Recent amendments to China’s trademark regime mark a fundamental shift. Jun Li says that as the effective date approaches, brand owners, agencies and legal counsel must proactively reassess their strategic positioning, adapt to the new rules and seize the opportunities presented by this new era of trademark protection.
On June 26, 2026, the latest amendment to the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China was passed and will take effect on January 1, 2027. This amendment is a systematic response to the rapid growth of the digital economy and long-standing judicial disputes. Its provisions span multiple dimensions and affect every stage of the trademark lifecycle. The following is a detailed analysis for a comprehensive overview.
Dynamic marks and online use included to meet digital era needs
The amendment explicitly allows the registration of “dynamic marks,” including startup animations, software operation icons, movie title sequences and the like. This breakthrough signifies that China’s trademark law officially recognizes the commercial identification function of non-traditional visual marks. In scenarios such as short videos, smart terminals and virtual reality, dynamic elements have become core symbols for consumers to identify sources. The new law no longer adheres rigidly to the absolute requirement of “static representations” but instead accepts dynamic samples presented in digital media.
The amendment also clarifies that trademark use includes activities carried out through the internet and other information networks, explicitly bringing ecommerce platforms, social media and mobile applications within the scope of trademark law. Taken together, these changes ensure that the legal framework keeps pace with the digital economy, embracing both the evolving forms of brand expression and the diverse channels through which modern consumers encounter them.
Catch-all provision against bad-faith filings established, intercepting improper registrations at the source
The amendment clarifies a highly flexible ground for opposition and invalidation. Any application that clearly exceeds normal business needs or disrupts the trademark registration order or harms the public interest may be opposed or requested for invalidation by any individual or entity. This “catch-all provision” empowers examiners and interested parties with stronger legal tools, particularly targeting covert bad-faith acts such as bulk hoarding and speculative hot-topic filings. The Trademark Office may refuse registration on this basis alone, significantly compressing the survival space for bad-faith trademarks and demonstrating China’s clear attitude against bad-faith trademark applications.
Furthermore, the amendment systematically embeds the principle of good faith throughout the law, explicitly requiring that both the application and use of trademarks must adhere to this principle.
Full-chain penalty mechanism covering filing and litigation proceedings
The new law extends the crackdown on bad-faith conduct from regulating bad-faith filings to curbing bad-faith litigation. Offending parties include not only bad-faith applicants but also non-compliant agencies and individual attorneys. Penalties include administrative fines, warnings, and civil compensation liability for losses caused to others by bad-faith enforcement actions. Of particular note, agencies that knowingly or should have known of their client's bad faith and still represent them will face extremely severe penalties. This full-chain liability design significantly raises the cost of violations and creates a strong deterrent effect. The law establishes a complete enforcement chain covering every stage, from filing and administrative disputes to litigation, ensuring comprehensive regulation to bad-faith actors at any point.
Ex officio cancellation by the Trademark Office implemented, with public reporting channels simultaneously opened
The amendment explicitly empowers the Trademark Office to proactively initiate cancellation proceedings against registered marks in circumstances including (1) where the registered mark has become the generic name for the designated goods or services, (2) where it has not been used for three consecutive years without justifiable reason, or (3) where it is used in a misleading manner (also called deceptive marks). Specifically, regarding the third scenario, the official website of the CNIPA Trademark Office has introduced a dedicated reporting channel, allowing any member of the public to report trademarks suspected of misleading use. This means that trademarks are no longer “registered once, valid forever”; rights holders must continuously use their marks in compliance with regulations, or else face the risk of proactive official intervention.
Opposition period shortened from three months to two months, accelerating the registration process
To improve trademark registration efficiency, the amendment reduces the opposition period during the publication stage from the current three months to two months. This helps applicants obtain registration certificates more quickly, reducing business uncertainty caused by pending oppositions. However, for opponents, the time for evidence submission and decision-making is shortened, requiring completion of monitoring, evidence collection, and legal document preparation within a shorter period. This objectively imposes higher demands on brand monitoring systems and external counsel responsiveness. Brand owners will need to implement robust watching services and maintain ready access to relevant documentation to meet the compressed deadlines.
Suspension mechanism introduced in opposition proceedings, making procedural rules more comprehensive and reasonable
In contrast to previous practice, which provided no such provisions for opposition cases, the amendment explicitly allows for suspension of opposition examination where the case outcome depends on the determination of another pending administrative or judicial proceeding. For example, where the cited prior right is undergoing invalidation or cancellation proceedings, and that result directly affects the validity of the opposition ground, the Trademark Office may stay its decision. This mechanism prevents redundant efforts and avoids contradictory decisions across different proceedings, reflecting the legislative wisdom of procedural economy and judicial consistency.
One-year restriction period significantly narrowed, applicable only to voluntary cancellation scenarios
Under the previous trademark law, where a mark was cancelled, invalidated, or not renewed upon expiration, no third party could register an identical or similar mark within one year. The amendment narrows the application of the restriction period only to situations where “the rights holder voluntarily cancels the mark.” Marks cancelled due to three years of non-use, invalidated, or lapsed for non-renewal are no longer subject to the one-year restriction period. The legislature considers that in above cases, the mark has effectively lost its actual market recognition, and there is no practical need to continue blocking third‑party registrations. This pragmatic approach facilitates the revitalization of trademark resources and enables genuine users to obtain registration rights more expeditiously.
