The trademark infringement case brought by American brand AIR JORDAN against China Jordan Sports Company lasted for many years, and the final verdict was finally reached recently. In the end, this trademark infringement case, which attracted global attention, ended in "China Jordan lost the final case", and the image of Air Jordan and the trademark of China Jordan were revoked. For China Jordan, the eight-year long-distance lawsuit finally won or lost. The Supreme People's Court's judgment shows that: (1) the administrative judgment of the Beijing Higher People's Court (215) Gao Xing (Zhi) Zhong Zi No.1575 was revoked; (2) Revoke the administrative judgment (214) No.9172 of Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court-BOC (Zhi) Chu Zi; (3) Revoke the ruling of the former Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce [214] No.52424 on the trademark dispute of No.62578 "Jordan and Tu"; (4) China National Intellectual Property Administration made a new ruling on the trademark No.62578 "Jordan and Tu". This judgment is final. It is reported that the dispute over Jordan's brand can be traced back to 212 at the earliest, and a focus of the dispute between the two sides lies in the right to name. Jordan believes that the trademark registered by China Jordan Sports will cause the public to misunderstand the source of the product and disrupt the normal market order, and hereby applies for cancellation of the registration of the above-mentioned trademark. JORDAN Sports' attorney thinks that JORDAN's own surname is Jordan, which is quite different from QIAODAN's, and Jordan is only an ordinary surname in the United States, so it is difficult to identify China Jordan Sports with Michael? Jordan himself has an inevitable connection. Although Jordan himself has a high social reputation, it does not mean that his surname has privileges in product trademarks. Previously, Jordan lost both the first trial and the second trial. Legal basis: According to Articles 4 and 99 of the General Principles of the People's Republic of China and the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, Articles 2 and 2 of the Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China, Articles 1, paragraph 1 (8), 31 and 41, paragraph 1 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China as amended in 21, And in accordance with Article 7 and Article 89, paragraph 1 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China, and Article 119, paragraph 1 and Article 122 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation of Application.