（美国）迈克尔•杰弗里•乔丹因与国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会(以下简称商标评审委员会)、乔丹体育股份有限公司(以下简称乔丹公司)商标争议行政纠纷一案
中华人民共和国最高人民法院 行政判决书 (2016)最高法行再27号
Administrative Dispute on Trademark invalidation of MichaelJeffreyJordan against the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board) and Jordan Sports Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Jordan Company)
Administrative Judgment XZ No. 27 (2016) of the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China
案情介绍:
再审申请人(一审原告、二审上诉人):迈克尔•杰弗里•乔丹(MichaelJeffreyJordan)。
被申请人(一审被告、二审被上诉人):国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会。
一审第三人:乔丹体育股份有限公司。
Case Introduction:
Retrial Applicant (plaintiff in first instance, appellant in second instance): MichaelJeffreyJordan
Respondent (defendant in first instance, appellee in second instance): Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of the People's Republic of China.
Respondent (third party in first instance): Jordan Sports Co., Ltd.
2012年10月31日,再审申请人向商标评审委员会提出撤销申请,请求撤销乔丹公司的第6020569号“乔丹”商标(以下简称争议商标)。争议商标核定使用在国际分类第28类的“体育活动器械、游泳池(娱乐用)、旱冰鞋、圣诞树装饰品(灯饰和糖果除外)”商品上。再审申请人申请撤销争议商标的主要理由为:(一)再审申请人是世界知名的美国篮球运动体育明星,在我国具有极高的知名度。相关公众看到与“乔丹”“QIAODAN”相同或者相似的标志,就会将其与再审申请人关联在一起。(二)争议商标的注册损害了再审申请人的在先权利。(三)乔丹公司的行为属于商标法第十条第一款第(八)项规定的“有其他不良影响”的情形,以及商标法第四十一条第一款规定的“以其他不正当手段取得注册”的情形。
On October 31, 2012, the petitioner filed an application for cancellation with the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board, requesting the No. 6020569 “Jordan” trademark invalidation (hereinafter referred to as the disputed trademark). The disputed trademarks are approved for use in the “Sports Equipment, Swimming Pools (Entertainment), Roller Skates, Christmas Tree Decorations (Except Lighting and Candy)” in class 28 of the International Classification. The reasons for retrial are as follows: (1) The petitioner is a world famous American basketball star with high reputation in China. It will be associated with the petitioner when the relevant public see the identical or similar logo as “乔丹”“QIAODAN”. (2) The registration of the disputed trademark infringed the prior right of Jordan. (3) Jordan Company violated the rule of Article 10 (8) and Article 41 of the Trademark Law and cannot maintain the registration.
2014年4月14日,商标评审委员会作出商评字[2014]第052058号关于第6020569号“乔丹”商标争议裁定(以下简称被诉裁定),裁定维持争议商标。其主要理由为:1.争议商标文字“乔丹”与“MichaelJordan”及其中文译名“迈克尔•乔丹”存在一定区别,并且“乔丹”为英美普通姓氏,难以认定这一姓氏与再审申请人之间存在当然的对应关系。2.在宣传使用再审申请人的姓名及形象时,再审申请人及其商业合作伙伴耐克公司使用的是“MichaelJordan”或“迈克尔•乔丹”的全名,以及与再审申请人飞身扣篮动作形象相关的标志。3.乔丹公司分别于2001年、2003年获准注册第1541331号“乔丹”商标(以下简称331号商标)、第3028870号图形商标(以下简称870号商标),并曾受到驰名商标保护。乔丹公司对上述商标相关标志已进行长期、广泛的宣传使用,获得了较高的市场声誉,这一事实与再审申请人及耐克公司的商业活动并存市场已长达近二十年,双方已分别形成了各自的消费群体和市场认知。4.不论是媒体报道,还是耐克公司,均未就这一指代称谓形成统一、固定的使用形式。相较于乔丹公司对争议商标相关标志的使用,从双方使用的广泛性、持续性、唯一对应性等方面综合考虑,本案尚不能认定“乔丹”与再审申请人之间的对应关系已强于乔丹公司。综上,争议商标的注册未损害再审申请人的姓名权。争议商标的注册不属于商标法第十条第一款第(八)项、第四十一条第一款规定的情形。
