>>>welcome 河南大学, You have logged in.
Logout History Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Michael Jeffrey Jordan v. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce and a third party Jordan Sports Co., Ltd. (Case about administrative dispute over trademark)
迈克尔·杰弗里·乔丹与国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会、第三人乔丹体育股份有限公司商标争议行政纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Michael Jeffrey Jordan v. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce and a third party Jordan Sports Co., Ltd. (Case about administrative dispute over trademark)
迈克尔·杰弗里·乔丹与国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会、第三人乔丹体育股份有限公司商标争议行政纠纷案
Michael Jeffrey Jordan v. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce and a third party Qiaodan Sports Co., Ltd. (Case about administrative dispute over trademark) 迈克尔·杰弗里·乔丹与国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会、第三人乔丹体育股份有限公司商标争议行政纠纷案

北京大学互联网法律中心

法小宝

[Judgment Abstract] 【裁判摘要】
The “portrait” protected in the right of portrait should be identifiable. It should include the subject of right that makes the public identify such portrait, namely, the individual characteristics of a specific natural person, so that it can be specifically referred to the corresponding subject of right. 肖像权所保护的“肖像”应当具有可识别性,其中应当包含足以使社会公众识别其所对应的权利主体,即特定自然人的个人特征,从而能够明确指代其所对应的权利主体。
If the logo in the claim for the protection of the right of portrait is not identifiable and it fails to refer to a specific natural person, it is difficult to form legal protection on the logo and assign the logo to the personal dignity or personality interest of a specific natural person. 如果请求肖像权保护的标识不具有可识别性,不能明确指代特定自然人,则难以在该标识上形成依法应予保护,且归属于特定自然人的人格尊严或人格利益。
If the logo in a party's claim for the protection of the right of portrait does not have identifiable facial features, the party should produce sufficient evidence to prove that the logo has individual characteristics that are sufficient to refer to a natural person, it is identifiable and can make the public realize that the logo can specifically refer to the natural person. 如果当事人主张肖像权保护的标识并不具有足以识别的面部特征,则应当提供充分的证据,证明该标识包含了其他足以反映其所对应的自然人的个人特征,具有可识别性,使得社会公众能够认识到该标识能够明确指代该自然人。
Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China 中华人民共和国最高人民法院
Administrative Ruling 行政裁定书
(No. 332 [2015], Intellectual Property, Administrative Division, SPC) (2015)知行字第332号

BASIC FACTS
 
Retrial applicant (plaintiff in first instance and appellant in second instance): Michael Jeffrey Jordan, male, born on February 17, 1963, American nationality, domiciled in the United States of America. 再审申请人(一审原告、二审上诉人):迈克尔·杰弗里·乔丹(MichaelJeffreyJordan)。
Litigation representative: Tian Tian, lawyer from Shanghai Fangda (Beijing) Law Firm. 委托诉讼代理人:田甜,上海市方达(北京)律师事务所律师。
Litigation representative: Qi Fang, lawyer from Shanghai Fangda (Beijing) Law Firm. 委托诉讼代理人:祁放,上海市方达(北京)律师事务所律师。
Respondent (defendant in first instance and appellee in second instance): Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, domiciled in Xicheng District, Beijing Municipality, PRC. 被申请人(一审被告、二审被上诉人):国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会。
Legal representative: Zhao Gang, Director of the Board. 法定代表人:赵刚,该委员会主任。
Litigation representative: Yang Shaowen, examiner of the Board. 委托诉讼代理人:杨少文,该委员会审查员。
Litigation representative: Wu Tong, examiner of the Board. 委托诉讼代理人:吴彤,该委员会审查员。
Third party in first instance: Qiaodan Sports Co., Ltd., domiciled in Jinjiang City, Fujian Province, PRC. 一审第三人:乔丹体育股份有限公司。
Legal representative: Ding Guoxiong, Chairman of the Board of Directors. 法定代表人:丁国雄,该公司董事长。
Litigation representative: Ma Dongxiao, lawyer from Beijing Zhonglun Law Firm. 委托诉讼代理人:马东晓,北京市中伦律师事务所律师。
Litigation representative: Wei Zhi, lawyer from Beijing Zhonglun Law Firm. 委托诉讼代理人:韦之,北京市中伦律师事务所律师。
