Michael Jordan / Credit: Shutterstock.com

Basketball legend Michael Jordan has won another case in China's top court against a Chinese sportswear company that Jordan had accused of infringing his trademark rights.

Last month, the Supreme People's Court ruled that Qiaodan Sports' registered trademark of Jordan's name in Chinese characters accompanied by a silhouette resembling Jordan's famous "Jumpman" logo violated Jordan's trademark rights and should be revoked. The court overturned three decisions favorable to Qiaodan issued by the State Administration for Industry and Commerce's trademark appraisal committee and two lower courts, both of which had previously ruled that "Jordan" is a common American surname and that the trademark did not explicitly reference the former National Basketball Association star.

However, Jordan's protracted legal battle in China against Qiaodan Sports is not over. Hearings in a separate civil case were held eight years ago, but the court in that case has still not issued a ruling.

The decision issued last month is the latest in Jordan's legal action against Qiaodan, which began in 2012 when he filed to invalidate about 80 trademarks registered by the local sportswear company. Although most of the trademarks have been upheld by Chinese courts, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Jordan in several instances. In 2016, it ruled that Qiaodan's trademark of Jordan's name in Chinese characters violated Jordan's prior rights and should be revoked.

In the latest ruling, the Supreme Court repeated some of the judgments it made in its 2016 decision, including its opinion that Jordan has the right to his transliterated name in Chinese characters, which is widely associated with him in China. The Supreme Court ruled again that Qiaodan infringed on that right by registering its offending trademark, which may easily mislead consumers into thinking that Jordan is associated with the company's products.

Jordan was represented by Beijing-based partners Fang Qi and Tian Tian of Fangda Partners.

The case has received a lot of attention in China due to the popularity of basketball and of Michael Jordan in the country. On Weibo, China's Twitter-style microblogging platform, users have been vocal in their support for Jordan, with many of the top comments on Qiaodan's statement in response to the latest ruling very critical of the company.

However, the Supreme Court rejected Jordan's argument that the silhouette part of the trademark violates his image rights on the basis that the silhouette does not have any facial features that refer to Jordan. This is consistent with previous rulings rejecting Jordan's claims to other trademarks held by Qiaodan, including the romanization of his name in Chinese, "qiao dan," because it does not sufficiently refer to Jordan.

Despite his latest win over the right to his name in Chinese, Jordan's dispute with Qiaodan is still ongoing. The parties are still waiting for a decision by a Shanghai court in relation to a separate case filed by Jordan in 2013, in which he accused Qiaodan of infringing his naming rights and in which he demanded 50 million yuan ($7 million) in damages.

"The Shanghai case is the most critical because Jordan is seeking an injunction against Qiaodan's future use of all the trademarks," an intellectual property partner familiar with the case said. "The Supreme Court decisions are a good foundation, but they do not touch on the core of the dispute, which is not the validity of the marks but the right to use those marks."

The purpose of Jordan trying to invalidate the marks at the Supreme Court is to increase his chance of winning in the civil case in Shanghai, the partner said. He explained that lawyers in China typically pursue two parallel courses of action in trademark disputes: They seek the invalidation of offending trademarks and at the same time, they make the case that the plaintiff's rights have been infringed.

The Shanghai court has been very slow to issue a decision on the civil case, however. That is likely because it is worried about the ramifications of ruling against the local company, the partner said.

"[The court] is worried about the impact on a local business that employs so many people and has so many stores."

Related Stories:

Michael Jordan Wins Trademark Case in China's Top Court