Thanks to the hard work of Jessie Zeng 曾 潇 of Tsinghua University Law School and the support of his professor, former Chief Judge Randall Rader, we now have a translation of the Michael Jordan/Qiaodan case. Here is the decision in Word format. Jessie Zeng has also kindly provided a translation of the cited laws in the decision.

On first impression, the case has significant implications for entertainment law, trademark rights for well-known foreign individuals in China, and bad faith issues.  Here are some key points: 

A) The SPC overturned the Beijing High Court’s view that it required a definitive association between Qiaodan and Michael Jordan but instead needed a stable association.  In making its analysis, the court relied heavily on general civil doctrine, including tort law, IP law, and advertising law.  The court also noted that concerning foreigners, the critical factor is that the relevant public in China has gotten used to calling foreigners by their Chinese names in translation.

B) The court also admitted a range of evidence to support the fame and reputation of Michael Jordan as proof of bad faith by Qiaodan, including many articles, endorsements, and survey data.

C) The court recognized that concerning foreign names, sometimes the public may use a name for the individual that is different from the name the person actively uses and that this name should be protectable.

D) The court also noted that Qiaodan’s prior investment activities and brand promotion did not give it any “squatter’s rights”, noting that “Qiao Dan Inc.’s operation condition, its efforts in related trademarks’ publicity, use, related trademarks’ awarded prizes and received protection and etc. cannot make the disputed trademark’s registration legitimate.” Qiaodan operates about 6,000 stores in China.  The case is a warning shot to trademark pirates that a business model based on bad faith is risky in today’s China.

In the many years I have followed this case, one of my most significant concerns was how much a court would be unwilling to disrupt expectations built around a bad-faith business model.  Viewed as a political statement, the SPC is sending a strong and laudable signal by saying that relatively settled expectations based on bad faith registrations will not legitimize these trademark registrations and, indeed, can be costly.  Times are changing…

My thanks, once again, to Jessie Zeng!  (Note: Translation revision: January 6, 2017, minor edits November 3, 2024).