Retrial applicant Michael Jeffrey Jordan filed an application for retrial with the Supreme People's Court since he refused to accept the administrative judgment (No. 965 [2015], Final, Intellectual Property, Beijing) as entered by the Higher People's Court of Beijing Municipality for the case about administrative dispute over trademark between him and respondent Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the “Trademark Review and Adjudication Board”) and a third party Qiaodan Sports Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Qiaodan Company”). The Supreme People's Court formed a collegial bench to review this case according to the law and concluded the review. 再审申请人迈克尔·杰弗里·乔丹因与被申请人国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会(简称商标评审委员会)、一审第三人乔丹体育股份有限公司(简称乔丹公司)商标争议行政纠纷一案,不服北京市高级人民法院(2015)高行(知)终字第965号行政判决,向本院申请再审。本院依法组成合议庭对本案进行了审查,现已审查终结。
In the application for retrial, Michael Jeffrey Jordan alleged that: 1. Since there were specific provisions on the right of portrait in Article 100 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the “General Principles of the Civil Law”), the right of portrait may constitute a “prior right” as provided in Article 31 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (2001 Amendment) (hereinafter referred to as the “Trademark Law”). 2. The registration of Qiaodan Company's figurative trademark “” (No. 6020570) (hereinafter referred to as the “trademark involved”) impaired the prior right of portrait of the retrial applicant and it did not comply with the provisions of Article 31 of the Trademark Law. (1) The NBA Illustrated (Chinese international edition) published a picture of motion image of the retrial applicant. Such motion image was widely spread and noticed and the retrial applicant enjoyed the right of portrait of such motion image. (2) The logo “” of the trademark involved used the motion image of the retrial applicant, which may easily make the relevant public link the logo to the retrial applicant and take it for the retrial applicant and thus the logo infringed upon the right of portrait of the retrial applicant. (3) The retrial applicant provided the Report on the Recognition Investigation on Michael Jordan and the Sports Brand Qiaodan (hereinafter referred to as the “Investigation Report (1)” and the Report on the Recognition Investigation on Michael Jordan and the Sports Brand Qiaodan (Nationwide) (hereinafter referred to the “Investigation Report (2).” Both investigation reports were sufficient to prove that commodities with the logo “” may easily make the relevant public mistakenly believe that their were such specific relations between Qiaodan Company and the retrial applicant as endorsement, authorization, licensing, and cooperation and have confusion and misunderstanding of the source of such commodities. It may be proved that in the cognition of the public, a corresponding relation between the logo “” and the retrial applicant has been established and it was obviously stronger than that between such logo and Qiaodan Company. (4) The protection of right of portrait should not be based on condition that the retrial applicant took the initiative to use his motion image. (5) Whether the logo “” reflected the facial features of the retrial applicant was not the essential condition for determining infringement upon the right of portrait. 3. The judgments of first instance and second instance were erroneous in failing to determine Qiaodan Company's malicious registration of the trademark involved. The retrial applicant requested the Supreme People's Court to (1) set aside the Ruling on Dispute over the Figurative Trademark (No. 6020570) (No. 52052 [2014], Trademark Review and Adjudication Board) entered by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board; and (2) the judgments of first instance and second instance should be set aside. 迈克尔·杰弗里·乔丹申请再审称,(一)《中华人民共和国民法通则》(简称民法通则)第一百条对肖像权有明确规定,故肖像权可以构成2001年修正的《中华人民共和国商标法》(简称商标法)第三十一条规定的“在先权利”。