I. Background and Overall Direction
On 26 June 2026, the 23rd Session of the Standing Committee of the 14th National People’s Congress passed the revised Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China. The new law will take effect on 1 January 2027. This marks the fifth amendment since the law’s enactment in 1982 and represents a comprehensive revision following the 2019 amendment.
The revision is driven by clear practical concerns. By the end of 2025, China had nearly 49.9 million valid registered trademarks, making it one of the world’s largest trademark registries. However, the long-standing tendency to emphasise “registration over use” has persisted, along with rampant bad‑faith filings, hoarding of trademarks, and the use of so-called “misleading marks” that deceive consumers. In 2023 alone, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) rejected over 1.27 million applications for marks likely to mislead the public. Against this backdrop, the new law aims to shift the institutional focus from “registration” to “governance”, significantly strengthening use obligations, good‑faith requirements, and regulatory oversight while maintaining the convenience of trademark registration.
For international applicants who are either planning to enter the Chinese market or already have registered marks there, this revision affects the entire chain—from registrability requirements and examination procedures to enforcement and agency regulation—and warrants close attention.
II. Expanded Registrable Subject Matter and Modernised Definition of “Use”
The new law expands the types of registrable signs. Article 14 now expressly includes “dynamic marks” alongside traditional signs such as words, graphics, letters, numerals, three‑dimensional marks, colour combinations, and sounds. This change responds to the evolution of brand expression in the digital economy—animated logos, moving graphics, and interactive brand identifiers can now be protected as trademarks in China.
However, Article 18 extends the functionality exclusion—previously limited to three‑dimensional marks—to colour combinations, sounds, and dynamic marks. For example, if a dynamic effect results from the nature of the goods themselves, is necessary to obtain a technical result, or gives substantial value to the goods, it cannot be registered as a trademark.
At the same time, Article 2 clarifies that “use of a trademark” includes use through information networks such as the internet. This means that brand promotion activities carried out by international applicants through cross‑border e‑commerce platforms, social media, live‑streaming, and other digital channels in the Chinese market will now be formally recognised as trademark use. This is particularly significant for defending against “non‑use for three consecutive years” cancellation actions—digital evidence, which was previously controversial, now has a clear legal basis.
III. Stricter and More Specific Registrability Requirements
Expanded Prohibited Signs
Article 15 adds a new category: signs that are identical or similar to “the name, party flag, party emblem, medals, or landmark theoretical achievements and historical events of the Chinese Communist Party” are prohibited from registration and use. In addition, national park marks, Olympic marks, and special marks must be registered and used in accordance with this law and other relevant laws and regulations. International applicants should include these elements in their due diligence checklists when designing or clearing marks.
Tightened Standards for Bad‑Faith Filings
Article 19 provides a more precise standard: “not for use, and clearly exceeding normal business needs” in applying for trademark registration shall be refused. Compared with the 2019 version, the added “clearly exceeding” criterion gives examiners a more objective and workable basis for determination.
More importantly, Article 54 introduces for the first time a specific provision listing three types of bad‑faith filing, accompanied by administrative penalties—a warning and a fine of up to RMB 100,000:
1. knowingly filing a mark that violates the prohibition provisions;
2. filing in violation of the “not for use” requirement; and
3. deliberately filing in violation of well‑known trademark protection, agent/representative rules, or prior rights provisions.
This is the first time Chinese trademark law has set explicit penalties for bad‑faith filings, sending a strong signal of regulatory resolve.
For international applicants, defensive registrations and strategic reserve filings now require more careful assessment. If a large number of applications are filed in a short period for the same or related classes far beyond reasonable commercial needs, or if the applied‑for mark is highly similar to a well‑known prior mark without a legitimate use intent, it could fall under the scrutiny of “bad faith”. It is advisable to prepare statements or preliminary evidence of genuine use intent before filing, in case the examiner requests clarification.
IV. Procedural Improvements and Efficiency Gains
Opposition Period Shortened to Two Months
Article 36 reduces the opposition period from the current three months to two months after the initial publication of a mark. This is one of the most tangible procedural changes and directly affects the timing strategies of parties in trademark disputes.
For international applicants, the shortened opposition window compresses decision‑making time. Previously, there were three months to monitor published marks, assess risks, gather evidence, and decide whether to oppose. Now that window is reduced by one‑third. It is strongly recommended that international applicants set up or enhance trademark monitoring systems—starting internal evaluation as soon as a mark is published and preparing opposition materials immediately if a potential conflict arises, rather than waiting until halfway through the opposition period.
Improved Suspension Mechanism
Article 41 expands the suspension of proceedings—previously limited to opposition review—to cover examination of oppositions, refusal review, non‑registration review, and invalidation proceedings. Moreover, the language is changed from “may suspend” to “shall generally suspend”, enhancing predictability. If an international applicant’s trademark rights depend on another pending case (e.g., domain name disputes, prior right litigation, or well‑known mark determination), they can more effectively argue for suspension to avoid inconsistent outcomes.
Voluntary Withdrawal and Procedural Flexibility
Article 40 adds a provision allowing applicants to withdraw their trademark applications or review applications. This gives international applicants a flexible exit when they discover defects, adjust strategies, or reach settlements—voluntary withdrawal can avoid a refusal record that might prejudice later filings.
