Bruce Lee ‘s daughter accuses of true kung fu and may not necessarily have legal support

BruceLee’sdaughteraccusesof”truekungfu”andmaynotnecessarilyhavelegalsupport
LiXiaoning,thedaughterofBruceLee,servesasthelegalrepresentative.BruceLeeCo.,Ltd.suedtheinternalChineserestaurantchainZhenKungFu(hereinafterreferredtoas”TrueKungFuCatering”)totheShanghaiNo.2IntermediatePeople’sCourt,arguingthatthetrademarkusedbyTrueKungFuCatering”looksexactlylikeBruceLee”anddemandedcompensationofRMB2.1ppm,reasonablerightsprotectionexpenditure8.80,000yuan,andclarifiedonthesurfaceofthemediaversionfor90consecutivedaysthatithasnothingtodowithBruceLee.LogoimageofBruceLeeandRealKungFuCatering.ThisdisputeisnotthefirsttimeforMs.LiXiangningtohaveadisputewithRealKungfuCatering.Asearlyas2011,LiXiangninghadsuedthroughthemediatosueZhenKungfuforsubstitution,butatthetime,bothpartieshadinitiatedjudicialproceedings.In2018andearly2019,KungFuFoodregisteredanumberoftrademarksrelatedto”TrueKungFu”andtheappearanceresemblingBruceLee’simage.Iftheabovetrademarkscansuccessfullypasstheobjectionperiod,evenMs.LiXiangningisstillthecompanywhereshebelongs.Inthefuture,itisforbiddentoclaimtherightfromZhenGongfuonthegroundofinfringingontherightofportrait.Sothislawsuitisimperative,evenimminent.Theinheritanceofcelebrityportraitrightshasbeencommoninthejudiciary.Inthe1970s,theTaiwanDistrictCourtmadeaverdictof”HanYu’sdescendantsaccusedofdefamationofHanYu”;inmainlandChina,in1996,thedescendantsofLuXunfiledalawsuitconcerningthe”decisionofthedeceased’sright”forthefirsttime.Afterthiscase,theSupremePeople’sCourtoncepromisedinwritingthattherightofportraitbelongstoakindofpersonalityright,notapropertyright,soitisnotwithinacertainkindofinheritanceandcannotbeinherited.However,iftheportraitofthedeceasedisusedinaninsultingmanner,causingdamagetohisreputation,hiscloserelativesmaycharge.Sincethen,differentdistrictcourtshavealsofixedtheaboveviewsthroughjudgments.Thedeceased’srightofportraitcanbeused,butmustnotbeinfringedonhisreputation,andifitisusedforcommercialpurposes,itmustbeapprovedbythedeceased’sheir.ButintherealKungFucase,thecharactersinthe”logographictrademark”,althoughitislikelytorefertotheclassicimageofBruceLeeinthemovie”JingWuMen”andthestatueofBruceLeeinHongKongAvenueofStars,howbigarethetwoinsize”,Shouldstillbedeterminedbythecourt.Wecanrefertothe”SixYoungChildrenv.LangangInfringementofPortraitRights”,accordingtothejudgmentofthecase,thecourtmeetingmadeacomprehensivejudgmentaroundthedimensionsofthehairstyle,facialfeatures,upperbodycharacteristicsandotherdimensions;butinthelatestrealKungFutrademark,publicity,trueKungFuRestauranthasblurredtheimageofthetrademarkverymuch,turningthetrademarkintoa”maledemonstratingChineseKungFu”.Andifthecharacterimagecannotberecognizedasaname,realKungFucateringusesthetextdescriptionof”TrueKungFu”,evenallowingustoconsideramanwhousesChineseKungFuasBruceLee,orBruceLee’simitator,willnotconstituteacorrespondingcost.ItisforeseeablethatthemostdirectresultofthislawsuitisthatitmayinvalidatetheregisteredtrademarkofRealKungFuRestaurantduetotheissueofportraitrights.Butevenso,theeventstillhasthepossibilityofreversal:fromthestatementofRealKungFuCatering,weseethatthelegalsubjectaccusingTrueKungFuisBruceLeeEnterprises,LLC(LiXiaolongLLC),notMs.LiXiangning,itisapureBusinessdisputes.Amongthem,Ms.LiXiangningisstillthefounderofBruceLeeCompany,butintermsofcommercialdisputes,thelogicisexactlytheopposite:thatis,realKungFucateringwiththe”BruceLeeGraphicMark”,therighttorequestBruceLeeCompanynottousetheimageofBruceLeebusinessactivities.Therefore,ifitisLiXiangning’sdisputeovertheuseoftheBruceLeeportrait,thiscasemayinvolveagapinthequestionoftheextenttowhichthelawwillbeartheliabilityforcompensationwithoutobtainingtheheir’sconsenttousetheimageoftheheirforcommercialpurposes;butifThesuspectedsubjectisBruceLeeCo.,Ltd.Atpresent,itseemsthattherewillbenomoretroublefortherealkungfu.Ofcourse,itisbeyondthescopeofthediscussionherewhetherTrueKungFu’sgraphictrademarkwillaffectitspromotioninoverseasmarkets.□TianChen(LegalWorker)SaunaNightNetEditorWuLongzhenproofreadingLiXiangling