Michael Jordan’s Being Sued By A Chinese Company Who Stole His Name And Likeness

Michael Jordan’s Being Sued By A Chinese Company Who Stole His Name And Likeness

For the several years now, Michael Jordan has been in a legal dispute with a Chinese company called “Qiaodan”, who have been “legally” using the Jordan image to sell merchandise in China since the late 90’s.

Not only is “Qiaodan” is the phonetic romanized translation of the Mandarin version of the name “Jordan”, but the company also uses an alternate “Jumpman-esque” logo. Still, however, they claim they’re not profiting off of Jordan’s likeness.

Jordan’s trademark case against Qiaodan was dismissed by a court in Beijing who said that “Qiaodan” does not necessarily refer to Michael Jordan, and the name “Jordan” was too common to protect. Then it was dismissed again when he appealed to a higher court. However, Jordan continued to push and the ruling was overturned in December of 2016 by China’s Supreme People’s Court. According to Hypebeast.com:

“The result means that the Chinese sportswear company will have to give up its trademark registration on the Chinese character version of Jordan’s name, Qiaodan (??). However, the court did uphold a ruling that will allow the use of the Romanized version of Qiaodan.”

A lot of people thought this was all over after that, but earlier this week, Qiaodan countersued Michael Jordan for 1.1 million yuan (roughly $162,830 USD) claiming they are owed “compensation for the damages caused by Michael Jordan’s lawsuit as it involved malicious slander’ which hurt the company’s reputation”.

This isn’t the first time the company have countersued Jordan; Qiaodan company filed for $8 million in damages back in 2013, but this time they’ve taken it even further. Not only does Qiaodan want compensation for damage to their reputations, but they’ve also demanded “a public apology” from Jordan himself.

Now, I may be wrong about this, but I don’t think Jordan even apologized for punching teammate Will Perdue in the face during a practice, so… Good luck with that.
You can read more about the case law over at DuetBlog in their piece:

[Photo via YouTube.com user “Bestie Vlogger Hub]