On April 14, 2014, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board made decision [2014] No. 052058 on No. 6020569 “Jordan” trademark and ruled that the disputed trademark was maintained. The main reasons are as follows: 1. The disputed trademark “乔丹” is different from “Michael Jordan” and its Chinese translation “迈克尔•乔丹,” and “Jordan” is an ordinary surname name in the United States. It is difficult to say the correspondence between the surname and the petitioner. 2. In promoting the name and images of the petitioner, the petitioner and its partner Nike use the full name of “Michael Jordan” or “迈克尔•乔丹” and the images of the petitioner’s flying dunk action symbols, not “乔丹”. 3. In 2001 and 2003, Jordan Company was approved to register the “Jordan” trademark (hereinafter referred to as No. 331 trademark) and No. 3028870 (hereinafter referred to as the No. 870 trademark). The dispute trademark was protected as famous trademark in china. Jordan company had a long-term use of the above mentioned trademarks and other related marks. These marks obtained high reputation in the market. These trademarks have been coexisting with the petitioner and Nike's commercial business for nearly 20 years. The consumers and market recognition were differently formed. 4. Neither the media nor Nike has formed an unified or fixed use of Chinese translation “乔丹”. After consideration of the perspective of the extensiveness, sustainability, and solo correspondence of the two parties, compared with the use of disputed trademarks by Jordan company, it could not be determined that the correspondence between “乔丹” and the petitioner has been set up and was stronger. In summary, the registration of the disputed trademark does not infringe the name of petitioner. The registration of a disputed trademark does not violated Article 10, paragraph 1 (8), and Article 41, paragraph 1 of the Trademark Law.
迈克尔•杰弗里•乔丹不服被诉裁定,向北京市第一中级人民法院(以下简称一审法院)提起行政诉讼,请求撤销被诉裁定。一审法院认为：(一)关于商标法第三十一条。本案证据尚不足以证明争议商标的注册损害了再审申请人的姓名权。(二)关于商标法第十条第一款第(八)项、第四十一条第一款。乔丹公司对争议商标已进行了长期、广泛的宣传、使用,获得了较高的市场声誉,这一事实与再审申请人及耐克公司从事的商业活动并存市场已长达近二十年。通过各自较大规模的宣传、使用,双方已分别形成了各自的消费群体和市场认知,以及较为稳定的竞争秩序,故争议商标不应被撤销。因此,争议商标的注册未违反商标法第十条第一款第(八)项、第四十一条第一款的规定。一审法院判决:维持被诉裁定。
Michael Jeffrey Jordan appealed to the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court request the revocation of the ruling of TRAB. The court uphold the ruling.
迈克尔•杰弗里•乔丹不服一审判决,向北京市高级人民法院(以下简称二审法院)提起上诉,请求撤销一审判决,依法改判撤销被诉裁定。二审法院认为：(一)关于商标法第十条第一款第(八)项。本案中,争议商标标志本身并不具有“有害于社会主义道德风尚或者有其他不良影响”的因素,商标评审委员会认定争议商标不属于“有害于社会主义道德风尚或者有其他不良影响的标志”并无不当。争议商标的使用是否会造成相关公众的混淆误认,不属于商标法第十条第一款第(八)项规定调整的范围。(二)关于商标法第四十一条第一款。本案证据不足以证明争议商标系以欺骗手段或者其他不正当手段取得注册。争议商标的使用是否会造成相关公众的混淆误认,亦不属于商标法第四十一条第一款规定调整的范围。二审法院判决:驳回上诉,维持原判。
再审申请人不服二审判决,以二审判决认定事实和适用法律均有错误,且遗漏其有关商标法第三十一条的上诉理由为由,向本院申请再审,请求本院:撤销被诉裁定以及一、二审判决,判令商标评审委员会对争议商标重新作出裁定。
Michael Jeffrey Jordan appealed to the Beijing Higher People's Court. The court held that whether the use of the disputed trademark will cause confusion and misunderstanding of the relevant public does not fall within the scope of Article 10 (8) of the Trademark Law. And regarding Article 41 of the Trademark Law, the evidence in this case is not sufficient to prove that the disputed trademark was registered by deception or other improper means. Therefore, dismissed.
