Chinese Court Allows Continued Use of 'Chao Dan' Trademark Imitating Basketball Legend 'Jordan' Name

Jordan's Chinese-style name Chao Dan cannot be used now but allowed after 5 years ruling
Jordan ordered to pay only 60 million won in damages

[Asia Economy Beijing=Special Correspondent Jo Young-shin] Despite Chinese President Xi Jinping emphasizing the importance of intellectual property rights, a strange ruling related to intellectual property rights such as trademark rights has come from a Chinese court.

According to China's state-run Xinhua News Agency on the 31st, the Shanghai Intermediate People's Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, American professional basketball player Michael Jordan, in a lawsuit filed against 'Qiaodan Sports,' stating that the defendant used the Chinese transliteration of the English name Jordan, Qiaodan, as a trademark to exploit the plaintiff's recognition.

The court ordered Qiaodan to pay 350,000 yuan (approximately 60 million KRW) in damages for mental distress to Jordan and to issue a public apology through the internet and newspapers.

The court ruled that Qiaodan Sports cannot use the expression Qiaodan in its company name.

However, a different conclusion was reached regarding the most important business-related trademark rights.

The court explained that, in principle, Qiaodan Sports should be prohibited from using the expression Qiaodan in its trademarks, but under Chinese law, objections to trademark use must be made within five years after the trademark is registered, so the Qiaodan trademark cannot be completely banned in the current situation.

Instead, the court demanded that Qiaodan make some modifications to the trademark in the future to allow the public to recognize that the company has no relation to the plaintiff, Jordan.

Regarding the lawsuit, Qiaodan's side argued that 'Jordan' is a common surname in the English-speaking world and therefore cannot enjoy name rights from a legal perspective.

Earlier, in April, the Supreme People's Court of China overturned the first and second instance rulings in a similar trademark lawsuit and ruled in favor of Jordan.

At that time, there was analysis both inside and outside China that the country was trying to show progress in protecting intellectual property rights. However, this ruling can be considered a disappointing result for Jordan compared to the previous Supreme Court ruling.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.