While the trademark dispute between American basketball player Michael Jordan and Chinese company Jordan Sports Co., Ltd. over the trademark "Jordan" is still on, another “Jordan” trademark dispute between two Chinese companies (Wuxi Haoqiu Sports Goods and Jinjiang Maike Xiesu) is on fire. Because of registered trademark application for “Jordan” on sports ball, Haoqiu encountered objection from Maike. Recently, the Superior People's Court of Beijing made the final judgement, upholding the first trial decision to revoke the decision of approving the registration made by Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB).

It is understood that the opposed No. 3208768 "Jordan" trademark was applied to be registered by Haoqiu in 2002. It was appointed to be used in Class 28 such as sports balls, tennis rackets and other goods. Within the statutory period, Maike claimed that the opposed trademark was similar to its prior registered trademark "QIAODAN and the logo" and made the objection. Subsequently, the opposed application was ruled not approved for registration.

It is understood that the cited No. 1629121 "QIAODAN and the logo" trademark was applied to be registered by Maike in September, 2000. It was appointed to be used in Class 28 such as sports balls, tennis rackets and other goods. In September, 2011, it was transferd to Jordan Sports Co., Ltd. Haoqiu then applied to TRAB for retrial. After the retrial, the opposed trademark was approved to be registered. Maike refused to accept the decision and then proposed the administrative proceedings to Beijing First Intermediate People's Court.

Beijing First Intermediate People's Court held that the cited trademark and the opposed trademark had the similar pronunciation, even though their Pinyin may not refer to the same Chinese characters. Besides, considering the notability of the well-known American basketball player Michael Jordan, the two trademarks may both be associated to the American athlete. On this basis, the Pinyin of the opposed trademark and the cited trademark to some extent have the same or similar directivity, forming the similar trademarks used in the same or similar goods. Accordingly, the court judged to revoke the decision of approving the opposed trademark made by TRAB.

Haoqiu refused to accept the first trial decision and then appealed to the Beijing Superior People's Court, which eventually upheld the first trial decision. 

(China IP News)