<p> China has held a rare public trial on a trademark dispute case lodged by US basketball icon Michael Jordan against a Chinese firm and the trademark authority in a bid to highlight transparency and fairness in the high-profile cases involving IPR issues.<br /><br /></p>.<p>In 2012, Jordan accused Qiaodan Sports Co.Ltd., a Chinese sportswear and shoe manufacturer of unauthorised use of his name and identity.<br /><br />"Qiaodan" is the Chinese translation for Jordan.<br />Jordan lodged an appeal to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry & Commerce to revoke the trademarks in dispute, but this was rejected.<br /><br />Later, Jordan filed two lawsuits against the adjudication of the trademark authority but lost both.<br /><br />Supreme People's Court (SPC) upheld the adjudication on the grounds that the Chinese translation "Qiaodan" is the translation of a common family name and does not necessarily refer to the basketballer's name only.<br /><br />In addition, the Chinese translation "Qiaodan," as featured in the trademark, differs from the Chinese translation of "Maike'er Qiaodan," or "Michael Jordan."<br /><br />Besides, the graphic part of the trademark, a silhouette of a man playing basketball is a general image featuring no facial appearances, making identification difficult, according to the verdict given at the second trial.<br /><br />In 2015, Jordan appealed to the SPC for a retrial. The SPC accepted the appeal on the basis of the Administrative Procedural Law and heard the case yesterday.<br /><br />Yesterday's trial featured the court investigation, debates and final statements. A verdict has not been reached, state-run Xinhua news agency reported.<br /><br />Court debates centred on a slew of issues, including the legal bases of the rights to a name, whether the trademark necessarily leads to identification of Jordan and whether Qiaodan Sports registered the brand name with intentional malice.<br /><br />China says it has toughened its stance against Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) infringement and fake products through a variety of measures, and the judicature has become a major authority in IPR disputes.<br /><br />Court rulings are playing an increasingly important role in defining legal boundaries and codes of conduct, Song Xiaoming, head of the SPC's IPR tribunal said.<br /><br />Putting administrative powers regarding patent, trademark and other IPR issues under judicial scrutiny has helped streamline law enforcement and promote the development of related industries, Song said.<br /><br />A guideline released in December by the central cabinet ordered enhanced IPR protection to create a sound environment for innovators, vowing stricter punishments and saying protection in emerging sectors will be prioritised.</p>
<p> China has held a rare public trial on a trademark dispute case lodged by US basketball icon Michael Jordan against a Chinese firm and the trademark authority in a bid to highlight transparency and fairness in the high-profile cases involving IPR issues.<br /><br /></p>.<p>In 2012, Jordan accused Qiaodan Sports Co.Ltd., a Chinese sportswear and shoe manufacturer of unauthorised use of his name and identity.<br /><br />"Qiaodan" is the Chinese translation for Jordan.<br />Jordan lodged an appeal to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry & Commerce to revoke the trademarks in dispute, but this was rejected.<br /><br />Later, Jordan filed two lawsuits against the adjudication of the trademark authority but lost both.<br /><br />Supreme People's Court (SPC) upheld the adjudication on the grounds that the Chinese translation "Qiaodan" is the translation of a common family name and does not necessarily refer to the basketballer's name only.<br /><br />In addition, the Chinese translation "Qiaodan," as featured in the trademark, differs from the Chinese translation of "Maike'er Qiaodan," or "Michael Jordan."<br /><br />Besides, the graphic part of the trademark, a silhouette of a man playing basketball is a general image featuring no facial appearances, making identification difficult, according to the verdict given at the second trial.<br /><br />In 2015, Jordan appealed to the SPC for a retrial. The SPC accepted the appeal on the basis of the Administrative Procedural Law and heard the case yesterday.<br /><br />Yesterday's trial featured the court investigation, debates and final statements. A verdict has not been reached, state-run Xinhua news agency reported.<br /><br />Court debates centred on a slew of issues, including the legal bases of the rights to a name, whether the trademark necessarily leads to identification of Jordan and whether Qiaodan Sports registered the brand name with intentional malice.<br /><br />China says it has toughened its stance against Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) infringement and fake products through a variety of measures, and the judicature has become a major authority in IPR disputes.<br /><br />Court rulings are playing an increasingly important role in defining legal boundaries and codes of conduct, Song Xiaoming, head of the SPC's IPR tribunal said.<br /><br />Putting administrative powers regarding patent, trademark and other IPR issues under judicial scrutiny has helped streamline law enforcement and promote the development of related industries, Song said.<br /><br />A guideline released in December by the central cabinet ordered enhanced IPR protection to create a sound environment for innovators, vowing stricter punishments and saying protection in emerging sectors will be prioritised.</p>