Michael Jordan vs. Qiaodan

International business abides by different laws and regulations compared to traditional domestic business. A variety of issues or problem could possibly arise, one of which is intellectual property. Intellectual property is ones legal rights to ownership of an item and this property is protected by various laws and regulations.The legalities when dealing with international business and the use a trademark or patent can vary and leave one’s property at risk. As stated by Kuritzky and McCarthy, “ Trademarks are designs and names, officially registered, by which merchants or manufactures designate and differentiate their products.” Furthermore, “a patent grants the inventor of a new product or process exclusive rights for a defined period to the manufacture, use, or sale of that invention.” (52). The case regarding Michael Jordan and the silhouette trademark lawsuit against Qiaodan Sports Co., is a perfect example of how intellectual property in a different market could be at risk .Jordan, a branch of Nike has their Jordan “Jumpman” silhouette, and it is more than just a trademark, the “Jumpman” is to many a symbol of Michael Jordan himself and the empire he has built.
The Logo is among one of the most recognizable logos in the western world. Forbes in February 2013 dissected earnings of Michael Jordan and according to Kurt Badenhausen's reports, the Jordan division which is part of Nike, is responsible for the majority of Michael Jordan earnings, roughly $80 million off shoes alone in 2013. With that being said, any misuse or illegal use of his trademark would become an issue, and that issue would arise in the form of Qiaodan Sports Co. Originally filed in by Michael Jordan in 2012, the lawsuit was seeking to have Qiaodan forego their rights to the silhouette which adorned their products and the company also used number “23” on products they sold. The number “23” which adorned Michael Jordan’s jersey throughout his career is very much as part of the Jordan Company brand as the “jumpman” silhouette. Very strong in their position, Qiaodan retaliated by filing a lawsuit against Jordan, claiming revenue loss due their reputation being hurt by the lawsuit against them (Jourdan, 2015). Much to the chagrin of Nike and Michael Jordan, the high volume of trademark filings among Chinese in China and along with other countries forced a reformation of China’s trademark laws (Moa, 2014).
For years, Jordan had filed lawsuits in which he asked to have the Qiaodan trademark and number “23” revoked; finally the issue was taken to the government courts in Beijing and settled in 2015, the courts ruled in favor of Qiaodan and Jordan lost his trademark battle. It was stated that the symbol for Qiaodan was a silhouette with no facial features, so it was hard to associate Michael Jordan with the logo and the Jordan is a common surname in the united States. Qiaodan Sports co. serves as a sports retailer that operates thousands of locations throughout China generating millions in revenues, by sales of products which include, but are not limited to, shoes, athletic apparel and athletic accessories. Qiaodan sporting company uses a silhouette of a basketball player performing a “lay-up” and to many the logo resembles the Jordan “jumpman”. Tim Daniels of Bleacher reported, the ruling against Jordan halted the growth of his empire overseas and has faced resistance though out the duration of the debacle. An issue with the lawsuit is that it was a foreign company attempting to impose it’s sanctions on a foreign nation. The Chinese high court is not going to side with a non Chinese company. The lawsuit gained global publicity and placed Nike in the spotlight . Trademark Laws that apply to and in the United States, can only apply to foreign countries who’s legal system operates in a similar structure and follows similar laws. In essence China and Qiaodan were working together to legitimize the company’s actions under Chinese international business laws. A con to the continual globalization of business and economy are the changing of international business and international laws, one must understand that laws regarding products inventions trademarks vary among countries. Cases such as the Michael Jordan vs. Qiaodan should be an example for American companies who are trying to infiltrate foreign economies, markets and globalize. It is very important to file your trademark and file any other patents, logos, and emblems that belong to the property rights of your company, not only in your country, but any country in which you chose to operate with or in.
References

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu