This violates the provisions of Article 31 of the Trademark Law." Jordan also claimed for portrait right against Qiaodan Sports' logo. However, prosecutors claimed that "the Qiaodan's logo did not violate Jordan's portraiture rights as it does not include distinguishable facial features."
The violation of Article 31 of the Trademark Law is cited in this case. Jordan also asserted a claim for portrait right against Qiaodan Sports' logo, but prosecutors argued that the logo doesn't violate Jordan's portrait rights as it lacks recognizable facial features.