(1) In three cases involving Jordan's trademark, the registration of the disputed trademark damaged Michael Jeffrey Jordan's prior name right to Jordan, which violated the provisions of the trademark law and should be revoked. Therefore, the judgment revoked the sued ruling made by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board and ordered the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to make a new decision on the disputed trademark.
(2) As for the four cases involving the pinyin "QIAODAN" and the three cases involving the pinyin "qiaodan" and related graphic combination trademarks, because Michael Jeffrey Jordan did not enjoy the name right of the pinyin "qiaodan" and "qiaodan", the registration of the disputed trademark did not damage the prior name right of the retrial applicant. The disputed trademark does not belong to the situation of "harmful to socialist morality or other adverse effects" and "obtaining registration by deception or other improper means" as stipulated in the Trademark Law, so the judgment of the second instance was upheld and Michael Jeffrey Jordan's retrial application was rejected.
I think the Supreme People's Court's retrial judgment on Jordan's trademark case is reasonable and legal. Thanks for reading!