China's New Trademark Law: Incremental Improvement Focused on Use and Protection

China passed the newly revised Trademark Law on 26 June 2026, effective 1 January 2027. The full text of the new Law is available here[1]. An official English translation has not yet been released; an unofficial translation can be found here[2].

The author has previously discussed the direction of this amendment[3] [4]. A comparison shows that most of the content from the publicly available draft for comments[5] has been incorporated into the new Law, with only adjustments to wording and placement. However, two notable changes from the draft merit attention.

I. Key Differences from the Draft

1. New Mechanism for Well-Known Status Confirmation in Cross-Border Cases

Article 69(1) of the new Law provides: “In the course of examining and adjudicating trademark registrations or handling trademark cases overseas, if it is necessary to prove that a trademark is well-known to the relevant public in China, the trademark administration department…may, at the request of the parties concerned, confirm the well-known status of the trademark…”

This provision responds to the frequent encroachment on Chinese brands in overseas markets in recent years. The Luckin Coffee trademark case in Thailand is a typical example, highlighting the complexity of cross-border trademark enforcement.

A Thai group obtained registration for the "Luckin" trademark in Thailand in 2020 and subsequently opened multiple coffee shops with visual designs, logos, and product packaging highly similar to those of China's Luckin Coffee. In 2021, Luckin sued for infringement in Thailand, winning at first instance but losing on appeal. The Thai group then counter-sued for 10 billion Thai baht (about US$288 million). In 2024, Luckin adjusted its strategy, invoked the Paris Convention for well-known trademark protection, submitted extensive evidence including global store data and multi-country registration records, and pointed out that the Thai group had bulk-filed other Chinese brands. In February 2025, Luckin prevailed before the Thai court, setting one of the highest trademark infringement compensation records in Thailand[6][7][8]. 

The new provision expands China's current passive well-known status confirmation mechanism—which operates on a "case-by-case, only when necessary" basis—into an independently requestable administrative fact-finding service, leveraging state authority to certify brand recognition and reduce the difficulty for Chinese enterprises to adduce evidence abroad.

How this provision will be implemented depends on further rules clarifying the nature, content, and examination procedures of the confirmation instrument. Its effectiveness also depends on the level of recognition by foreign authorities. If evidence mutual recognition mechanisms can be established with major trading partners in the future, the utility of this institutional arrangement will be significantly enhanced.

2. Deletion of the "Change of Circumstances" Exclusion Proposal

The new Law removed the draft provision stating that “when a people's court hears... a refusal review decision, a disapproval-of-registration review decision, or an invalidation decision, it shall base its judgment on the factual status at the time the challenged decision or ruling was made.”

The draft provision sparked immediate, extensive discussion and concern. Though intended to encourage timely submission of evidence at the administrative stage to preserve decision stability, this provision, once enacted, would have narrowed the scope of judicial review, preventing courts from considering new facts arising after the administrative decision (such as the cancellation of a cited mark during litigation) or supplemented evidence, potentially trapping rights holders in a cycle of re‑application and litigation, increasing the cost of obtaining and enforcing rights.

The new Law ultimately retains the court's discretion to adjudicate based on new factual circumstances, reflecting the legislature's effort to balance procedural efficiency and substantive justice.

II. Key Differences from the Current 2019 Trademark Law

The new Law places "to protect the exclusive right to use registered trademarks" at the forefront of its legislative objectives (Article 1). The legislative logic shifts from "emphasizing registration and administrative management" to "emphasizing use and protection of exclusive rights"[9]. Within this framework, the other main changes are as follows:

1. Dynamic Marks Registrable as Trademarks

Article 14 adds "dynamic signs" to the list of registrable elements. Dynamic opening logos of film studios, boot animations of gaming apps, and dynamic identifiers in short videos and live streaming have become important carriers of corporate image in the "attention economy." Even movements or dynamic memes closely associated with specific individuals have acquired trademark-like attributes. Examples include Columbia Pictures' torch-bearing woman statue (USPTO Reg. No. 1975999), Verizon's "check mark" animation (USPTO Reg. No. 7390293), and English footballer Cole Palmer's signature "cold" celebration gesture (UKIPO Reg. No. UK00004129108).

