Michael Jordan sues Chinese company for using his name
Just wait until Linsanity fully takes root in ChinaHis Airness will be all but forgotten. But until then, Michael Jordan has a battle his hands worse than fighting the flu in Game 5 against the Utah Jazz in 1997.
February 23, 2012 at 06:48 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Just wait until Linsanity fully takes root in China—His Airness will be all but forgotten. But until then, Michael Jordan has a battle on his hands worse than fighting the flu in Game 5 against the Utah Jazz in 1997.
Arguably the world's most-well-known basketball star filed a lawsuit in China earlier this week claiming that a sportswear and footwear company used him name without permission. Qiaodan Sports Co. Ltd., located in the southern Fujian province, allegedly has centered its business on Jordan's Chinese name and iconic No. 23.
“It is deeply disappointing to see a company build a business off my Chinese name without my permission, use the number 23 and even attempt to use the names of my children,” Jordan said in a statement. “I am taking this action to preserve ownership of my name and my brand.”
The Chinese company has registered the name “Qiaodan,” which is the handle by which Jordan has been known in China since he rose to fame playing with the Chicago Bulls in the 1980s. Qiaodan Sports, however, issued a statement earlier today defending the use of the name.
“Qiaodan is a trademark registered under the Chinese law by our company and the legitimate use of the trademark is protected,” Qiaodan Sports said in emailed comments, Reuters reported.
Additionally, the company denies any direct connection between its name and Jordan. A company spokesman told the Chinese media earlier today that there's no connection between its use of the number 23 and that it's “just a number.”
“Not everyone will think this is misleading,” the Qiaodan spokesman said. “There are so many Jordans besides the basketball player – there are many other celebrities both in the U.S. and worldwide called Jordan.”
Regardless, Jordan says that his lawsuit isn't about money and has more to do with protecting his name. While no compensation has been named, Jordan says any monetary rewards he receives will be invested in helping to grow the game of basketball in China.
To see a video message from Jordan about the lawsuit, click here.
For more on the story, read MSNBC.
Just wait until Linsanity fully takes root in China—His Airness will be all but forgotten. But until then, Michael Jordan has a battle on his hands worse than fighting the flu in Game 5 against the Utah Jazz in 1997.
Arguably the world's most-well-known basketball star filed a lawsuit in China earlier this week claiming that a sportswear and footwear company used him name without permission. Qiaodan Sports Co. Ltd., located in the southern Fujian province, allegedly has centered its business on Jordan's Chinese name and iconic No. 23.
“It is deeply disappointing to see a company build a business off my Chinese name without my permission, use the number 23 and even attempt to use the names of my children,” Jordan said in a statement. “I am taking this action to preserve ownership of my name and my brand.”
The Chinese company has registered the name “Qiaodan,” which is the handle by which Jordan has been known in China since he rose to fame playing with the Chicago Bulls in the 1980s. Qiaodan Sports, however, issued a statement earlier today defending the use of the name.
“Qiaodan is a trademark registered under the Chinese law by our company and the legitimate use of the trademark is protected,” Qiaodan Sports said in emailed comments, Reuters reported.
Additionally, the company denies any direct connection between its name and Jordan. A company spokesman told the Chinese media earlier today that there's no connection between its use of the number 23 and that it's “just a number.”
“Not everyone will think this is misleading,” the Qiaodan spokesman said. “There are so many Jordans besides the basketball player – there are many other celebrities both in the U.S. and worldwide called Jordan.”
Regardless, Jordan says that his lawsuit isn't about money and has more to do with protecting his name. While no compensation has been named, Jordan says any monetary rewards he receives will be invested in helping to grow the game of basketball in China.
To see a video message from Jordan about the lawsuit, click here.
For more on the story, read MSNBC.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
King Kullen—the Nation's First Supermarket—Hires Outside Counsel as GC
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250