The petitioner applied to the Supreme Court for retrial because the second-instance judgment omitted the appeal argument under Article 31 of the Trademark Law. The right to the name of Michael Jeffrey Jordan should be protected.
终审判决认定：
该争议焦点分为以下八个具体问题:
(一)关于再审申请人主张保护姓名权的法律依据
依照民法通则第九十九条、侵权责任法第二条的规定,自然人依法享有姓名权。未经许可擅自将他人享有在先姓名权的姓名注册为商标,容易导致相关公众误认为标记有该商标的商品或者服务与该自然人存在代言、许可等特定联系的,应当认定该商标的注册损害他人的在先姓名权,违反商标法第三十一条的规定。
The final judgment of the Supreme Court made the following decisions.
Eight specific issues are the arguments below.
(1) The rule of protection the right to the personal name.
According to Article 99 of the General Principles of the Civil Law and Article 2 of the Tort Law, natural persons have the right to name. If the name of a person is registered as a trademark without the permission of the person who has the right, and it is easy cause the relevant public to believe that the goods or services marked with the trademark have specific relation with the natural person by mistake, such as endorsement, license, etc., then, the personal name is infringed by the registration of the trademark, and violates the provisions of Article 31 of the Trademark Law.
(二)关于再审申请人主张的姓名权所保护的具体内容
因本案现有证据足以证明“乔丹”在我国具有较高的知名度、为相关公众所知悉,我国相关公众通常以“乔丹”指代再审申请人,并且“乔丹”已经与再审申请人之间形成了稳定的对应关系,故再审申请人就“乔丹”享有姓名权。
(2) what is the specific content can be protected by the personal name right claimed by the petitioner.
Because the existing evidence in this case is enough to prove that Chinese translation“乔丹” has a high reputation in China and is known to the relevant public, hence, the stable correspondence between Michael Jeffrey Jordan and “乔丹”has been set up. So, the petitioner has the right to name “乔丹”.
(三)关于再审申请人在我国具有何种程度和范围的知名度
本院认为,本案证据可以证明在争议商标的申请日之前,直至2015年,再审申请人在我国一直具有较高的知名度,其知名范围已不仅仅局限于篮球运动领域,而是已成为具有较高知名度的公众人物
(3) The extent and scope of the recognition of Michael Jeffrey Jordan in China
The court believes that the evidence in this case can prove that before the filing date of the disputed trademark, Michael Jeffrey Jordan had a high reputation in China continually before 2015. The scope of well-known is not limited to the basketball, but also has become high profile public figure.
(四)关于再审申请人及其授权的耐克公司是否主动使用“乔丹”, 其是否主动使用的事实对于再审申请人在本案中主张的姓名权有何影响
不论是“迈克尔·乔丹”还是“乔丹”,在相关公众中均具有较高的知名度,均被相关公众普遍用于指代再审申请人,且再审申请人并未提出异议或者反对。故商标评审委员会、乔丹公司关于再审申请人、耐克公司未主动使用“乔丹”,再审申请人对“乔丹”不享有姓名权的主张,本院不予支持.
(4) Whether the petitioner and his authorized Nike Company use “乔丹”with initiative, whether the initiative use affects the personal name right of petitioner in this case.
Bothe “Michael Jordan” or “乔丹”, have a high reputation among the relevant public, and is generally refer to the petitioner. There is no any objection. Therefore, it’s difficult to agree with the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board that the petitioner and Nike did not initiative to use “乔丹” and “乔丹” does not owned by the petitioner.