(二)乔丹公司第6020570号“”图形商标(简称涉案商标)的注册损害了再审申请人的在先肖像权,不符合商标法第三十一条的规定。1.《美国职篮画刊(中文国际版)》中刊登了再审申请人的运动形象照片,该运动形象获得了广泛的传播和关注,再审申请人对其享有肖像权。2.涉案商标标识“”使用了再审申请人的运动形象,容易导致相关公众联想到再审申请人并产生误认,侵犯了再审申请人的肖像权。3.再审申请人提供了《MichaelJordan(迈克尔·乔丹)与乔丹体育商标认知调查报告(上海)》(简称调查报告1),以及《MichaelJordan(迈克尔·乔丹)与乔丹体育商标认知调查报告(全国)》(简称调查报告2),两份调查报告足以证明带有标识“”的商品容易使相关公众误以为乔丹公司与再审申请人之间存在代言、授权、许可、合作等特定关系,容易导致相关公众对商品来源产生混淆误认。可以证明在社会公众的认知中,标识“”已经与再审申请人建立了对应关系,而且这一对应关系明显强于该标识与乔丹公司之间的对应关系。4.肖像权保护不应以再审申请人对其运动形象的主动使用为前提。5.标识“”是否体现再审申请人的面部特征,并不是认定侵犯肖像权的必要条件。(三)一、二审判决对乔丹公司恶意注册涉案商标的事实未予认定错误。请求本院:1.撤销商标评审委员会作出的商评字〔2014〕第52052号《关于第6020570号图形商标争议裁定书》(简称被诉裁定);2.撤销本案一、二审判决。
The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board raised its opinions that the facts found in the alleged ruling were clear, the application of law was accurate, and the procedure was legitimate and it requested the Supreme People's Court to dismiss the application for retrial. 商标评审委员会提交意见认为,被诉裁定认定事实清楚,适用法律正确,作出程序合法,请求驳回再审申请。
Qiaodan Company raised its opinions that: 1. The retrial applicant enjoyed no right of portrait of the logo “” (1) The logo was not identical with the body boundary of the motion image of the retrial applicant. The motion in the logo was common in basketball. Since it did not reflect the individual characteristics of the retrial applicant, it was irrelevant to the retrial applicant. (2) A portrait should clearly reflect a person's facial features so that the public can identify the portrait as a person with the right of portrait. The logo “” did not have facial features and could not correspond to the retrial applicant. Without identifiability, the logo “” could not be protected by the right of portrait. 2. The investigation reports (1) and (2) submitted by the retrial applicant failed to prove his claims. (1) Both investigation reports were prepared by a party not involved, Beijing Horizon Market Search and Analysis Company (hereinafter referred to as “Horizon Company”), unilaterally entrusted by the retrial applicant that paid the relevant charges. Without neutrality, they could not serve as basis for determination of the facts of the case. (2) The samples of respondents in both investigation reports were unqualified and the questions under investigation were indicative and inductive. Since neither investigation report was objective, scientific, and reasonable, it was insufficient to prove a stable corresponding relation between the logo “” and the retrial applicant. 3. The motion image claimed by the retrial applicant did not have popularity. Qiaodan Company has conducted great publicity and use of the logo “” and such logo has gained publicity. The corresponding relation between the logo and Qiaodan Company was obviously stronger than that between the logo and the retrial applicant. 4. The new evidence produced by the retrial applicant had no relevance with this case. 乔丹公司提交意见认为,(一)再审申请人就标识“”不享有肖像权。1.该标识与再审申请人的运动形象的身体轮廓并不完全相同,该图形对应的动作是篮球运动中的常见动作,没有表现出再审申请人的个人特征,与再审申请人无关。2.肖像应当清楚反映人物的容貌特征,使得社会公众能够将该肖像识别为肖像权人。标识“”不具有容貌特征,与再审申请人不能对应,不具有可识别性,不能获得肖像权的保护。(二)再审申请人提交的调查报告1、2不能证明其主张。1.两份调查报告系由再审申请人单方委托案外人北京零点市场调查与分析公司(简称零点公司)完成,且由再审申请人支付相关费用,不具有中立性,不能作为认定案件事实的依据。2.两份调查报告的调查对象样本不合格,所调查的问题具有提示性、诱导性,不具有客观性、科学性和合理性,不足以证明标识“”与再审申请人之间具有稳定的对应关系,不足以证明社会公众能够将该标识识别为再审申请人。(三)再审申请人主张的运动形象不具有知名度。乔丹公司对标识“”进行了大量的宣传和使用,具有较高的知名度,该标识与乔丹公司的对应关系明显强于与再审申请人的对应关系。(四)再审申请人提供的新证据与本案没有关联性。
By centering on the retrial claims of the party and the relevant evidence submitted, the Supreme People's Court found and identified evidence and facts related to the issues of this case as follows: 围绕当事人的再审请求以及提交的有关证据,本院对与本案争议焦点有关的证据和事实查明并认定如下:
1. Name of the retrial applicant (一)关于再审申请人的姓名
