August 16, 2015

No Image

The Trademark Woes Of Michael Jordan (And Many Others) In China

3:57

Download

A Chinese court says that Qiaodan Sports’ logo of a basketball player’s silhouette does not infringe on Air Jordan’s famous “jumpman.” Greg Baker/AFP/Getty Images hide caption

itoggle caption Greg Baker/AFP/Getty Images

Copyright law is complicated to begin with.

But many American companies have run into extra trouble trying to do business in China, where trademark laws are completely different than they are here in the United States.

Take a chain of shoe and athletic wear stores in China, where things might look a little familiar. Looming above the columns of shoes and rows of clothes is the store’s logo: a silhouette of a basketball player, mid-air, his outstretched arm holding a basketball.

There are nearly 6,000 Qiaodan Sports stores around China.

There are nearly 6,000 Qiaodan Sports stores around China. John Pasden (jpasden)/Flickr hide caption

itoggle caption John Pasden (jpasden)/Flickr

The name of the chain is Qiaodan (pronounced cheow-dahn). It’s the Chinese transliteration of Jordan — as in Michael Jordan, the six-time NBA champ who has a famous line of shoes called Air Jordans.

But the Chinese company Qiaodan Sports has no relation whatsoever to Nike’s Air Jordan brand. They are totally separate.

One store employee says people who come in usually know the difference, and if they don’t, they just have to ask and the staff will explain.

But many people don’t think to ask — because they assume the companies are connected.

Outside of a store in Shanghai, two customers told NPR that they didn’t know about the difference until the lawsuit hit the news.

“We used to buy Qiaodan because we thought it had something to do with Michael Jordan,” Alex Kong says. Now, he buys them a little less often.

Another customer asked the big questions when we spoke with her: “Why do they use the same name? Are they allowed to use it?”

As for why they use the same name, we can’t speculate. But they are indeed allowed to use it. Here’s how.

Air Jordan VIIs like these were originally released in 1992. In the years since, they've inspired retro releases from Nike — and unsanctioned imitators, like this pair of Qiaodan Sports' women's basketball shoes.

Air Jordan VIIs like these were originally released in 1992. In the years since, they’ve inspired retro releases from Nike — and unsanctioned imitators, like this pair of Qiaodan Sports’ women’s basketball shoes. Christopher Robert Allah (killachris)/Flickr hide caption

itoggle caption Christopher Robert Allah (killachris)/Flickr

When Nike expanded the Air Jordan brand to China back in the 1990s, they only registered the English version of “Jordan.”

A few years later, a family-owned shoe company from Fujian province came along and registered “Qiaodan,” the Chinese version. Since then, Qiaodan Sports has registered dozens of other trademarks that seem related to Michael Jordan, including their own silhouette logo and the names of Jordan’s two sons in both Chinese and English.

Qiaodan Sports has since expanded to about 6,000 locations across China. They do hundreds of millions of dollars in in business each year.

Jordan sued the company in 2012. In a video explaining his take on the case, he emphasizes how much his name means to him.

“It’s something that I own. When someone takes advantage and misrepresents that, I think it’s left up to me to protect that,” he says. “I have no other choice but to turn to the courts.”

Qiaodan counter-sued in 2013, saying Jordan’s original suit had prevented them from going public.

An on-brand Michael Jordan at the 2012 Ryder Cup, a few months after he sued Qiaodan Sports for the first time.

An on-brand Michael Jordan at the 2012 Ryder Cup, a few months after he sued Qiaodan Sports for the first time. David Cannon/Getty Images hide caption

itoggle caption David Cannon/Getty Images

The first rulings came down in April. The Beijing High People’s Court found Jordan’s claims against Qiaodan to be insufficient. Jordan asked for a retrial; earlier this summer, he lost that too.

Attorney Dan Harris has dealt with this time and again. He says Michael Jordan ran into a problem that’s common among American companies.

“Most countries, including China, give trademarks to whomever files for it first,” he explains. “But [in] the United States, it’s whoever uses it first.”

His firm Harris Moure specializes in helping American companies wade the waters of Chinese law. His firm gets a call or two a month about this exact issue.

“They become very unhappy when we have to tell them that instead of hiring us to sue that company, they should hire us to negotiate with that company,” Harris says. “That is not what they want to hear.”

Many American companies have run into this problem, including Gucci, New Balance and Tesla. Apple had to pay $60 million to a Chinese screen maker called Proview for the trademark to the iPad. Some companies aren’t even planning to sell their product in China — but even manufacturing product there can result in issues if the company hasn’t secured the trademark.

Since 2001, China has had a law that protects international trademarks that are very well-known in China. Starbucks won a case this way, against a Chinese coffee shop chain called Xingbake (xing means “star” in Chinese, and “bake” sounds similar to “bucks”). But victories for American companies are still rare.

Jordan’s camp say they plan to appeal to China’s Supreme Court. Harris thinks the superstar has a long row to hoe.

But maybe that persistence shouldn’t be a surprise coming from the guy who’s famous for saying, “I can accept failure … but I can’t accept not trying.”

