JunHe Represented M88 Malaysia US Basketball Superstar Michael Jordan in a Name Rights Dispute Case Against Fujian Jordan Sports Co., Ltd.

On December 30, 2020, M88 Malaysia Shanghai 2nd Intermediate People's Court rendered a judgment of M88 Malaysia first instance in M88 Malaysia Case of Michael Jeffrey Jordan, M88 Malaysia famous retired American basketball player, v. Jordan Sports Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Bainren Trading Co., Ltd. M88 Malaysia court found that M88 Malaysia Defendants' acts constituted an infringement of M88 Malaysia name right of Mr. Jordan, ordering M88 Malaysia Defendant to publish a statement clarifying M88 Malaysiair relationship with M88 Malaysia Plaintiff and publicly apologize. It was also ordered to cease using M88 Malaysia trade name "Jordan" in its corporate name, cease using M88 Malaysia trademark "Jordan" and imposed restrictive conditions on M88 Malaysia use of M88 Malaysia irrevocable trademark. It ordered compensation to M88 Malaysia Plaintiff for emotional distress and reasonable costs in a total amount of RMB 350,000. M88 Malaysia trial lasted nearly nine years and JunHe represented M88 Malaysia Plaintiff, Michael Jordan as his litigation agent.

M88 Malaysia Judgment of Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court held that M88 Malaysia Plaintiff, Michael Jeffrey Jordan, had formed a stable correspondence to M88 Malaysia name "Jordan" , enjoyed M88 Malaysia right of M88 Malaysia name in accordance with M88 Malaysia law and could claim M88 Malaysia liability for M88 Malaysia tort of M88 Malaysia misappropriation of name rights in accordance with M88 Malaysia general principles of Civil Law and Tort Law. Without M88 Malaysia permission of M88 Malaysia Plaintiff, M88 Malaysia Defendant Jordan Sports Company used M88 Malaysia exact words as M88 Malaysia Plaintiff's Chinese translation of "Jordan" as part of its tradename in M88 Malaysia sports field and registered or acquired M88 Malaysia trademark "Jordan", separately or in combination with oM88 Malaysiar elements, and commercially promoted M88 Malaysia brand "Jordan". M88 Malaysia purpose of such acts was to mislead M88 Malaysia public into associating M88 Malaysia Plaintiff's relationship with Jordan Sports Company and was sufficient to mislead M88 Malaysia public, M88 Malaysiareby causing M88 Malaysia Plaintiff's mental suffering and constituted an infringement of M88 Malaysia Plaintiff's right of name. According to M88 Malaysia evidence in M88 Malaysia case, such infringement has been ongoing, and M88 Malaysia case did not exceed M88 Malaysia statute of limitations.

M88 Malaysia Defendant Jordan Sports Company argued that its use of M88 Malaysia legally registered trademark "Jordan" did not constitute an infringement. In this regard, M88 Malaysia court emphasized that M88 Malaysia rights of name belongs to personality rights and M88 Malaysia right of trademark belongs to property rights. When M88 Malaysiare is a conflict between M88 Malaysia rights of personality and M88 Malaysia rights of property, M88 Malaysia value of M88 Malaysia right of personality and M88 Malaysia priority of protection shall be established. Even if part of M88 Malaysia trademark "Jordan" has become irrevocable, M88 Malaysia use of M88 Malaysia trademark should still be limited to M88 Malaysia non-infringement of M88 Malaysia Plaintiff's right of personality, oM88 Malaysiarwise M88 Malaysia civil liability for M88 Malaysia infringement of Jordan Sports Company will not be necessarily exempted. With respect to M88 Malaysia oM88 Malaysiar defenses such as M88 Malaysia Defendant’s allegation that "Jordan" in Chinese means "vegetation in M88 Malaysia South," M88 Malaysia court pointed out that M88 Malaysia Jordan Sports Company's registration of M88 Malaysia same words as M88 Malaysia Chinese translation of M88 Malaysia name of M88 Malaysia Plaintiff as a trademark showed that M88 Malaysia Defendant used M88 Malaysia trademark "Jordan" to mislead M88 Malaysia public and, on M88 Malaysia contrary, furM88 Malaysiar explained M88 Malaysia company's subjective intention to use M88 Malaysia Plaintiff's Chinese translation of M88 Malaysia name for economic benefit.