It was recorded in the passport that “Michael Jeffrey Jordan” was the name of the retrial applicant. In the Chinese translation submitted by the retrial applicant that was issued by Beijing Baijia Translation Service Co., Ltd., Michael Jeffry Jordan was translated into “迈克尔·杰弗里·乔丹,” to which both the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board and Qiaodan Company raised no objection. Therefore, it was erroneous of the alleged ruling and the judgments of first instance and second instance in identifying the name of the retrial applicant as “迈克尔·乔丹(Michael Jordan)” and the Supreme People's Court should correct such error. 再审申请人护照上记载的姓名为“MichaelJeffreyJordan”。再审申请人提交的由北京百嘉翻译服务有限公司出具的中文翻译中,将其翻译为“迈克尔·杰弗里·乔丹”。商标评审委员会及乔丹公司对此没有异议。因此,被诉裁定以及一、二审判决认定再审申请人的姓名为“迈克尔·乔丹(MichaelJordan)”有误,本院予以纠正。
2. Facts related to the motion image claimed by the retrial applicant in this case (二)与再审申请人在本案中主张的运动形象有关的事实
A picture of the retrial applicant's motion image where he was holding a basketball was published on Issue 26 of the NBA Illustrated (January 15 to February 15, 1998) (Chinese international edition). In this picture, the retrial applicant held a basketball in his right hand level to the ground, stretched his left hand to the lower left, and flied off the ground. The body boundary of such motion image was basically identical with the logo “” of the trademark involved, but there was mirror image relationship between them with bilateral symmetry. 《美国职篮画刊(中文国际版)》第26期(1998.1.15-2.15)刊登了一张再审申请人持球运动形象照片,该照片中再审申请人右手水平持球,左手向左下方伸展,双脚腾空离地,其运动形象的身体轮廓与涉案商标标识“”基本一致,但二者呈左右对称的镜像关系。
3. Facts related to the investigation reports (1) and (2) (三)与调查报告1、2有关的事实
The retrial applicant entrusted a party not involved Horizon Company with preparing the investigation reports (1) and (2) in June 2012. Question B1 attached to both investigation reports was “Let me show you a picture (a card with the figure logo of Qiaodan). What do you think of the man in this picture?” The conclusion of both investigation reports was that “When showing the figure logo of the sports brand, without giving prompt options, 81% and 60.8% of the interviewees take the logo for the American basketball player Michael Jeffrey Jordan.” The figure logo in both investigation reports was basically identical with the logo “” of the trademark involved. 再审申请人委托案外人零点公司,于2012年6月作出调查报告1、2。两份调查报告所附的问题B1为“给您看一张图片(出示“乔丹人形LOGO”的卡片),您觉得这个图片上的人是谁”。两份调查报告的结论为:展示乔丹体育品牌的人形LOGO时,在不提示选项的情况下,分别有81%、60.8%的受访者认为是美国篮球运动员迈克尔·杰弗里·乔丹。两份调查报告中所涉人形LOGO与涉案商标标识“”基本一致。

JUDGMENT'S REASONING
 
In the view of the Supreme People's Court, the issues of this case were: 1. whether the right of portrait claimed by the retrial applicant in this case constituted the “prior right” as provided in Article 31 of the Trademark Law; and 2. whether the registration of the trademark involved impaired the right of portrait claimed by the retrial applicant in this case. 本院认为,本案争议焦点为:(一)再审申请人在本案中主张的肖像权是否可以构成商标法第三十一条规定的“在先权利”;(二)涉案商标的注册是否损害再审申请人在本案中主张的肖像权。
1. Whether the right of portrait claimed by the retrial applicant in this case constituted the “prior right” as provided in Article 31 of the Trademark Law (一)关于再审申请人在本案中主张的肖像权是否可以构成商标法第三十一条规定的“在先权利”
Article 31 老婆觉得我剪头发浪费钱the Trademark Law provided that “No application for trademark registration may infringe upon the existing prior rights of others.” In the view of the Supreme People's Court, the prior rights that have been specially provided in the Trademark Law should be protected in accordance with the special provisions of the Trademark Law. Where there were no special provisions in the Trademark Law, but the prior rights should be protected in accordance with the General Principles of the Civil Law, the Tort Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the “Tort Law”), and other legal provisions, and civil subjects have legally enjoyed the civil rights or civil rights and interests before the date when an application for the disputed trademark was filed, the prior rights should be protected in accordance with the aforesaid general provisions. Article 18 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Trial of Administrative Cases regarding Trademark Authorization and Confirmation that came into force on March 1, 2017 also provided that “the prior rights include the civil rights or other lawful rights and interests to be protected as enjoyed by the parties before the date when an application for the disputed trademark is filed.” 