BrandJordan is a product line of Nike and is the brand of American star Michael Jordan himself. ?

The AIRJORDAN series of sneakers are far ahead of other products in terms of sales and market demand, setting higher design, innovation and functional benchmarks for the entire sports shoe industry every year. The core of the series lies in the perfect combination of athletes and technology - Michael Jordan, the most dazzling superstar in basketball history, and the basketball shoes that accompany the superstar through his glorious career, highlighting his unremitting pursuit of functionality, innovation and achievement.

Jordan (China) is a brand registered by the Chinese themselves. It has nothing to do with the American star Michael Jordan, nor does it have anything to do with Nike. ?As for why it is called Qiaodan, it is because Jordan (China) Company has registered this trademark in mainland China, so they have been using it, but Jordan has not been registered, so they have been using QiaoDan in English instead of Jordan. . Just like there are currently Kobe Bryant and Iverson brands. In fact, they have nothing to do with the star. It's just that the Chinese characters were registered by a shoe factory in Fujian.

Extended information:

Qiaodan Sports Co., Ltd. is a domestic sporting goods company. Since 2000, the company has registered with the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board "Jordan", "QIAODAN", "Qiaodan", "Qiaodan", "King Jordan" and the names of Michael Jeffrey Jordan's two sons. "Jeffrey Jordan" and "Marcus Jordan" are multiple trademarks with the same Chinese and English spellings.

In 2012, American NBA basketball star Michael Jeffrey Jordan believed that the registration of these trademarks harmed his right to name, and applied to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board) , requesting the cancellation of 78 related registered trademarks of Jordan Company.

The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board believes that there are certain differences between the trademark words "Jordan" and "QIAODAN" and the applicant's name "MichaelJordan" and its Chinese translation "Michael Jordan". Moreover, "Jordan" is a common British and American surname, and it is difficult to determine that there is a natural correspondence between this surname and the applicant's name. The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board also believed that the registration of the disputed trademark did not constitute misleading the public, disrupting the order of trademark registration, or harming the interests of the public and disrupting public order as defined in the Trademark Law.

In April 2014, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board believed that the reasons for Michael Jeffrey Jordan's application for cancellation were not valid and ruled that "the disputed trademark shall be maintained." Michael Jeffrey Jordan was dissatisfied with this ruling and sued the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board in the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court, and listed Jordan Company as the third party. After a trial, the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate Court upheld the ruling of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board. Michael Jordan refused to accept the decision and appealed to the Beijing High Court. In May 2015, the Beijing High Court made a final ruling to uphold the original verdict.

After the above judgment was made, Michael Jeffrey Jordan applied to the Supreme Court for a retrial.

In December 2015, the Third Civil Court of the Supreme Court ruled that 10 cases should be heard on the grounds that Michael Jeffrey Jordan’s retrial application complied with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Law.

April 26, 2016, World Intellectual Property Day. The Supreme Court held a public retrial to hear this high-profile sports celebrity's rights protection case. The three parties to the lawsuit went to court again. Tao Kaiyuan, the deputy president of the Supreme Court who is in charge of the trial of intellectual property cases, serves as the presiding judge. There are two main focuses of dispute between the parties. The first aspect is what is the object and legal basis of the name rights claimed by Michael Jordan; the second aspect of the dispute is whether the registration of the disputed trademark damages Michael Jeffrey Jordan's name rights. The case was not pronounced in court.

In June 2016, the Supreme People's Court made a final ruling on the Jordan series trademark dispute case, rejecting basketball star Michael Jeffrey Jordan's retrial application and upholding the original judgment. At this point, Jordan's road to rights protection came to an end with a score of 0 to 4 in repeated battles with the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board and three levels of courts ranging from intermediate, advanced to the highest.

On December 8, 2016, the Supreme People's Court pronounced its judgment on a series of administrative disputes involving the Jordan trademark dispute. After discussion and decision by the Judgmental Committee of the Supreme People's Court, regarding the three cases involving the "Qiaodan" trademark, the Supreme People's Court ruled that the state's Ruling on trademark disputes by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce.

For the above series of cases, after discussion and decision by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court, the following judgments were made:

First, for the (2016) Supreme Court case involving the Chinese "Qiaodan" trademark In the three cases No. 15, 26, and 27, this court made the following judgments:

1. Cancellation of Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court (2014) No. 1 Zhongxing (Zhi) Chuzi No. 9161, 9162, and 9163 Administrative judgment;

2. Revoking the Beijing Higher People’s Court (2015) Gao Xing (Zhi) Zhongzi Administrative Judgment No. 1909, 1915, 1925;

3. Revoking the National Industry and Commerce Ruling on Trademark Disputes No. 052058, 052091, and 052226 by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce [2014] No. 052058, 052091, and 052226; 4. The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce ruled on the trademark disputes No. 4152827, 6020565, and 6020569 "Jordan" "The trademark was re-adjudicated.

Second, regarding the four cases involving the Pinyin "QIAODAN" trademark (2016) No. 20, 29, 30, and 31 of the Supreme People's Court, as well as the (2016) case involving the combination of the Pinyin "qiaodan" and the graphic trademark ) In the three cases No. 25, 28, and 32 of the Supreme People's Court, and in seven cases ***, this court made the following judgments:

1. Uphold the Beijing Higher People's Court (2015) Gao Xing (Zhi) Administrative Judgments No. 1896, 1911, 1912, 1914, 1917, 1918, and 1926;

II. Rejection of Michael Jeffrey Jordan’s application for retrial

Baidu Encyclopedia- Jordan (Chinese sporting goods brand)