China’s new Trademark Law marks an important development for businesses and brand owners navigating one of the world’s largest and most active trademark systems. Excel V. Dyquiangco examines what is changing, why the revisions matter and the issues companies should consider as the new regime takes shape.
China promulgated its new trademark law on June 26, 2026; it will take effect on January 1, 2027. The law has expanded from eight chapters and 73 articles to nine chapters and 87 articles, adding a new chapter, “Conditions for Trademark Registration”.
While the revision is not an overhaul of China’s trademark regime, as the fundamental rules for trademark filing, examination, opposition, invalidation, cancellation and infringement enforcement remain largely intact, the new law reorganizes and refines a number of important issues, particularly registration requirements, trademark use, regulation of trademark agency practice and the proper exercise of trademark rights.
Several revisions are worth noting, such as:
The law now expressly recognizes trademark use on the internet and other information networks, reflecting the reality that brands are increasingly used in ecommerce, mobile apps, social media, livestreaming and other online commercial settings.
Dynamic marks have been added to the registrable signs. This is particularly relevant to elements like app boot animations, motion graphic logos, intro animations and other dynamic identifiers, provided they could act as source identifiers and meet other registration requirements.
The law further addresses trademark hoarding, which refers to applications filed without an intention to use and clearly exceeds the applicant’s normal business needs. It also introduces administrative liability for certain bad-faith applications that cause adverse effects.
The law places greater emphasis on post-registration use. For example, it introduces rules against misleading use of a registered trademark and vests the trademark authority with the power to cancel, on its own initiative, marks that have not been used for three consecutive years without justifiable reasons or have become generic names.
The law also refines rules on quality control in trademark licensing, regulation of trademark agency practice, indicative fair use, damages for infringement and liability for certain forms of improper litigation conduct.
The opposition period is reduced from three months to two months, requiring businesses to react more quickly to problematic applications.
A trademark could be opposed or invalidated if it was filed using “deceptive or other improper means” and/or “not for the purpose of use and obviously exceed normal production or business operational needs”.
The revised law expressly prohibits the abuse of trademark rights that harms national interests, the public interest or “the lawful rights of others”, reinforcing the legislature’s focus on good faith trademark registration, use and enforcement.
Authorities may proactively revoke trademarks that have not been used for three consecutive years. Brand owners with defensive registrations should review their portfolios carefully and maintain evidence of use for strategically important marks.
Any person or entity may report misleading trademark use or trademark infringement to the authorities, formalizing an additional enforcement channel and increasing compliance risks.
Malicious filers may face fines of up to Rmb100,000 (US$14,900) in addition to refusal or invalidation of their trademarks.
The law reinforces protection for both registered and unregistered well-known marks and strengthens cross-class protection against bad-faith filings. Specifically, it allows owners of unregistered trademarks to be recognized as “well-known” and protected vis-à-vis dissimilar goods and services.
The law now permits the China National Intellectual Property Administration to confirm a mark’s well-known status for use in overseas proceedings but also extends China’s regulation of bad-faith trademark conduct to overseas trademark matters by imposing penalties on those (presumably agents) who use fraudulent or other improper means when handling overseas trademark filings for Chinese clients. It appears that this provision is intended to assist Chinese brand owners with overseas registration and enforcement proceedings.
“These changes are a direct response to emerging issues in China’s trademark practice, including bad-faith filings, trademark hoarding, idle registrations, improper use of registered marks, online evidence of use, nascent commercial signs and the conduct of trademark agencies,” said Mingming Yang, a partner at Wanhuida Intellectual Property in Beijing. “It pivots from a lopsided registration-oriented system to a more balanced regime that underlines the significance of actual use, enforcement and responsible assertion of rights.”
“With that being said, the final text is more restrained compared to the draft amendments. For example, although the suspension mechanism has been extended to opposition, refusal review, review of non-registration decisions and invalidation proceedings, the final text makes it a choice of the authority, rather than a mandatory process. Similarly, while the law strengthens the regulation of bad-faith filings and introduces administrative liability for certain conduct, it does not subject bad-faith squatting to civil liability. Issues such as trademark coexistence, the ownership of preempted marks, and the boundaries of improper trademark litigation will still need to be sorted out through further clarifications in the future.”
Impact of these changes
According to Yang, the impact on day-to-day trademark examination for local and foreign applicants is less dramatic than expected. “The fundamental features of the Chinese system, including the first-to-file principle, examination on absolute grounds, conflicts with prior rights, opposition, invalidation and cancellation, remain in place,” he said. “For applicants with genuine business needs and well-formulated filing strategies, the system should remain broadly stable and predictable.”
He added that applicants should expect closer scrutiny over the commercial rationale behind their filings and the actual use of their registered marks.
“First, a trademark filing should be justified by the applicant’s actual business, business plans, brand extensions, defensive needs or market strategy,” he said. “The new law does not rule out reasonable defensive filings. However, applications that are irrelevant to the applicant’s business needs, lack any intention to use, or appear to be squatting, hoarding or free riding on another party’s goodwill will carry greater risk.”
“Second, post-registration compliance will matter more than ever. Brand owners should make sure that the mark as used is consistent with the registration, that changes to the registrant’s name or address are recorded in a timely manner, that licence agreements contain appropriate quality control provisions, and that advertising, packaging, ecommerce promotion, livestreaming scripts and distributor materials do not mislead consumers, as the misleading use of a registered trademark may be subject to rectification, fines and, in case of failure to rectify, cancellation of the registration.”
“Third, the opposition period will be shortened from three months to two months. Brand owners will need to act faster. This is particularly important for multinational companies, where internal reporting and approval processes often take time.”
“Overall, applicants and brand owners who file in good faith, use their marks genuinely and manage their portfolios properly should benefit from the new law,” Yang said. “With the rising standard for trademark management, focus should be shifted to the commercial justification of filing activities, proper use of the mark, preservation of evidence of use, and the planning and execution of proportionate enforcement.”
James Lau, a partner at East IP in Hong Kong, meanwhile, said that the revised law substantially strengthens the legal framework for combating trademark squatting and bad-faith filings.
He said: “Most notably, it creates an explicit legal basis for challenging trademarks that were filed through ‘deceptive or other improper means’ or where filings were made without a genuine intention to use the marks and outside normal business needs. This provides brand owners with stronger grounds to oppose or invalidate speculative registrations.”
