Introduction

Can Hong Kong as a place “own” Bruce Lee’s intellectual property and use and associate itself with his brand by cooperating with the estate that holds the rights and by relying on Hong Kong’s trade mark and passing off framework?

Who actually owns Bruce Lee?

Under current arrangements, the exclusive rights to Bruce Lee’s name, likeness and image are held by Bruce Lee Enterprises, LLC (“BLE”), covering commercial rights, merchandising, film, and licensing. BLE is based in Los Angeles and managed by his daughter, Shannon Lee, who has managed the preservation of her father's legacy for over two decades, focusing on protecting his intellectual property. BLE handles worldwide licensing and merchandising, as well as legal actions against unauthorized uses of Lee's image. It manages a global licensing programme for marks including BRUCE LEE®, JUN FAN JEET KUNE DO® and related symbols, and actively enforces against unauthorised uses worldwide.

Hong Kong’s trade marks register shows that multiple Bruce Lee-related marks remain registered in the name of BLE across a variety of classes, confirming that key Bruce Lee marks remain alive in Hong Kong owned here by BLE, not by any Hong Kong public body.

In other words, ownership of Bruce Lee’s name and image as intellectual property lies with a private rights holder (BLE), not with “Hong Kong” as a jurisdiction, government, or community.

Hong Kong’s current use: Licensed, not public domain

Recent Hong Kong initiatives illustrate how the city can lawfully leverage the Bruce Lee brand without owning it. The recently opened exhibition “Bruce Lee Homecoming – 85 Years Later” at Jordan’s Prudential Centre (the former site of the Katherine Building where Lee lived), together with the long running “A Man Beyond the Ordinary: Bruce Lee” at the Hong Kong Heritage Museum and MTR spin off displays, are organised in collaboration with the Bruce Lee Foundation and BLE and supported by commercial sponsors. Exhibition signage and press materials expressly state that BRUCE LEE® is a registered trade mark of Bruce Lee Enterprises, LLC, and that Bruce Lee’s name, image and likeness are BLE’s IP, making clear that these are licensed uses, not open public domain material.

This is entirely consistent with Hong Kong IP law: official bodies and sponsors are licensees, not owners, and they benefit from Bruce Lee’s appeal by staying within the scope of BLE’s permissions.

Hong Kong common law: No general “personality right”

Hong Kong, as a common law jurisdiction, does not recognise a free standing “personality right” or “image right” of the kind discussed in some civil law systems. Instead, protection for a celebrity’s name or likeness is typically achieved through:

1.      Trade mark law – infringement of registered marks under the Trade Marks Ordinance (Cap. 559), if a celebrity name or image is registered and used without consent.

 

2.      Passing off – a common law tort protecting goodwill against misrepresentation leading the public to believe there is an endorsement or connection where none exists.

 

Accordingly, Hong Kong cannot declare itself the legal owner of “Bruce Lee” as a personality. Bruce Lee’s estate (BLE) can rely on registered trade marks and passing off in Hong Kong courts to restrain unauthorised exploitation of his name and likeness, including misrepresentations that suggest an official connection with BLE when none exists.

Lessons from cross-border enforcement

The Real Kung Fu (真功夫) litigation in Mainland China, in which courts invalidated 34 “look alike” martial artist marks as deceptive, shows that Bruce Lee’s estate is willing and able to enforce its rights robustly in Greater China. While that was decided under PRC law, the underlying idea – that traders must not mislead the public into thinking there is an association with Bruce Lee – aligns with Hong Kong’s passing off principles, which prohibit misrepresentation damaging another’s goodwill.

For Hong Kong businesses, this means:

1.      Unlicensed “look alike” branding (yellow jumpsuit silhouettes, stylised nunchaku figures, etc.) that leads consumers to assume a Bruce Lee connection could well be challenged here as trade mark infringement and/or passing off.

 

2.      The fact that exhibitions and campaigns are “for Hong Kong” or “celebrating local heritage” does not displace BLE’s private rights.

So can Hong Kong “own” Bruce Lee’s IP?

Under Hong Kong law, ownership of IP (trade marks, copyright, related indicia) rests with whoever created or acquired it, which in the case of Bruce Lee, is BLE and its affiliates. Hong Kong as a jurisdiction has no automatic ownership merely because Bruce Lee was born or raised here. Common law does not create a special governmental or “community” property right in a celebrity; it recognises private IP rights and protects goodwill through passing off.

What Hong Kong can do is position itself as Bruce Lee’s “spiritual home” through narratives, public exhibitions, place based commemorations, and perhaps even a “Bruce Lee Day” or district level branding. It may continue to partner with BLE and the Bruce Lee Foundation for licensed use of marks and imagery and use its own governmental marks and place branding (e.g., “Brand Hong Kong”) in combination with licensed Bruce Lee IP to strengthen the city’s image without claiming proprietary rights in Bruce Lee himself. In effect, Hong Kong’s role is that of a privileged licensee and narrative custodian, not legal IP owner.

Practical takeaways

Taken together, Hong Kong’s recent exhibitions and collaborations show how the city can “enjoy” Bruce Lee’s intellectual property in a way that is both legally sound and economically productive.

For government and public bodies, use of Bruce Lee’s name and likeness should continue to be conducted under a clear license from BLE, accompanied by proper acknowledgment of trade mark and IP ownership. Consideration should also be given to symbolic recognition, such as declaring a local “Bruce Lee Day” and/or developing district branding around his childhood neighbourhood, that leverages Hong Kong’s factual connection without asserting IP ownership.

Businesses should refrain from assuming that Bruce Lee’s image is “public property” in Hong Kong and check the Hong Kong register for Bruce Lee related marks and seek licences where needed. Marketing or packaging should avoid any elements that could mislead consumers into believing that products or services are endorsed by, or connected with, Bruce Lee or his estate, to minimise trade mark and passing off risk.

For practitioners, Bruce Lee is a textbook Hong Kong example of how registered trade marks, passing off, and licensing can sustain a deceased celebrity brand for decades, even where there is no codified “image right”.

In summary, Hong Kong cannot “own” Bruce Lee’s IP in a legal sense, but it does not need to. The city can continue to benefit from and celebrate the Bruce Lee legacy by respecting BLE’s private rights, using licences, and leveraging common law tools like passing off to support proper stewardship of the brand within its jurisdiction.

 

For enquiries, please feel free to contact us at:

E: ip@onc.hk                                                                        T: (852) 2810 1212 W: www.onc.hk                                                                    F: (852) 2804 6311 19th Floor, Three Exchange Square, 8 Connaught Place, Central, Hong Kong

Important: The law and procedure on this subject are very specialised and complicated. This article is just a very general outline for reference and cannot be relied upon as legal advice in any individual case. If any advice or assistance is needed, please contact our solicitors.

Published by ONC Lawyers © 2026