Cross-class protection extended to unregistered well-known marks, with confirmation of well-known mark status available in unfair competition proceedings
The new law grants unregistered well-known marks cross-class protection rights; namely, even without having been registered in China, they may be used to prohibit confusingly similar marks on unrelated goods or services, provided that the similar mark is likely to mislead the public or harm the interests of the well-known mark holder. Additionally, in administrative investigations of unfair competition and in related unfair competition judicial proceedings, rights holders may simultaneously request the competent authorities and competent courts to confirm well-known status. This makes the procedural framework for well-known mark protection more comprehensive and strengthens anti-dilution protection.
“Prior Interests” introduced into law for the first time, covering work titles, character names, etc.
The amendment expands the protected subject matter from “prior rights” to “prior interests,” explicitly including well-known work titles, influential character names, distinctive names of well-known products, and the like. This provides a more direct legal basis for industries such as cultural creativity, gaming, film and television, and animation. For example, even if the name of a protagonist from a popular animated series is not registered as a trademark, it may still serve as grounds for opposition or invalidation against subsequent filings based on the "prior interests" provision, making rights assertion clearer and more forceful.
Strengthened cross-department coordination mechanisms, smoother administrative-criminal interface
The new law clarifies the division of responsibilities among trademark registration, administration, and enforcement authorities, and requires the relevant departments to establish working mechanisms to strengthen information sharing and work coordination. Regarding the administrative-criminal interface, the new law further improves the case referral mechanism. Administrative enforcement authorities that discover suspected criminal activity shall promptly refer the case to judicial authorities. Conversely, where a case does not warrant criminal prosecution but is subject to administrative penalties, the judicial authorities shall also refer it to administrative enforcement authorities for handling. Together, these provisions establish a two-tier protection network of “administrative filtering plus criminal deterrence,” ensuring smoother handling of administrative-criminal crossover cases.
Statutory termination right for licensors established, even in the absence of contractual provisions
In licensing relationships, if the licensee fails to fulfill quality control obligations (e.g., lowering product quality or changing key product ingredients without notifying the licensor), the licensor may unilaterally terminate the license even if the licensing agreement does not explicitly include a termination clause. This statutory termination right is designed to safeguard the consistency of goodwill associated with the trademark and to prevent brand reputation damage caused by the licensee's improper conduct. Of course, the licensor still bears the burden of proof regarding the breach of obligations. The statutory right provides a necessary backstop, giving licensors confidence to enter into licensing arrangements without fear of being locked into damaging situations.
Nominative use explicitly recognized as fair use, with confusion to be avoided
In addition to descriptive use, functional use, and prior-use defenses, the amendment explicitly recognizes “nominative use” as a form of fair use at the trademark law level. Examples include where an auto repair shop mentions brands of original parts in its advertising, or a bakery indicates the brand of butter it uses. However, the new law simultaneously emphasizes that users must clearly avoid any risk of consumer confusion regarding the source of goods or services and must not imply sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner. In other words, nominative use is not unrestricted use; users must still clearly inform consumers of the product or service source through prominent identifiers or other means, effectively eliminating confusion risks.
Commencement date for the three-year non-use defense uniformly set as “date of the infringing act”
In previous judicial practice, there was disagreement across cases regarding whether the three-year non-use period for calculating continuous non-use should be counted backward from the date of lawsuit filing or from the date of the infringing act. The amendment now uniformly clarifies that “the date of the infringing act” serves as the starting point. This rule enhances the predictability of judicial outcomes and encourages genuinely and continuously use.
Conclusion
Taken together, the core logic of these amendments marks a fundamental shift in China’s trademark regime, from a registration-oriented approach to one that emphasizes genuine use and robust protection. Beyond these foundational shifts, the amendments also adapt to digital forms of brand expression and protection, severely punish bad-faith conduct, optimize procedural efficiency and rebalance the rights and interests of all stakeholders.
For brand owners, the new framework offers tangible benefits, including faster registration, stronger cross-class protection for well-known marks and a broader foundation of protectable rights and interests. However, these advantages come with heightened responsibilities, including stricter compliance requirements for actual use, shorter windows for responding to oppositions and greater exposure to regulatory scrutiny.
For trademark agencies and legal practitioners, the changes translate into elevated professional standards and increased liability exposure, as the law now extends penalties across the entire chain, from filing and review to litigation, and holds agencies accountable for knowingly representing bad-faith applicants.
Ultimately, these amendments restore trademarks to their essential function of distinguishing the source of goods and services and carrying the goodwill of their owners. As the January 1, 2027, effective date approaches, all market participants, including brand owners, agencies and legal counsel, need to proactively reassess their strategic positioning, adapt to the new rules and seize the opportunities presented by this new era of trademark protection in China.