V. Strengthened Use Obligations and Enhanced Remedies
New “Nominative Use” Defence
Article 73 adds a new defence: using a registered trademark solely to indicate the intended purpose, applicable objects, application scenarios, or to indicate the true source of the goods shall not be prohibited by the registrant, provided it does not cause confusion.
This codifies a defence that has been developing in judicial practice. For brand owners, it means they cannot prevent others from reasonably using their marks to describe compatibility or suitability (e.g., “works with XX brand devices”). However, the “unless it is likely to cause confusion” exception preserves the registrant’s right to enforce if the use suggests an authorised or affiliated relationship. International brand owners should distinguish between legitimate nominative use and infringing confusing use when monitoring the market, to avoid over‑enforcement or under‑enforcement.
Special Sanctions for Misleading Use
Article 56 introduces a specific penalty for using a registered trademark in a manner that misleads the public: a corrective order, and if the illegal turnover is RMB 50,000 or more, a fine of up to five times the illegal turnover; if less, a fine of up to RMB 250,000; if not corrected within the time limit, the mark will be cancelled. This directly targets the long‑standing problem of “misleading marks”—where registrants, after obtaining registration, deliberately imitate the packaging or trade dress of well‑known brands to deceive consumers under the cloak of a legitimate registration.
Article 70 also adds a social supervision mechanism, clarifying that any entity or individual has the right to report such violations. International applicants should ensure that their own use of registered marks does not mislead the public about quality, origin, or other characteristics—even a validly registered mark can be cancelled if its use is deceptive.
Ex Officio Cancellation for Non‑Use
Article 57 now explicitly provides that if a registered mark becomes the generic name of the designated goods or has been without proper reason for three consecutive years, the CNIPA may cancel it ex officio. Previously, cancellation proceedings were mainly initiated by third parties; now the authority can act on its own motion.
International applicants should ensure that their registered marks in China have actual use (including online use) within any consecutive three‑year period. It is advisable to maintain systematic evidence files—covering e‑commerce sales records, social media promotional materials, website screenshots, exhibition participation records, etc.—with clear timestamps and proper form, to be ready for any cancellation challenge.
Refined Damages Calculation Rules
Article 77 adjusts the damages calculation in favour of rights holders. The 2019 law followed a sequential order—actual loss, then infringer’s profit. The new law provides that damages shall be determined based on the actual loss suffered by the right holder or the profit obtained by the infringer—as parallel alternatives, allowing the right holder to choose the more favourable basis. The statutory maximum remains RMB 5 million.
Article 78 further clarifies the “three‑year non‑use” defence, requiring the right holder to prove actual use during the three years before the infringement occurred (rather than the vaguer “previous three years”). This clearer time reference provides both the right holder and the accused infringer with more definite guidance on evidence.
VI. Comprehensive Oversight of Trademark Agents
Articles 65 to 68 establish a full‑chain regulatory framework for trademark agents and their practitioners, covering pre‑filing recordal, ongoing supervision, and post‑breach sanctions—arguably one of the most significant institutional expansions in this revision.
Key requirements include: agents and practitioners must record their information with the CNIPA; agents are expressly prohibited from accepting both parties in the same case where there is a conflict of interest; agents must not accept instructions if they know or should know that the client’s application falls under bad‑faith provisions; practitioners must not accept assignments on their own or work for more than one agency simultaneously. Where violations are serious, the CNIPA may suspend acceptance of that agent’s filings and make a public announcement.
International applicants should exercise greater due diligence when selecting Chinese trademark agents. After the new law takes effect, non‑compliant agents may be suspended from practice. Applicants should verify the agent’s recordal status and compliance history, preferring well‑established, reputable firms with robust internal controls, to avoid having their own trademark rights jeopardised by agency misconduct.
VII. Cross‑Border Well‑Known Mark Recognition
Article 69 adds a provision of particular interest to international applicants: during the examination or handling of trademark cases outside China, where it is necessary to prove that a mark is well‑known in China, the CNIPA may, upon the party’s request, confirm the well‑known status of the mark in accordance with the law.
This creates a formal channel for international applicants to seek Chinese well‑known mark recognition in support of their overseas trademark disputes. For example, if a global brand faces squatting or infringement in Southeast Asia, Europe, or the US, and needs the mark’s reputation in China as supporting evidence, it can now request a well‑known confirmation from the CNIPA—a remedy that lacked clear legal basis before and will become a valuable tool for global brand enforcement after the new law takes effect.
VIII. Concluding Remarks
The core logic of the 2026 Trademark Law revision is to shift from “encouraging registration” to “emphasising proper use and robust protection”. For international applicants, the new law brings positive developments—registrability of dynamic marks, recognition of online use, and more flexible damages—but also imposes new compliance demands, including tighter controls on bad‑faith filings, enhanced use obligations, and stricter agent regulations.
The new law takes effect on 1 January 2027. International applicants are advised to assess the impact on their trademark portfolios during the transition period and develop appropriate adjustment strategies. Trademark protection requires forward‑looking planning, and the period of regulatory change is especially critical for prudent preparation.
WEIPR Words
With CNIPA registration, a 5A rating, and 20 years of expertise, we are your trusted partner for navigating China’s new trademark landscape. Reach out to future‑proof your portfolio.
The full text of Revised China Trademark Law can be accessed here: https://www.cnipa.gov.cn/art/2026/6/26/art_95_206942.html.
鄂公网安备 42010402001546号