate
interest on the right of name, but also unfavorable to the
guarantee for
consumer’s interest or the purification for the trademark
registration and
use.
Based on the above reasoning, the court holds that Qiao Dan
Inc.’s
operation condition, its efforts in related trademarks’ publicity,
use, related
trademarks’ awarded prizes and received protection and etc. cannot
make
the disputed trademark’s registration legitimate.
8. Whether the retrial applicant is remiss in protecting its
claimed
right of name, and what is the influence of this factor in this
case.
According to Article 41, paragraph 2, “If a trademark that has
been
registered violates the provisions of …..Article 31 of this Law,
the owner
or the interested persons of the trademark may, within 5 years from
the day
on which the trademark is registered, request the Trademark Review
and
Adjudication Board to revoke that registered trademark.” The court
holds
that “within 5 years from the day on which the trademark is
registered” is
a statutory period to request the Trademark Review and
Adjudication
Board to revoke the registered trademark. Legislators have fully
considered
the interest balance between the prior right owner and the
trademark right
Jessie ZENG Tsinghua Law School
34 / 38
owner when they prescribed this period. This period can urge the
right
owner or interested party to claim rights timely thereby avoiding
the
circumstance that disputed trademark’s legal validity remains
debatable
long after trademark’s registration has been affirmed.
Otherwise,
trademark right owner’s publicity and use of disputed trademark
will be
influenced, and trademark right owner’s legal rights and interests
will be
harmed. In this case, retrial applicant requested the Trademark
Review and
Adjudication Board to revoke the registered trademark within 5
years from
the day on which the trademark is registered. This request is in
accordance
with the law. Hence, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board,
and
Qiao Dan Inc.’s claim that the retrial applicant was remiss in
protecting his
right of the name has no factual and legal basis, and the court
does not
support such claim.
To sum up, according to article 31 of the Trademark Law, prior
rights
includes other person’s existing right of the name he or she
enjoyed before
the disputed trademark’s application date. Retrial applicant has
the prior
right of the name on the disputed trademark “”. Qiao Dan Inc.
used
“” to apply for the registration of disputed trademark when it was
fully
aware of the high and long term reputation in China. This
registration
application will easily misled the related public to mistakenly
associated
the commodities, which have disputed trademarks on, with the
retrial
Jessie ZENG Tsinghua Law School
35 / 38
applicant’s license and endorsement, thereby infringing the
retrial
applicant’s prior right of name. Qiao Dan Inc. has manifest bad
faith in the
disputed trademark’s registration. Qiao Dan Inc.’s operation
condition, its
efforts in related trademarks’ publicity, use, related trademarks’
awarded
prizes and received protection and etc. cannot make the
disputed
trademark’s registration legitimate. Therefore, the disputed
trademark’s
registration violates article 31 of the Trademark Law, and should
be
revoked according to article 41, paragraph 2 of the Trademark Law.
The
Trademark Review and Adjudication Board should remake adjudication
on
the disputed trademark.
As for the issue whether disputed trademark’s registration belongs
to the
circumstance listed in article 10, paragraph 1(8), namely
“[t]hose
detrimental to socialist morals or customs, or having other
unhealthy
influences”, the court holds that disputed trademark will not cause
passive
or negative influence to China’s politics, economy, culture,
religion, nation
and other social public interest and public order. Therefore, the
court does
not support the retrial applicant’s proposed retrial reason that
disputed
trademark’s registration violates article 10, paragraph 1(8) of
Trademark
Law.
As for the issue whether disputed trademark’s registration belongs
to the
Jessie ZENG Tsinghua Law School
36 / 38
circumstance listed in article 41, paragraph 1 of the Trademark
Law,
namely “the registration of the trademark is obtained by deceitful
means or
other illicit means”, the court holds that disputed trademark’s
registration
is not actions which may disturb the market order, harm public
interest,
unreasonably occupy public resource, or seek profits in other
means.
Disputed trademark’s registration does not belongs to the “other
illicit
means”, as listed in article 41 of the trademark law. Retrial
applicant has
not submitted evidence proving that disputed trademark’s
registration is
obtained by deceitful means or other illicit means. Hence, the
court does
not support retrial applicant’s retrial reason that disputed
trademark’s
registration violates article 41, paragraph 1 of the trademark
law.
Based on the above reasoning, the court holds that determination of
facts
and application of law in the sued adjudication and first instance
judgment
are erroneous, and should be revoked. The second instance
judgment
erroneously sustained the first instance judgment, and did not
review the
appeal reason proposed by retrial applicant about disputed
trademark’s
violation of article 31 of Trademark Law. This judgment should be
also
revoked. After the court judicial committee’s discussion, judgment
is as
below, according to article 4, and article 99 of General Principles
of the
Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, article 2 and article
20 of Tort
Liability Law of the People's Republic of China, article 10,
paragraph 1(8),
Jessie ZENG Tsinghua Law School
37 / 38
article 31, article 41 of the Trademark Law of the People's
Republic of
China (2001 Amendment), article 6, paragraph 2 of Interpretation of
the
Supreme People’s Court on Some Issues Concerning the Application
of
Law in the Trial of Civil Cases Involving Unfair Competition,
article 70
and article 89, paragraph 1(2) of the Administrative Litigation Law
of the
People's Republic of China , and article 76, paragraph1, and
article 78 of
the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several
Issues
concerning the Enforcement of the Administrative Litigation Law of
the
People's Republic of China :
Judgment in 2014 (Administrative, Intellectual Property, First
Trial,
2014).
2. Revoke Beijing High People’s Court’s No.1915
Administrative
Judgment in 2015 (Administrative, Intellectual Property, Final
Trial,
2015)
Administration of Industry and Commerce’s No.052058 (2014)
adjudication on No.6020569 disputed trademark “” .
4. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of State Administration
of
Industry and Commerce shall remake adjudication to No.6020569
disputed trademark “”.
38 / 38
The court acceptance fee for the first instance is 100 RMB, and the
court
acceptance fee for the second instance is 100 RMB. All the
court
acceptance fee shall be paid by Trademark Review and Adjudication
Board
of State Administration of Industry and Commerce.
This is the final judgment.
Chief Judge: Tao Kaiyuan
Court Clerk: Bao Shuo
Court Clerk: Zhang Bo