This amendment adapts to the digital economy and mobile internet era, and implements the relevant provisions of the 2006 Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks[10]. The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has recently issued a survey on dynamic marks to gather information for developing examination standards[11].

Dynamic marks require electronic displays as carriers, so registrants are expected to be primarily active in the entertainment and digital goods sectors.

2. Opposition Period Shortened to Two Months

Article 36 shortens the opposition period from three months to two months, purportedly to "meet the demand of businesses for faster rights acquisition"[12].

Brand owners will need to establish more efficient trademark publication monitoring mechanisms and faster internal decision-making processes. Filing a brief opposition notice first, then submitting detailed grounds and evidence within the statutory supplementary period (currently still three months from the opposition filing) may become a more common practice, especially for international brand owners with substantial evidence requiring translation into Chinese.

3. One-Year Waiting Period Now Applies Only to Voluntary Deregistration

Article 49 narrows the one-year waiting period to apply only to voluntary deregistration applications. Marks cancelled due to non-use, declared invalid, or not renewed no longer trigger this period.

The rationale: marks cancelled for non-use have already been unused for three consecutive years, presenting no likelihood of confusion in the market; for marks declared invalid, the exclusive right is deemed never to have existed; marks not renewed have passed the six-month grace period and are typically already unused or have long lapsed. Excluding these scenarios allows faster release of trademark resources, reducing unnecessary obstacles to subsequent applications.

Is the waiting period still necessary for voluntary deregistration? The opposing view holds that at the time of voluntary deregistration, inventory goods may still be in circulation and consumer perception may not have fully dissipated; the waiting period serves as a buffer, preventing confusion arising from the entry of a new trademark before existing goods have exited, as well as an institutional incentive for rights holders to proactively clear idle marks. The supporting view holds that voluntary deregistration is a voluntary abandonment; the deregistered mark typically has no actual use and no real impact on the market, rendering a one-year waiting period unnecessary. Clearly, the legislature favors the former view.

4. Licensor May Terminate Contract if Licensee Fails to Fulfill Quality Assurance Obligations

Current law already requires licensors to supervise the quality of goods of licensees. Article 55 further provides: “If the licensee fails to fulfill its quality assurance obligations, the licensor has the right to terminate the trademark licensing agreement.”

It is generally understood that consumer confidence in stable quality under the same trademark is the foundation of the trademark licensing system— that is, the quality assurance function (although this is a matter of debate in academic circles). Once a licensee violates its quality assurance obligations and potentially harms the mark's reputation, the contractual foundation is eroded, such that granting the licensor the right to terminate the contract is justified and represents a concretization of the statutory grounds for contract termination set out in Article 563 of the Civil Code within the context of trade mark licensing.

5. Unregistered Well-Known Marks Now Eligible for Cross-Class Protection; Anti-Dilution Strengthened

Article 21(2), concerning cross-class protection of well-known marks, removes the requirement that the mark must be "registered in China." Unregistered well-known marks, if conditions are met, may now receive protection against use on dissimilar goods.

Mobile internet has accelerated brand "boundary-breaking" to a great extent. Well-known brands now exert appeal across virtually any goods or services category; encroachment in any category may trigger consumer misrecognition, exposing brand goodwill to uncontrollable risk. The higher the level of renown, the greater the likelihood of dilution, and the broader the protection should be. This amendment shifts the cross-class protection logic from "registration + well-known status" to "well-known status + dilution risk," reflecting the conceptual shift that well-known mark protection is justified by goodwill from use rather than the formality of registration. It helps remedy the predicament of marks that have long-established high market reputation being "free-ridden" on non-core goods.

Article 63 also clarifies that the well-known status of a trademark may be confirmed during the investigation or adjudication of unfair competition cases.

These adjustments, together with the new cross-border well-known confirmation mechanism, form an institutional chain from domestic cross-class protection to overseas rights support.

Well-known status still requires case-by-case determination, considering factors such as the degree of public recognition, duration and geographic scope of use, advertising efforts, and records of protection. For rights holders, continuously accumulating evidence of reputation and systematically preserving use and publicity records remains foundational work in seeking well-known mark protection.