商标法第三十一条规定:“申请商标注册不得损害他人现有的在先权利。”本院认为,对于商标法已有特别规定的在先权利,应当根据商标法的特别规定予以保护。对于商标法虽无特别规定,但根据民法通则以及《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》(简称侵权责任法)和其他法律的规定应予保护,并且在争议商标申请日之前已由民事主体依法享有的民事权利或者民事权益,应当根据该概括性规定给予保护。对此,2017年3月1日起施行的《最高人民法院关于审理商标授权确权行政案件若干问题的规定》第十八条亦规定:“在先权利,包括当事人在诉争商标申请日之前享有的民事权利或者其他应予保护的合法权益。”
With respect to the right of portrait claimed by the retrial applicant in this case, Article 100 of the General Principles of the Civil Law provided that “Citizens shall enjoy the right of portrait. The use of a citizen's portrait for profits without his content shall be prohibited.” Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Tort Law provided that “‘Civil rights and interests' used in this Law shall include the right of life, the right of health, the right of name, the right of reputation, the right of honor, the right of portrait…, and other personal and property rights and interests.” In accordance with the aforesaid provisions, the right of portrait claimed by the retrial applicant may constitute the “prior right” as provided in Article 31 of the Trademark Law. 关于再审申请人在本案中主张的肖像权,民法通则第一百条规定:“公民享有肖像权,未经本人同意,不得以营利为目的使用公民的肖像。”侵权责任法第二条第二款规定:“本法所称民事权益,包括生命权、健康权、姓名权、名誉权、荣誉权、肖像权……等人身、财产权益。”根据上述规定,再审申请人在本案中主张的肖像权可以构成商标法第三十一条规定的“在先权利”。
2. Whether the registration of the trademark involved impaired the right of portrait claimed by the retrial applicant in this case (二)涉案商标的注册是否损害再审申请人在本案中主张的肖像权
The retrial applicant claimed that the logo “” of the trademark involved was basically identical with the body boundary of the motion image of the retrial applicant in the picture and it impaired his right of portrait. In the view of the Supreme People's Court, the reason for the application for retrial was untenable on the following grounds: 再审申请人认为,涉案商标标识“”与照片中的再审申请人运动形象的身体轮廓基本一致,损害了再审申请人的肖像权。本院认为该申请再审理由不能成立,具体理由如下:
First, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the General Principles of the Civil Law and the Tort Law, the right of portrait is an important personal right enjoyed by a natural person. The protection of a natural person's right of portrait is of great significance in maintaining his personal dignity and safeguarding his personality interests. The “portrait” protected in the right of portrait is a visual reaction of the physical characteristics of a specific natural person. The public may identify and refer to the corresponding natural person through the “portrait” and may accordingly differentiate the natural person from others. In the view of the Supreme People's Court, according to the right of portrait and the nature of portrait, the “portrait” protected by the right of portrait should be identifiable. It should include the subject of right that made the public identify such portrait. If the logo in the claim for the protection of the right of portrait was not identifiable and it failed to refer to a specific natural person, it was difficult to form legal protection of the logo and assign the logo to the personal dignity or personality interest of a specific natural person. 首先,根据民法通则以及侵权责任法的相关规定,肖像权是自然人享有的重要人身权利。保护自然人的肖像权,对于维护其人格尊严,保护其人格利益,均具有重要意义。肖像权所保护的“肖像”是对特定自然人体貌特征的视觉反映,社会公众通过“肖像”识别、指代其所对应的自然人,并能够据此将该自然人与他人相区分。本院认为,根据肖像权以及肖像的性质,肖像权所保护的“肖像”应当具有可识别性,其中应当包含足以使社会公众识别其所对应的权利主体,即特定自然人的个人特征,从而能够明确指代其所对应的权利主体。如果请求肖像权保护的标识不具有可识别性,不能明确指代特定自然人,则难以在该标识上形成依法应予保护,且归属于特定自然人的人格尊严或人格利益。
