Michael Jordan v. Qiaodan Sports Co., Ltd.

“Fame does not vanish at the border of translation.”

SHORT DESCRIPTION

The case of Michael Jordan v. Qiaodan Sports Co., Ltd. is a landmark personality rights and trademark decision that clarified the protection available to internationally famous individuals in China. The Supreme People’s Court of China recognized that the unauthorized commercial use of a famous person’s name—even in its Chinese transliteration—can violate personality rights and constitute unfair competition. This judgment significantly strengthened protection for celebrity rights in the Chinese legal system.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Michael Jordan, the world-renowned basketball player, discovered that Qiaodan Sports Co., Ltd., a Chinese sportswear company, had registered and used the Chinese name “乔丹” (Qiaodan), along with related trademarks and logos, for selling sports apparel and footwear. In China, “Qiaodan” is the commonly accepted Chinese transliteration of “Jordan.”

Qiaodan Sports had built a substantial commercial presence using the “Qiaodan” name, creating public association with Michael Jordan, despite having no authorization or endorsement from him. Michael Jordan filed legal proceedings challenging the trademark registrations and alleging infringement of his personality rights.

ISSUES INVOLVED

The main issue before the Court was whether the use of the Chinese transliteration of a foreign celebrity’s name could infringe personality rights. The Court also examined whether trademark registration alone legitimizes such use, and whether public association and likelihood of confusion should be considered in determining infringement.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

Michael Jordan argued that “Qiaodan” was widely recognized in China as referring to him and that the company had intentionally exploited his fame for commercial gain. He contended that such use misled consumers and damaged his lawful rights.

Qiaodan Sports argued that “Qiaodan” was merely a common transliteration and not exclusively associated with Michael Jordan. It claimed that its trademarks were lawfully registered and used independently of the basketball player.

FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT

The Supreme People’s Court ruled in favour of Michael Jordan. It held that personality rights extend to a person’s name where that name has established recognition and reputation among the public. The Court found that “Qiaodan” was strongly associated with Michael Jordan in China and that the company’s conduct was likely to cause public confusion.

The Court clarified that trademark registration does not override prior personality rights and that bad-faith registrations exploiting another’s reputation are invalid.

SUGGESTION / PRACTICAL TAKEAWAY

This case underscores the importance of respecting personality rights in branding and trademark strategy. Businesses must avoid exploiting the fame of individuals, even indirectly through translations or transliterations. For celebrities, the case highlights the importance of proactive trademark protection across jurisdictions.

JUDGMENT

Year: 2016

The Supreme People’s Court of China held that Qiaodan Sports’ use of the name “Qiaodan” infringed Michael Jordan’s personality rights and invalidated the relevant trademarks.