(五)关于争议商标的具体情形是否会使相关公众误认为与再审申请人具有关联
本院认为,上述商品的相关公众容易误认为标记有争议商标的商品与再审申请人存在代言、许可等特定联系。
(5) Whether the specific circumstances of the disputed trademark will cause the relevant public to mistakenly associate with the retrial applicant
The court believes that the relevant public of the above-mentioned goods is likely to mistakenly believe that the goods marked with the disputed trademark have specific contacts such as endorsements and licenses.
(六)关于乔丹公司对于争议商标的注册是否存在明显的主观恶意
本院认为,本案证据足以证明乔丹公司是在明知再审申请人及其姓名“乔丹”具有较高知名度的情况下,并未与再审申请人协商、谈判以获得其许可或授权,而是擅自注册了包括争议商标在内的大量与再审申请人密切相关的商标,放任相关公众误认为标记有争议商标的商品与再审申请人存在特定联系的损害结果,使得乔丹公司无需付出过多成本,即可实现由再审申请人为其“代言”等效果。乔丹公司的行为有违民法通则第四条规定的诚实信用原则,其对于争议商标的注册具有明显的主观恶意。
(6) Does Jordan Company had the intention to register the disputed trademark?
The court believes that the evidence in this case is sufficient to prove that, although knowing petitioner and his name “乔丹”have a high reputation, Jordan Company did not negotiate with the petitioner for the permission or authorization. Jordan Company also registered a large number of trademarks which are closely related to the petitioner. Jordan Company indulged the relevant public to mistakenly believe that the products marked with the disputed trademarks have specific connection with the petitioner. By this way, Jordan Company can pay no cost for the effect of represent the products by the petitioner. The behavior of Jordan Company violates the principle of good faith in Article 4 of the General Principles of Civil Law, and obvious malice intention for the registration of disputed trademarks can be found.
(七)关于乔丹公司的经营状况,以及乔丹公司对其企业名称、有关商标的宣传、使用、获奖、被保护情况,对本案具有何种影响
本院认为,乔丹公司的经营状况,以及乔丹公司对其企业名称、有关商标的宣传、使用、获奖、被保护等情况,均不足以使得争议商标的注册具有合法性。
(八)关于再审申请人是否具有怠于保护其主张的姓名权的情形,该情形对本案有何影响
再审申请人在争议商标注册之日起五年内向商标评审委员会提出撤销申请,符合上述法律规定。
(7) Could the business of Jordan Company and the Jordan trade name and trademark used in business, promotion, and protection cases be the key factors which affect the decision?
The court believes that Jordan company's business, as well as Jordan's trade name, promotion, use, awards, and protection of the trademarks, cannot legalize the registration of the disputed trademark.
(8) Whether the petitioner claims the right to protect the personal name timely and affective in this case.
The petitioner filed an application for cancellation with the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board within five years from the filing date of registration of the disputed trademark, in compliance with the trademark law.
本院再审认为, 商标法第三十一条规定的“在先权利”包括他人在争议商标申请日之前已经享有的姓名权。再审申请人对争议商标标志“乔丹”享有在先的姓名权。乔丹公司明知再审申请人在我国具有长期、广泛的知名度,仍然使用“乔丹”申请注册争议商标,容易导致相关公众误认为标记有争议商标的商品与再审申请人存在代言、许可等特定联系,损害了再审申请人的在先姓名权。乔丹公司对于争议商标的注册具有明显的主观恶意。乔丹公司的经营状况,以及乔丹公司对其企业名称、有关商标的宣传、使用、获奖、被保护等情况,均不足以使得争议商标的注册具有合法性。因此,争议商标的注册违反商标法第三十一条的规定,依照商标法第四十一条第二款的规定应予撤销,应由商标评审委员会就争议商标重新作出裁定。
综上所述,本院认为,被诉裁定、一审判决认定事实和适用法律均有错误,应予撤销；二审判决错误维持一审判决,对再审申请人关于争议商标违反商标法第三十一条规定的上诉理由未予审查,亦应予撤销。
The court re-reviewed that the “prior rights” stipulated in Article 31 of the Trademark Law include the right of name that others have enjoyed before the date of filing the disputed trademark. The retrial applicant has the prior name right to the disputed trademark mark “Jordan”. Jordan Company knows that the retrial applicant has long-term and extensive popularity in China, and still uses “Jordan” to apply for registration of the disputed trademark, which may easily lead the relevant public to mistakenly believe that the goods marked with the disputed trademark and the retrial applicant have specific contacts such as endorsements and licenses. Re-examine the applicant's prior name. Jordan’s registration of disputed trademarks is clearly subjective and malicious. The company's business status, as well as Jordan's corporate name, promotion, use, awards, and protection of trademarks, are not sufficient to make the registration of disputed trademarks legal. Therefore, the registration of the disputed trademark violates the provisions of Article 31 of the Trademark Law and shall be revoked in accordance with the provisions of Article 41, paragraph 2 of the Trademark Law. The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board shall make a ruling on the disputed trademark.