6. Strengthening the Obligation of Genuine Use, Cracking Down on Bad-Faith and Deceptive Marks, and Adding Ex Officio Cancellation for Non-Use

Article 2(3) explicitly includes "use through information networks such as the Internet" within the definition of trademark use, responding to the realities of the digital economy. The new Law strengthens regulation across three fronts—examination, use supervision, and forced withdrawal—creating a more robust institutional chain from refusal to penalties to accountability.

• Examination: Curbing Hoarding and Deceptive Filings, Strengthening Administrative Penalties Against Bad-Faith Applicants

Current law already provides that bad-faith trademark applications not intended for use shall be refused. Article 19 adjusts the standard to "not intended for use and clearly exceeding the needs of normal production and operation." This leaves room for large enterprises to maintain defensive registrations around core brands, while hoarding behavior involving marks unrelated to business scope and lacking genuine use plans can be regulated without having to prove subjective intent.

Applying for trademark registration through deception or other improper means was previously mainly used as a ground for post-registration invalidation. Article 19 moves this ground to the examination stage as an independent basis for refusal.

For marks that are deceptive and likely to mislead the public as to quality, origin, or other characteristics, examiners could already reject them during examination. The new Law adds administrative penalties under Articles 54, 67, and 84: applicants who knowingly file such applications causing adverse effects face up to RMB 100,000 in fines; agencies that knowingly or should have known still accept such instructions face up to RMB 200,000, with responsible individuals up to RMB 100,000; officials who approve registrations that fail to meet requirements and cause adverse effects face disciplinary action.

These penalties also apply to other scenarios, such as: knowingly applying for marks in violation of the prohibition or geographic name provisions; filing marks in violation of the "not intended for use and clearly exceeding normal business needs" provision; and intentionally squatting on well-known marks, marks of the principal or the represented party, or marks in which others have prior legitimate rights.

Under the current law, combating bad-faith squatting mainly relied on filing individual oppositions or invalidation actions against each mark—cumbersome procedures without economic sanctions. There have been scattered administrative enforcement cases, but the standards applied vary. Judicial litigation, though recognizing bulk squatting as unfair competition, is costly and time-consuming. The new Law's concretization of administrative penalties provides rights holders with a faster, more cost-effective avenue for redress.

Some observers note that examination practice has already become quite stringent, with initial approval rates around only half, and the "deceptive/misleading" and "adverse effects" provisions showing signs of over-application. Rejections on these grounds have increased significantly in recent years (e.g. marks containing terms like "natural" are frequently rejected), and the success rate of reviews against such rejections is below 10%. The new Law's introduction of administrative penalties may further intensify this trend. More critically, continued use of a mark after such rejection will trigger penalties under Article 62 (fines of up to RMB 10,000 or 20% of business revenue). Unchecked application of this provision could jeopardise the legitimate operations of many brands. How to prevent abuse of the penalty provisions should be a key practical concern.

• Use Supervision: Combating "Gimmicky Marks"

"Gimmicky marks" is not a legal concept but a colloquial term for a phenomenon where enterprises register descriptive or suggestive terms as marks and use them with promotional language to create the impression that the mark itself describes the quality of the product.

CNIPA announced that since 2025 it has invalidated 3,351 such "gimmicky marks" and, between 2023 and April 2026, rejected 1.273 million related applications[13], and launched a dedicated page for public reporting[14]. A typical example is "De Zi Tu": the enterprise used the mark together with the word “Ji” (meaning "chicken") to market their chicken products under “De Zi Tu Ji” via live streaming, leading consumers to believe it was genuine “Tu Ji” (meaning "free-range chicken") under the “De Zi” brand. Another is "Qianhe 0": a listed seasoning company was found to have detectable cadmium in its soy sauce product, and consumers questioned whether the mark misleadingly suggested a "zero-additive" product. The public backlash sent the company's share price down for four consecutive days, erasing approximately RMB 950 million in market capitalisation[15].

Article 56 provides that trademark enforcement authorities may order rectification of misleading uses, impose fines of up to five times illegal business volume or up to RMB 250,000, and have the registration revoked if rectification is not made timely.

Combating "gimmicky marks" is necessary, but concerns remain. Some argue that the nature of these marks varies—some are inherently problematic (e.g., "special supply"), some require contextual judgment (e.g., "Qianhe 0," where "0" could indicate a product line rather than "zero additive"), and some are purely due to post-registration problematic use. Different situations should be distinguished. For use-related disputes, regulators may act under the Advertising Law or Anti-Unfair Competition Law. For marks registered and used for many years, a comprehensive assessment considering actual use and market perception is appropriate; simple invalidation based on public sentiment should be avoided[16].

Some scholars point out that determining if a mark is “gimmicky” hinges on whether it is “deceptive” or “misleading”—a highly discretionary judgment that sits at the intersection of public and private interests; over-application and severe penalties could have a chilling effect, potentially devastating the businesses relying on their brand for survival. Thus, such cases warrant particular caution in their assessment and adjudication.[17].

• Forced Withdrawal: New Ex Officio Cancellation for Non-Use

Article 57 retains the provision allowing any entity or individual to apply for cancellation of a mark unused for three consecutive years, while adding that the trademark authority may cancel such marks ex officio. This means marks that have long been idle and never actually used may be removed even without a third-party application.

This helps free up trademark resources, compress hoarding space (many bad-faith registrations are intended not for use but for sale), and reinforce the statutory obligation of genuine use. It may also have some impact on the defensive trademark portfolios of large enterprises.

The specific operational methods and frequency of ex officio cancellation remain to be clarified in subsequent implementing regulations.

7. Clarifying Nominative Use, Curbing Bad-Faith Litigation and Rights Abuse

Article 73(3) permits use of another's mark solely to indicate the purpose, applicable objects, or intended use of the goods, or to indicate the true source, provided such use does not cause confusion. This is the boundary of nominative use. Such use is common in parts sales and repair services (e.g., headphones compatible with a particular brand of mobile phone, or a repair shop indicating brands it services). Parallel importers using the brand to indicate the source of genuine goods, without altering packaging or labels, are generally considered within nominative use.

However, prominent use of another's mark on storefronts, windows, or website banners—especially copying artistically designed logos—may exceed the bounds. In the FENDI case, resellers of genuine products prominently used the "FENDI" mark on storefronts and mall signage; the court found this exceeded reasonable use, as it could mislead consumers into believing an authorized relationship existed, constituting infringement[18].

Article 81 curbs bad-faith litigation: lawsuits brought through malicious collusion or fabrication of basic facts may result in court sanctions and compensation for losses. This targets activities such as fabricating rights (e.g., forging registration certificates), manufacturing evidence (e.g., fabricated use evidence), and procedural abuse (e.g., repeated litigation to suppress competitors). Previous practice has seen cases of forged evidence to prove use, and collusive disputes to obtain well-known status recognition.

These amendments require rights holders to assert their rights based on bona fide legal foundations and within reasonable boundaries, preventing the trademark system from becoming a tool for unfair competition.

8. Strengthening Oversight of Trademark Agencies

The new Law systematically strengthens agency oversight: Article 65 extends supervision from agencies to practitioners, prohibiting simultaneous practice at two agencies and requiring personal responsibility for signed work; Article 67 provides that agencies that knowingly or should have known accept instructions for marks involving such as deceptiveness, hoarding, or infringement face fines up to RMB 200,000 for the agency and RMB 100,000 for individuals, with possible suspension in serious cases; Article 69 extends oversight to cross-border services, applying domestic agency penalty provisions to those who, by fraudulent means, handle foreign trademark filings for Chinese clients to the detriment of interests.

China's trademark agency market has long suffered from uneven professional quality and inadequate regulatory oversight. Some agencies have turned trademark registration into speculative business, condoning or even actively facilitating bad-faith squatting and hoarding. The increasing overseas expansion of Chinese brands has also led to unethical agencies driving overseas squatting.

Since 2019, CNIPA has conducted special regulatory campaigns against intellectual property agencies. As of early 2023, it had interviewed over 7,400 agencies, ordered rectification of over 4,500, imposed over 680 warnings and fines, and confiscated over RMB 32 million. Typical cases include agencies with the filing for Olympic mascot "Bing Dwen Dwen" and using "cash-on-delivery" schemes to trick registrants into signing for solicitation materials[19].

