Stay updated with breaking news from Qiaodan sports co. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com. On December 30, 2020, the Shanghai Second Intermediate Court issued a verdict of the first instance in the case of former American professional basketball player Michael Jordan v. Qiaodan Sports Company and Bairen Trading Company for name rights disputes. So far, the dispute between the NBA basketball star Michael Jordan and the domestic sports brand ushered in a new litigation result. Since 2012, there have been several rounds of disputes between the two sides around trademark dispute. From the perspective of name rights, this case affirmed the ....
SHANGHAI – US basketball legend Michael Jordan on Wednesday won a lawsuit in Shanghai, with a Chinese company ordered to make a formal apology and compensate for the unauthorized use of his name. Qiaodan Sports Co. Ltd., a Chinese sportswear and shoe manufacturer, should compensate the plaintiff 300,000 yuan (about USD46,000) for emotional distress and another 50,000 yuan for expenses incurred during the lawsuit, according to the ruling handed down by the Shanghai No.2 Intermediate People’s Court in the first instance. The plaintiff did not claim any economic losses for compensation in connection with the case. “Qiaodan” is the Chinese translation of Jordan. ....
US basketball legend Michael Jordan.- AFP SHANGHAI (Xinhua): US basketball legend Michael Jordan on Wednesday (Dec 30) won a lawsuit in Shanghai, with a Chinese company ordered to make a formal apology and compensate for the unauthorised use of his name. Qiaodan Sports Co. Ltd., a Chinese sportswear and shoe manufacturer, should compensate the plaintiff 300,000 yuan (about US$46,000) for emotional distress and another 50,000 yuan for expenses incurred during the lawsuit, according to the ruling handed down by the Shanghai No.2 Intermediate People s Court in the first instance. The plaintiff did not claim any economic losses for compensation in connection with the case. ....