Michael Jordan / Qiaodan: Chinese Names and Record-Specific Outcomes

Case at a glance

Applicant for retrial

Michael Jeffrey Jordan

Administrative respondent

Trademark Review and Adjudication Board

Third party

Qiaodan Sports Co., Ltd.

Featured case

(2016)最高法行再27号 · Guiding Case 113

Featured historical record

No. 6020569, 乔丹, Class 28

Court

Supreme People’s Court

The specific rights

Guiding Case 113 identifies No. 6020569 for selected Class 28 goods including sports apparatus and roller skates. The historical reference is not a live status check. Pinyin and combination signs in the other proceedings must retain their own identities. [JORDAN-GC113] [JORDAN-TEN]

Historical references only. No current registration snapshot is included; no present-day status or complete portfolio is asserted.

Selected timeline

1. 2015-04-01First instance

   Jordan’s claim in the featured case was rejected. [JORDAN-GC113]

2. 2015-08-17Appeal

   The appeal was rejected. [JORDAN-GC113]

3. 2016-12-07Retrial judgment

   The featured judgment set aside the lower judgments and administrative ruling, ordering a fresh administrative decision. [JORDAN-GC113]

4. 2016-12-08Series pronouncement

   Three Chinese-character cases and seven pinyin/combination cases had different outcomes. [JORDAN-TEN]

Dates belong to the events shown. Source publication and access dates appear separately below.

What the sources actually establish

Guiding Case 113 addresses protection of a foreign person’s Chinese name where the evidence meets the stated conditions of recognition, public reference and stable association. The series report records relief in three Chinese-character cases and rejection of retrial requests in seven others. Neither source records a wholesale transfer of the portfolio to Jordan. [JORDAN-GC113] [JORDAN-TEN]

Make a version list before making a claim

A China naming brief should preserve the forms used in the market: Chinese characters, any romanized form and combinations with graphics. Give each a separate row and collect examples showing where it appeared. Do not use a translation tool to overwrite the original sign. A convenient English label can sit beside the source text, but it should not replace the evidence a professional needs to compare.

For each version, ask who used it, when, in which context and for which audience. An international campaign, a local press reference and a distributor’s shop sign are different kinds of material. Keeping those categories separate helps the adviser assess relevance. It also avoids the assumption that a conclusion about one version must automatically apply to a visually or linguistically different version.

Collect evidence before choosing a legal label

For a business team, the useful first task is to gather reliable material rather than decide which legal theory wins. Preserve original publications, dated commercial documents and context showing how the name was presented. Record the source and the limits of each item. If a document proves only that a name appeared somewhere, do not describe it as proof that every relevant consumer associated the name with one person or business.

Separate evidence about a natural person’s name from evidence about a corporate brand. They may raise connected questions, but the featured dispute should not be treated as a ready-made answer for every company seeking a Chinese name. A professional must identify the right being asserted and the applicable legal framework. This article supplies preparation questions, not an automated test of whether a reader would succeed.

Describe the remedy without adding a transfer

When reading an administrative judgment, keep its operative result next to the record it concerns. A direction to make a new decision identifies further administrative work. It is not a substitute for evidence of what happened afterward. If a business needs to know who presently holds a right, obtain the relevant dated registration material and reconcile it with the procedural history.

This distinction matters when planning a launch or negotiating a settlement. Removing an obstacle, securing a new application and acquiring an existing registration are separate commercial objectives. Write the objective down before asking for advice. Otherwise a headline about winning a challenge may be mistaken for confirmation that the business now owns a usable registration.

Keep a decision log that can survive the next headline

Use one row per proceeding, with the sign, record, source, stage and result. Add a separate column for the next document needed. If a later article discusses a different mark or claim, create a new row instead of replacing the older result. The purpose is not to build a complete brand database; it is to keep the small set of evidence relevant to the business decision intelligible.

For a new naming project, maintain the same discipline in the creative process. Record candidate names before packaging or distribution decisions harden around them. Ask colleagues to explain which version they expect customers and partners to use. That creates a useful brief for searches and professional review without borrowing the famous name discussed in this case or implying that fame provides automatic protection.

What this case does not prove

• The ten selected 2016 cases do not establish that all Qiaodan marks were cancelled, invalidated or transferred.
• A direction to remake an administrative decision does not establish the later register entry or current proprietor.
• The name-right analysis for a natural person is not an automatic ruling for every foreign company or every transliteration.

What your business should check

Related guides and next action

• Prepare a Chinese brand-name brief
• Read individual record fields
• Understand existing trademark conflicts

New-filing guidance concerns your own proposed mark. Existing disputes and transfers need a separate scope and engagement; no outcome, price or deadline extension is promised by this article. Contract work has its own scope and is not included in the filing Free Check.