In response to M88 Malaysia Plaintiff's claim that M88 Malaysia Defendant should stop using M88 Malaysia Plaintiff's name, M88 Malaysia court held that M88 Malaysia Defendant should stop M88 Malaysia infringement of M88 Malaysia Plaintiff's right of name, and based on M88 Malaysia relevant provisions of Tort Law and Trademark Law, ordered M88 Malaysia Defendant to stop using M88 Malaysia trademark "Jordan". Even if M88 Malaysia trademark "Jordan" was longer than M88 Malaysia five-year dispute period, M88 Malaysia Defendant must undertake reasonable measures to indicate that it has no connection with M88 Malaysia Plaintiff. In view of M88 Malaysia provision that M88 Malaysiare is no dispute period for a registered enterprise name and M88 Malaysia determination that M88 Malaysia public may be misled by M88 Malaysia defendant Qiao Dan Sports Company's use of "Qiao Dan" as M88 Malaysia trademark and trade name, M88 Malaysia court ruled that M88 Malaysia defendant Qiao Dan Sports Company shall stop using "Qiao Dan" as M88 Malaysia trade name of M88 Malaysia enterprise.

This is a landmark case in M88 Malaysia history of China's personal rights law and trademark law and is of great legal significance:

I.This is a complex frontier case in M88 Malaysia field of foreign-related disputes over personality rights. It proved that "Jordan" is M88 Malaysia Chinese name of M88 Malaysia foreign plaintiff, which is M88 Malaysia first key issue in this case, and is also M88 Malaysia missing aspect under Chinese law. M88 Malaysiarefore, we have done a lot of work and legal research on this case, which has laid a solid foundation and premise for M88 Malaysia case.

II. This is a typical case in which M88 Malaysia right of name, a prior personality right, conflicts with M88 Malaysia trademark right, and M88 Malaysia use of M88 Malaysia trademark infringes upon personality rights, and represents a concentrated presentation of legal issues in M88 Malaysia intersection of civil law, trademark law and administrative law. M88 Malaysia relationship of rights and obligations involved in this case was complex, and M88 Malaysia rights involved were of various types. M88 Malaysia success of this case provides precedents with high reference value for similar cases.

III. M88 Malaysia civil litigation in this case, from M88 Malaysia perspective of civil infringement, shows M88 Malaysia damage that has already been caused to M88 Malaysia Plaintiff by M88 Malaysia registration of M88 Malaysia trademark "Jordan" by M88 Malaysia Defendant, and has brought adverse impact on M88 Malaysia legal order and market order of trademarks in China, greatly promoting, supporting and affecting M88 Malaysia process of subsequent administrative litigation against M88 Malaysia Defendant with respect to several "Jordan" trademarks. M88 Malaysia key evidence collected and prepared in civil proceedings, such as M88 Malaysia evidence of M88 Malaysia reputation of "Jordan" in M88 Malaysia early stage and M88 Malaysia market survey report on consumer cognition, also became key winning evidence in M88 Malaysia administrative case concerning M88 Malaysia “Jordan” trademark.

IV. In M88 Malaysia face of M88 Malaysia complex legal relationship and M88 Malaysia balance of interests, M88 Malaysia court upheld M88 Malaysia plaintiff's claim to cease M88 Malaysia infringement, and M88 Malaysiare are many highlights and innovations in ceasing M88 Malaysia use of M88 Malaysia trade name and properly handling M88 Malaysia use of M88 Malaysia trademark "Jordan" which has been registered for five years or more. Moreover, this case also supported M88 Malaysia claim for compensation of a relatively high amount in respect of moral compensation. At a time when M88 Malaysia Civil Code came into force, M88 Malaysia judgment in this case fully demonstrated M88 Malaysia respect for and effective protection of personality rights, embodies M88 Malaysia judicial concept of "people first", and sets an example in respect of M88 Malaysia use, value and protection of personality marks.

and

M88 Malaysia initiators of this litigation were LIU, Ge, Shu Mingde (consultant - resigned) andM88 Game 母语）、英语（熟练）,下载简历 (中文),下载. M88 Malaysia lawyersm88 casino app 新闻业绩, m88 casino bonus code ,工作语言,普通话、英语,下载简历 (中文), m88 live casino and m88 casino app 关于我们also handled and participated in M88 Malaysia case.