According to the statement dated as of March 1, 2012 issued by a
representative for Michael Jordan, the suit filed by former NBA
basketball legend Michael Jordan against a Chinese sportswear and
shoe manufacturer Qiaodan Sportswear Co., Ltd., whose trade name
and trademark 乔丹 is equivalent to the
commonly used Chinese translation for Jordan, has been accepted by
court in China. The specific claims of the suit remain a myth
Subsequent to the above statement, Michael Jordan also released
"I am very happy that the Chinese courts have accepted my
case to protect the use of my name and the interests of Chinese
consumers. Qiaodan Sports has built a business off my Chinese name,
the number 23, and even attempted to use the names of my children,
without authorization. I think Chinese consumers deserve to be
protected from being misled, and they should know exactly what they
are buying. I am taking this action to preserve the ownership of my
name and my brand. No one should lose control of their own name,
and the acceptance of my case shows that China recognizes that this
is true for everyone. After all, what's more personal than your
Michael Jordan, who led the Chicago Bulls to six NBA
Championships during the 1990s, has been known in China by the name
"乔丹(Qiaodan)" - the Chinese
translation of Jordan - since he was first seen on Chinese
television program playing for the U.S. Basketball Team in the 1984
The Chinese company, Qiaodan Sportswear Co. Ltd, was registered
in 2000 and has used the name and trademark "??
(Qiaodan)" since its establishment. It owns many trademark
registrations for "乔丹",
小乔丹" (means little Jordan) ,
" " and "" on goods of "clothing;
sports shoes", etc. in Class 25.
It is publicly reported that the IPO application filed by
Qiaodan Sportswear has been approved by China Securities Regulatory
Commission. If Qiaodan Sportswear loses the suit, not only will it
suffer huge amount of compensation, but it will be forced to stop
using the mark "乔丹". In addition,
the result may affect its IPO.
In the meantime, NIKE, who used to cooperate with Michael Jordan
as early as in the 1980s, expressed its support to Jordan's
lawsuit. As a matter of fact, NIKE filed several trademark
oppositions against Qiaodan Sportswear's trademarks
applications for "", which shares certain similarities
to NIKE's device mark in use " ". However, all the aforesaid
oppositions were not supported by the China Trademark Office.
For more information about the above issue, please refer to:
By its judgment dated March 15, 2013, the Madras High Court ("the Court") held
that the amendment made in the year 2005 ("2005 Amendment") to section 126 of the
Patents Act, 1970 ("the Act") pertaining to the qualifications for registration as patent agents is unconstitutional.
The practice of parallel importing is a hot topic in Australia at the moment.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”