China’s Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Michael Jordan in Landmark Trademark Dispute

The relationship between the NBA and China has been complex, particularly following political controversies in recent years. Central to this dynamic is the protection of intellectual property rights for league players, teams, and associated brands. The NBA and its partners rely heavily on China’s legal framework to prevent bad faith trademark registrations and to combat counterfeit merchandise.

In a landmark decision, China’s Supreme People’s Court—the nation’s highest judicial authority—issued a ruling that strongly supports intellectual property rights, delivering a notable victory to Michael Jordan, the NBA’s most iconic player.

Jordan and his legal team have been engaged in litigation against Qiaodan Sports, a Chinese sportswear company, for over eight years. The dispute involves more than 80 lawsuits and countersuits, focusing on Qiaodan Sports’ use of the term “Qiaodan” in its brand and commercial activities.

The term “Qiaodan” (乔丹) is the pinyin transliteration of “Jordan” and has been widely used by Chinese media since Jordan’s rise to NBA stardom in the 1980s. Jordan contends that Qiaodan Sports has unlawfully appropriated his name and image, exploiting his fame to benefit commercially while misleading consumers into believing he is affiliated with the company.

However, the case is nuanced. As explained by attorney and IP expert Laura Wen-yu Young in a 2016 article for The Trademark Reporter, “Qiaodan” is a transliteration rather than a direct translation of Michael Jordan’s full name. The term also carries multiple meanings in Chinese, complicating Jordan’s claim to exclusive rights.

Founded in 1997 in Fujian Province, Qiaodan Sports initially registered a trademark featuring a baseball batter logo unrelated to Jordan’s basketball legacy. Despite Jordan’s brief baseball career in the mid-1990s, the logo bore no resemblance to him.

In subsequent years, Qiaodan Sports expanded its trademark portfolio to include marks closely associated with Jordan, such as a jumping basketball player silhouette resembling the famous Jumpman logo, the number 23 (Jordan’s NBA jersey number), and Chinese characters phonetically similar to the names of Jordan’s sons, Jeffrey and Marcus. To date, Qiaodan Sports has registered approximately 200 trademarks related to Jordan’s identity, with additional applications pending.

Qiaodan Sports’ strategy leveraged China’s “first-to-file” trademark system, which contrasts with the U.S. “first-to-use” standard. This approach enabled the company to secure rights before Jordan or Nike could assert claims, facilitating a rapid expansion to around 6,000 stores amid China’s growing economy and increasing NBA popularity.

Nike, which owns the Jordan Brand, had obtained Chinese trademarks for “Michael Jordan” and the Jumpman logo in the early 1990s but initially focused on manufacturing rather than sales in China. As Chinese consumer wealth grew, Nike sought broader trademark protections for Jordan-related products but faced rejections due to Qiaodan Sports’ prior registrations.

In response, Nike and Jordan initiated legal action in 2012 to invalidate Qiaodan Sports’ trademarks. Jordan publicly emphasized the personal significance of his name, stating that it is part of his identity and DNA, and accused Qiaodan Sports of misappropriation.

The legal battle encountered several challenges. Qiaodan Sports had actively used its trademarks in commerce, establishing consumer recognition distinct from Jordan. Furthermore, “Qiaodan” is not Michael Jordan’s exact name but a transliteration with multiple interpretations, weakening claims of fraudulent registration.

Unlike other celebrities such as Beyoncé, whose legal teams successfully blocked unauthorized use of her name in China, Jordan’s case was complicated by the transliteration issue. Qiaodan Sports even argued that “Qiaodan” referred to a plant native to South Asia rather than Jordan himself.

Additionally, Jordan had never licensed the “Qiaodan” name for commercial use, conducting business under “Michael Jordan” or “Jordan Brand.” This contrasted with other athletes like LeBron James, whose Chinese name registrations were successfully protected because he conducted business under his own name.

The Supreme People’s Court’s recent ruling largely sided with Michael Jordan, reinforcing protections against unauthorized use of personal names and likenesses in China’s trademark system. This decision is expected to have significant implications for international athletes and brands seeking to safeguard their intellectual property rights in the Chinese market.

Jordan’s victory underscores the evolving landscape of trademark law in China and signals increased judicial support for foreign rights holders confronting complex transliteration and trademark registration issues.