Second, from the perspective of the cognitive habits and characteristics of the public, the facial features of a natural person are the most important personal characteristics among all his physical features. Normally, the public can identify and differentiate a specific person through his facial features. If the logo for which a party claims the protection of the right of portrait is insufficient to identify facial features, the party should produce satisfactory evidence to prove that the logo includes other personal characteristics corresponding to the natural person, it is identifiable, and it makes the public realize that the logo can specifically refer to the natural person. 其次,从社会公众的认知习惯和特点来看,自然人的面部特征是其体貌特征中最为主要的个人特征,一般情况下,社会公众通过特定自然人的面部特征就足以对其进行识别和区分。如果当事人主张肖像权保护的标识并不具有足以识别的面部特征,则应当提供充分的证据,证明该标识包含了其他足以反映其所对应的自然人的个人特征,具有可识别性,使得社会公众能够认识到该标识能够明确指代该自然人。
Third, with respect to the right of portrait claimed by the retrial applicant in this case, the motion image of the retrial applicant in the picture clearly reflected his facial features, body shape, uniform number, and other individual characteristics, based on which the public could clearly and correctly identify the natural person in the picture as the retrial applicant. Therefore, the retrial applicant enjoyed the right of portrait of the motion image in the picture. With respect to the logo “” of the trademark involved, although it was basically identical with the mirror image of the body boundary of the retrial applicant's motion image in the picture, such logo was only a black human cucoloris. Except the body boundary, there were no other personal characteristics relevant to the retrial applicant. In addition, the retrial applicant enjoyed no other legal rights and interests of the motion corresponding to the logo and any other natural person could make an identical or similar motion. Since the logo was not identifiable and could not be specifically referred to the retrial applicant, the retrial applicant did not enjoy the right of portrait of the logo and his claim that the registration of the trademark involved impaired his right of portrait was untenable. 再次,关于再审申请人在本案中主张的肖像权。照片中的再审申请人运动形象清晰反映了其面部特征、身体形态、球衣号码等个人特征,社会公众据此能够清楚无误地识别该照片中的自然人为再审申请人,故再审申请人就照片中的运动形象享有肖像权。而关于涉案商标标识“”,虽然该标识与照片中再审申请人运动形象的身体轮廓的镜像基本一致,但该标识仅仅是黑色人形剪影,除身体轮廓外,其中并未包含任何与再审申请人有关的个人特征。并且,再审申请人就该标识所对应的动作本身并不享有其他合法权利,其他自然人也可以作出相同或者类似的动作,该标识并不具有可识别性,不能明确指代再审申请人。因此,再审申请人不能就该标识享有肖像权,再审申请人有关涉案商标的注册损害其肖像权的主张不能成立。
Fourth, with respect to the investigation reports (1) and (2) submitted by the retrial applicant, such reports were prepared by Horizon Company unilaterally entrusted by the retrial applicant. The question attached and the corresponding conclusion were orientational and predictive and they could not individually serve as the basis for determination of the facts of the case. Without other objective evidence, since the logo “” was insufficient to identify the personal characteristics of the retrial applicant, both investigation reports were insufficient to prove that the claim of the retrial applicant was tenable. 最后,关于再审申请人提交的调查报告1、2。调查报告系由再审申请人单方委托零点公司完成,所附的问题以及相应的结论均具有一定程度的引导性和推测性,不能单独作为认定案件事实的依据。在缺乏其他客观证据佐证,且标识“”本身并不具有足以识别的再审申请人个人特征的情况下,两份调查报告并不足以证明再审申请人的主张成立。

JUDGMENT
 
In conclusion, the application of Michael Jeffrey Jordan for retrial did not fall under the circumstances as provided in Article 91 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. In accordance with the provisions of Article 74 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the Supreme People's Court enters a ruling: 综上,迈克尔·杰弗里·乔丹的再审申请不符合《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》第九十一条规定的情形,依照《最高人民法院关于执行<中华人民共和国行政诉讼法>若干问题的解释》第七十四条之规定,本院裁定如下:
To dismiss the application of Michael Jeffrey Jordan for retrial. 驳回迈克尔·杰弗里·乔丹的再审申请。
Presiding Judge: Xia Junli 审判长  夏君丽
Judge: Wang Yanfang 审判员  王艳芳
Judge: Du Weike 审判员  杜微科
December 27, 2017 二〇一七年十二月二十七日
Judge Assistant: Tang Xian 法官助理 唐 弦
Clerk: Bao Shuo 书记员  包 硕
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese