The China’s trademark law reform has now entered a more mature stage. The first draft released by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) in 2023 contained a number of far‑reaching proposals aimed at aggressively curbing bad‑faith trademark filings and reshaping long‑standing registration and use rules.
After considering public feedback, the CNIPA submitted the revised draft to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress for first reading in December 2025. The revised draft amendments were subsequently released shortly before 2026, reflecting a more conservative legislative approach, while maintaining a robust framework targeting bad‑faith trademark filings.
This newsletter first highlights how the current draft differs from the earlier proposal and then analyses the key features of the current draft and their likely impact on brand owners.
A Clear Shift in Legislative Approach
1. Consistent goal of combating bad faith filings
One of the most notable features of the legislative process is the consistent stance against bad‑faith trademark filings across both rounds of proposals. Both versions demonstrate the CNIPA’s clear goal to combat applications filed without intent to use and aimed at copying or exploiting the reputation of others.
What changed significantly in the second round is how this goal is implemented. The earlier draft adopted aggressive mechanisms aiming to eradicate abuse of the trademark system. By contrast, the current draft reflects a measured step back in approach, while retaining clear and targeted provisions against bad‑faith filings, together with administrative sanctions against trademark squatters, albeit in a more restrained form.
A clear example of this recalibration is the removal of the compulsory transfer mechanism. Under the first round of proposals, brand owners would have been able to request that bad‑faith registrations be transferred to them in certain circumstances, such as unauthorized filings by agents, pre‑emptive registrations targeting marks with reputation, or copies and translations of well‑known trademarks. The second round eliminates this mechanism, reverting to the traditional approach that problematic registrations will be invalidated after successful challenges.
A similar retrenchment can be seen in civil liability and administrative penalties against bad-faith filers. The earlier draft attempted to codify a detailed penalty framework, including confiscation of illegal gains, credit record consequences, and an entitlement for brand owners to recover reasonable enforcement expenses from bad faith filers. These measures were removed in the second round. What remains, in a more restrained form, is the availability of warnings and administrative fines against bad‑faith filings that give rise to “negative effects”.
2. Removal of the statement of use requirement
The first round proposed a system requiring trademark registrants to periodically submit statements of use, subject to random audits, with registrations cancelled for failure to comply. This compliance‑heavy approach was ultimately dropped.
In its place, the new draft seeks to empower the CNIPA to initiate cancellation actions on its own initiative, particularly where trademarks have not been used for three consecutive years or have become generic. The draft, however, does not clarify how or when this power will be exercised in practice.
3. Lifting the ban on trademark re-filing
Restrictions on re‑filing marks covering identical goods or services within a period were not retained, implying that brand owners may continue to re-file their marks if they are not in active use to avoid risk of non-use cancellations.
Key Features of the Second Round of Proposed Amendments
1. Combating Bad‑Faith Trademark Filings
The current draft restructures the existing provisions addressing bad‑faith trademark filings and introduces a dedicated provision targeting two specific categories of conduct:
- applications filed without intent to use and clearly exceeding normal business needs; and
- the obtaining of trademark registrations through deceptive or other improper means.
Although these proposed changes may appear modest in form, they provide clearer statutory guidance. Under the proposed amendments, the filing of a large number of applications covering goods or services unrelated to an applicant’s actual business activities is identified as a relevant factor in assessing whether an application lacks genuine intent to use. This approach reflects current examination practice but now benefits from clearer statutory articulation.
While defensive filings are not specifically addressed, in view of the current examination practice, we consider it unlikely that the CNIPA intends to restrict reasonable defensive filings.
The revised draft also clarifies that obtaining trademark registrations through deceptive or other improper means may serve as a legal ground in both opposition and invalidation proceedings. While this position aligns with existing administrative practice, it represents a meaningful clarification, as the current Trademark Law does not expressly provide for this position.
Another notable proposed amendment relates to the prohibition on pre‑emptive filings of unregistered trademarks that have acquired a certain degree of influence. The revised draft clarifies that “intentional” pre‑emptive filings of such marks are prohibited, replacing the current broad reference to “improper means”. While some view this as enhancing legal certainty, we are concerned that it may inadvertently narrow the scope of application by confining the provision to cases where bad‑faith filers can be shown to have a clear intent to engage in pre‑emptive conduct.
2. Broader Protection of Well‑Known Trademarks
The new draft expands the scope of protection for well-known marks. Under the current law, in cases involving the registration of trademarks copying well‑known marks on dissimilar goods or services, such protection is confined to well-known trademarks registered in China. The revised draft removes this restriction and proposes extending this protection to well‑known trademarks unregistered in China.
In other words, once a mark has attained a well‑known status, it will enjoy protection against copying or imitation on dissimilar goods or services irrespective of its registration status in China.
3. Administrative Penalties against Bad Faith Filers
The new draft retains the previously proposed penalties of warnings and fines against bad faith filers. Specifically, such penalties may be imposed where an applicant commits the following that causes “negative influence”: -
- intentionally filing deceptive trademarks or trademarks with negative influence;
- filing applications without intent to use that clearly exceed normal business needs;
- obtaining trademark registrations through deceptive or other improper means;
- filing trademarks being copies or imitations of well-known marks;
- filing preemptive applications for trademarks of others despite the existence of prior business relationship; or
- intentionally filing preemptive applications for trademarks of others that have a certain degree of influence.
Despite the heightened scrutiny of marks that may mislead or deceive the public or exert negative social or political influence, we are of the view that this draft provision is unlikely to have a material impact on law‑abiding brand owners. According to the CNIPA’s public statements, the legislative intent is to curb bad‑faith applications exploiting high-profile names (e.g. Olympic athletes or mascots) as well as trademarks deliberately designed to mislead consumers regarding the characteristics of goods or services.
The provision appears to empower the authorities to sanction individuals and entities that deliberately engage in such conduct, rather than bona fide applicants whose marks are merely refused on the basis of potential misleading effect, deception, or negative influence.
As for the other activities, the additional requirement of “causing negative influence” may, in practice, raise the threshold for the imposition of penalties. Penalties may therefore be reserved for cases involving manifest and evident bad faith.
Encouragingly, the maximum administrative fine has been doubled from the amount proposed in the earlier draft to RMB 100,000 (approximately USD 14,500), which may enhance the deterrent effect against bad faith filings.
4. Suspension of Proceedings
Codifying existing examination practices, the new draft expressly provides that where the adjudication of oppositions, opposition reviews, refusal review, or invalidations depends on the outcome of another court or administrative proceedings, the CNIPA should “generally” suspend the proceedings. While the inclusion of the term “generally” leaves room for a degree of discretion, this provision nonetheless introduces greater certainty than under the current legal framework.
At the same time, the new draft introduces a degree of uncertainty in relation to administrative appeals. It provides that the people’s courts should base their review on the trademark status as of the time when the CNIPA’s decision was made. This gives rise to questions as to whether changes in the status of conflicting trademarks that occur after the CNIPA decision, but before the court renders its judgment, will be considered at the appeal stage.
If the intention is to merely clarify that the courts are not required to suspend the appeal processes pending the outcome of related court or administrative proceedings and can rely on the trademark status at the time of hearing (which is the current judicial practice), the proposed wording may warrant further clarification.
5. CNIPA’s Power to Cancel Trademarks
The CNIPA introduces a significantly less burdensome replacement for the earlier proposed statement of use requirement. The new draft proposes that the CNIPA may voluntarily cancel trademarks which are not in use for more than three years. The retreat likely stems from the strong public opposition to the earlier proposal.
At the same time, the new draft provision suggests that the CNIPA intends to retain the power to initiate campaigns aimed at clearing idle or unused trademarks from the register. Brand owners should therefore remain mindful of the potential risk of ex officio cancellation by the CNIPA and ensure that their trademarks are put to genuine commercial use. Where appropriate, they should also consider refiling strategies—particularly in light of the removal of restrictions on trademark re‑filing under the new draft.
6. Other Notable Proposed Amendments
The draft also introduces the below amendments: -
- recognition of motion marks as registrable subject matter;
- shortening of opposition periods from three months to two months; and
- removal of the requirement to observe a one‑year waiting period following the expiry, cancellation, or invalidation of a trademark before filing similar marks.
Practical Implications for Brand Owners
Taken as a whole, the second round of proposed amendments represents a refinement of the existing law, primarily codifying established practices and strengthening measures aimed at combating bad‑faith trademark filings. Encouragingly for brand owners, the earlier concerns regarding a potentially severe impact on portfolio management appear to have been largely alleviated.
Nevertheless, brand owners should remain attentive to the CNIPA’s authority to cancel idle and unused trademarks, as the precise circumstances under which such power may be exercised remain unclear.
With respect to bad‑faith filings, the express recognition of deceptive or improper registration as a ground in both opposition and invalidation proceedings is a welcome development. Brand owners may in the future pursue administrative penalties against habitual squatters to halt repeated and systemic bad-faith filing activities.
The codification of the CNIPA’s suspension practice may help reduce the need for re‑filings pending the resolution of related actions against conflicting marks. However, the provision stating that courts shall rely on the trademark status as of the time the CNIPA’s decision warrants further review and clarification as to its practical effect. On a literal reading, brand owners may in the future have to conduct clearance searches to identify conflicting marks at an earlier stage and take prompt action against them so that such actions can be resolved before the CNIPA completes its examination.
The CNIPA is now calling for public comments on the new draft. Following the consultation process, further revisions may be made before the finalized draft is submitted to the National People’s Congress for legislative review. Subject to the legislative progress, the amended Trademark Law is expected to be passed in the first half of 2026. We will continue to monitor developments closely and provide updates as the process advances.
About Us
Vivien Chan & Co. is a full-service law practice with offices in Hong Kong (1985) and Beijing (1993). We are consistently recognized as a premier law firm for and in Greater China. With 40 years of doing business in Greater China, our Hong Kong and China teams have an in-depth understanding and knowledge of the legal culture and market dynamics.
Our long established licensed law offices in Greater China have allowed us to develop deep local roots and an integrated global perspective necessary to help domestic businesses and multinational companies alike seamlessly manage even the most complex local and cross border transactions.
We have advised on some of the most significant acquisitions, arbitrations, real estate projects and intellectual property enforcement to date. This is particularly evident from our leading position in areas such as intellectual property, tax, employment, mergers & acquisitions and dispute resolution. Our ability to collaborate across practices and borders with ease allows us to bring the right team to every transaction, regardless of location.
