In December 2016, the Supreme People’s Court of China made rulings on the ten trademark administrative disputes among Michael Jordan (the retrial petitioner), Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of State Administration for Industry & Commerce (the retrial respondent), and Qiaodan Sports Co. Ltd. (the third party of the first instance).

The 10 judgements form a clear definition on the protection scope of the personal name claimed by Michael Jordan. With respect to the three disputed “喬丹”(the Chinese translation of Jordan) marks, the Supreme People’s Court found that the registrations have infringed on Michael Jordan’s prior right of personal name; and that due to the obvious subjective malicious intent of Qiaodan Sports, their operation conditions, their publicity and use of the trademark and business name involved are not sufficient to legitimate the registration of the disputed marks. Accordingly, the three “喬丹” marks shall be revoked and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board is ordered to make adjudications anew. But for the seven cases involving “QIAODAN”and “qiaodan”, the pinyin of the Chinese characters, the court found Michael Jordan does not enjoy name right over “QIAODAN” or “qiaodan” and reject Michael Jordan’s petitions for re-trial.