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.


No Image

When Rehab Might Help An Addict — But Insurance Won't Cover It

4:20

Download

Cris and Valerie Fiore hold one of their favorite pictures of their sons Anthony (with the dark hair) and Nick. Anthony died from a heroin overdose in May 2014 at the age of 24. Cris Fiore’s eulogy described his son’s death as a shock, but “not a surprise.” Anthony had been addicted to heroin for years. Ben Allen/WITF hide caption

itoggle caption Ben Allen/WITF

The latest numbers show that deaths from heroin-related overdose more than tripled nationally between 2002 and 2013. Opiate addiction touches every demographic: white, black, Hispanic, rural, suburban and urban.

Proposed solutions nationally include more government funding for treatment, tougher penalties for dealers, and proactive interventions to stop people before they start.

Now, a couple of parents who lost their son to a heroin overdose are pointing out that drug addiction doesn’t tend to be treated like a disease in the United States — which means that when drug users want to get treatment, health insurance coverage often comes up short.

And until the prevailing thinking changes, these parents say, progress will only be made on the edges.

‘Your Insurance Will Not Cover Any More’

Growing up in the Philadelphia suburb of Warrington, Anthony Fiore checked all the boxes for a typical American guy. He’d go to the gym, play video games and watch football — in his case, the Eagles. His mom, Valerie Fiore, was proud of him.

“Anthony was very intelligent,” she says. “He breezed through his high school, Central Bucks South — he never studied. He aced his SATs. He got right into Penn State’s main campus.”

But before he could get to Penn State, the powerful painkiller Oxycontin got hold of him. Soon afterward, he moved on to heroin.

In May 2011, Anthony tried a 21-day rehabilitation stint in Florida. About a year later, he checked in to another facility, but only for 11 days. By the third attempt at inpatient rehab, Anthony said he really wanted to get help and would stick it out.

“That was a 21-day treatment. And that’s when I had Premera Blue Cross,” Fiore says. She begged the staff at the rehab-center to keep treating her son at their facility for longer than 21 days. “And that gentleman said to me, ‘Your insurance will not cover any more.’ “

The family couldn’t afford to foot the bill for a longer stay, Valerie Fiore says. So Anthony left that facility in November 2013. Six months later, he was dead of a heroin overdose.

In a written response to the case, Premera Blue Cross said that its medical policies are informed by national experts.

Every case is different, but for most severe addiction problems, many treatment professionals recommend a sober inpatient stay of three to six weeks, plus intensive outpatient treatment that can include drugs like suboxone or methadone to ease the effects of cravings.

Clare Krusing with the trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans says that when making a decision about whether or not to pay for a particular treatment, insurance plans are looking at effectiveness.

“It’s taking into account the patient’s health and how they respond to those treatments,” she says. “There are many cases where, if patients need additional care and support, that is provided to them.”

Valerie Fiore is skeptical; she says Anthony met the criteria for a longer stay.

Do Insurers Treat Addiction Like Other Illnesses, As Required?

Deb Beck, who represents the Drug and Alcohol Service Providers Organization of Pennsylvania, says she hears stories like Anthony’s all the time. Facilities battle insurers to cover longer stays for patients, she says.

“The whole thing about who is worthy to have insurance coverage gets tangled into this,” Beck says. “But if I had a heart problem, and I didn’t do everything I was supposed to, I would not be denied coverage. In fact, if I got sicker, you would increase the coverage for me.”

Under a 2008 federal law, insurers have to consider drug and alcohol addiction the same as any other medical problem, as far as access to treatment goes. The Department of Labor says it has investigated at least 140 claims in which a patient’s parity rights were violated. All those claims have been resolved through discussions with the insurers, the agency says.

But advocates say the information isn’t public, and no fines have been issued.

Krusing, with the insurance industry’s trade group, says when treatment for addiction is so different from treatments for medical issues, it’s hard to figure out exactly what parity looks like.

“When you’re comparing those treatment plans, it’s essentially comparing apples and oranges,” she says. “And that’s an inherent challenge for health plans, and for patients and for their providers.”

But Sam Ball, the CEO of CASAColumbia, a substance abuse and addiction research organization, says insurance companies should recognize a longer inpatient stay that allows people to break away from bad influences.

“[It] … gives more time for planning about where they should be living after they get out of treatment,” he says. “It also gives more time to be doing more extensive training on coping skills that they’ll need once they leave the hospital or the program.”

Meanwhile, Valerie Fiore is trying to cope with her son’s death from overdose. She says she cries herself to sleep every night. Sometimes she sleeps in his bed. “I don’t know,” she says. “It maybe just makes me feel closer to him.”

She says she’s pushing for a change to the Affordable Care Act that would require insurance firms to offer at least 90 days of inpatient treatment in similar cases of drug addiction.

So far, Fiore has collected more than 30,000 signatures online. Many of the petitioners say they’re endorsing the change on behalf of a relative, or a friend or themselves.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.