China Supreme Court heard a case of administrative lawskuit of trademark brought by the US basketball superstar Michael Jordan and against China Intelletual Property Bureau whereas the Qiaodan Sportswear as third party who is the stakeholder in nature.

Jordan had accused Qiaodan Sportswear Co. , which is located at Jinjiang, Fujian Province,  of using his name without grant, as he believes “Qiaodan” to be a Chinese transliteration of “jordan,” but the Trademark Appraisal Committee (TAC) of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce rejected jordan’s 2012 appeal to cancel the company’s trademarks.

In the trial of first instance by Beijing Intermediate law court and sencond instance by Beijing higher law court, Michael Jordan lost.

However in the retrial procedure, the Supreme court of China held the opinion that the name of Jordan had been well-known in China, it’s not only in the field of basketball, but also extended to other fileds as a public figure.The registration of a disputed trademark is not an act that disturbs the order of trademark registration, harms the public interest, improperly occupies public resources, or otherwise seeks improper benefits, and does not belong to “other improper means” stipulated in Article 41 (1) of the Trademark Law. The retrial applicant also did not provide evidence that the registration of the disputed trademark was obtained by deception or other improper means. Therefore, the Court does not support the retrial applicant’s application for further examination of the registration of the disputed trademark in violation of the provisions of Article 41 (1) of the Trademark Law.

Thus the supreme court made the final decision to revoke the judgement of the the Beijing Intermediate court and Beijing higher court, meanwhile order the Intellectual Property Bureau of the State to make a renewed arbitration.