The strengthened oversight is a double-edged sword: on one hand, it can curb agency participation in bad-faith squatting and hoarding; on the other, the significantly higher compliance bar—especially personal liability for agency of "deceptive/misleading" marks (fines + suspension of practice)—may cause practitioners to become overly cautious in assessing registrability and make it difficult for them to effectively mitigate personal risks, particularly given the already overly broad application of the “deceptive/misleading” prohibition clause. How to strengthen oversight while avoiding collateral damage to compliant practitioners remains to be seen.

III. Conclusion

Overall, the 2026 Trademark Law amendment, while maintaining the existing framework, supplements and revises the rules concerning cross-border well-known mark confirmation, bad-faith registration regulation, dynamic mark protection, genuine use guidance, and agency oversight. It does not adopt more progressive reforms proposed in an earlier draft such as compulsory use declaration or compulsory transfer of maliciously squatted marks to their rightful owners, but instead provides clearer guidance by refining existing rules, reflecting an "incremental improvement" approach.

The new Law curtails speculative trademark activities from various angles. However, issues merit attention in implementation: the boundaries of the "deceptiveness/misleading" provision need clarification, and stricter examination should not directly result in the imposition of administrative penalty for use; combating "gimmicky marks" should avoid classifying tolerable commercial expressions into the prohibited category; and strengthened agency oversight should not inadvertently harm legitimate practitioners through excessive compliance requirements.

For right holders, the new Law offers stronger tools for well-known mark protection and combating bad-faith filings, while significantly raising the compliance bar for trademark registration and use through administrative penalties and ex officio cancellation mechanisms. Right holders must more proactively and diligently review their trademark portfolios and use practices—leveraging the new mechanisms to safeguard brand interests, while rigorously avoiding conduct that could trigger administrative penalties or revocation due to oversight or improper use.

The implementation effect and enforcement standards of the new Law remain to be further clarified by the supporting implementing regulations, and we will continue to monitor developments.

References

[1] https://www.cnipa.gov.cn/art/2026/6/26/art_3685_206939.html

[2] https://www.chinaiplawupdate.com/2026/06/translation-of-chinas-2026-amended-trademark-law/

[3] https://www.marks-clerk.com/insights/latest-insights/102lz33-china-reviews-fifth-trade-mark-law-amendment/

[4] https://www.marks-clerk.com/insights/latest-insights/102mgxc-china-is-revising-its-trade-mark-law-procedural-rights-are-being-tightened/

[5] https://www.cnipa.gov.cn/art/2023/1/13/art_75_181410.html

[6] https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/ro6U1sx10HoZKkWOJjulzA

[7] https://www.tilleke.com/insights/tilleke-gibbins-successfully-helps-luckin-coffee-enforce-its-brand-in-thailand-with-historic-damages-in-landmark-judgment/

[8] https://www.zhichanli.com/p/788887343

[9] http://www.legalweekly.cn/fzzg/2026-07/02/content_9416894.html

[10] https://www.163.com/dy/article/KKRDSMA0051200BP.html?

[11] https://v.wjx.cn/vm/eIheI43.aspx

[12] https://www.chinanews.com.cn/sh/2026/01-23/10557842.shtml

[13] https://xinwen.bjd.com.cn/content/s6a155ba9e4b03fa51a7ed994.html

[14] https://sbj.cnipa.gov.cn/sbj/zldyqpxsb/202604/t20260427_38170.html

[15] https://finance.sina.com.cn/wm/2025-03-21/doc-ineqkqsq4061945.shtml

[16] https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/gTHZHJ24m8Lcnfv7Zwlhkw

[17] http://www.ipforefront.com/m_article_show.asp?id=5904

[18] https://www.marks-clerk.com/insights/latest-insights/102ju6d-case-study-chinese-courts-prohibit-unfair-use-in-retail-trade/

[19] https://www.cnipa.gov.cn/art/2023/1/10/art_53_181357.html

Subscribe to receive more articles like this here.