In summary, the court held that the ruling of the lawsuit, the facts of the first-instance judgment and the applicable law were all wrong and should be revoked; the second-instance judgment was wrong to maintain the first-instance judgment, and the retrial applicant violated Article 31 of the Trademark Law on the disputed trademark. The prescribed grounds for appeal are not reviewed and should be revoked.
Comments
乔丹商标的案件在中国是一个标志性的名人姓名权的保护案件。很多的知名人士的姓名都曾经被抢注为商标。SBFGD在先的姓名权受到法律保护。
首先，姓名权获得保护也有若干的标准，但是主要的问题是翻译成中国的汉语问题。不同的时间段或者不同的媒体，甚至是权利人，对自己的中国姓名权、商标权的称呼都可能发生一些小的改变。所以需要对于和相关的姓名权已经和权利人建立对应联系的证据进行证明。这往往是外国企业或者个人在中国维权的一个方面。
其次，是维权的时间。乔丹公司实际上已经成立了将近20年的时间，在诉讼之前是准备在上市路演的过程中。在中国目前的司法政策中，如果商标的持续使用多年，已经和请求保护的商标形成较稳定的、相互可以区分的市场，那么两件商标权利可以获得并存。
再次，本案中，促使最高法院作出判决的很重要原因是乔丹体育公司存在主观上的恶意，抢注了乔丹家人的姓名为商标。还有消费者调查证明，两者之间可能存在关联关系。作为类似的篮球体育运动行业和服装行业，乔丹体育公司应该对乔丹的姓名是非常知晓的。
最后，也还有姓名权获得保护的其他一些要件和标准，例如名人的姓名权的使用和知名度证据的形成时间，也非常重要。总之，对于姓名权的保护策略，在诉讼或者维权之前，需要在证据的内容和形式上，以及法律程序上，做好充分的准备，才能获得更多的成功机会。
The Jordan trademark case in China is an iconic celebrity name protection case. Many names of celebrities have been squatted as trademarks. Therefore, the Trademark Law stipulates that prior name rights are protected by law.
First, there are several criteria for the protection of name rights, but the main problem is the translation of Chinese into Chinese. Different time periods or different media, even right holders, may have some minor changes to their names of Chinese names and trademarks. Therefore, it is necessary to prove the evidence that the relevant name right has been established with the right holder. This is often an aspect of foreign companies or individuals defending their rights in China.
Second, it is the time to defend rights. Jordan has actually been established for nearly 20 years, before the lawsuit is ready for the road show in the process. In China's current judicial policy, if trademarks have been used for many years and have formed a more stable and mutually distinguishable market with the trademarks that are claimed, then two trademark rights can coexist.
Again, in this case, the important reason for the Supreme Court to make a judgment is that Jordan Sports Company has subjective malice and squatted the name of the Jordan family as a trademark. There are also consumer surveys that may have a relationship between the two. As a similar basketball sports industry and apparel industry, Jordan Sports should be very knowledgeable about Jordan's name.
Finally, there are other elements and criteria for the protection of the right to name, such as the use of celebrity names and the timing of the formation of evidence of popularity. In short, for the protection of name rights, before the lawsuit or rights protection, it is necessary to be fully prepared in terms of the content and form of the evidence, as well as the legal procedures, in order to obtain more opportunities for success.
