2-7-2026
The fifth revised Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China (“New Trademark Law”) was officially adopted on June 26, 2026, and will take effect on January 1, 2027. The New Trademark Law continues to refine mechanisms to combat bad faith filings, enhances penalties and consequences on misleading use of trademarks, expands the applicability of well-known marks and expands eligible protectable marks.
This article highlights the key changes in the New Trademark Law and its implication to rightful owners, and addresses the changes proposed in draft amendment released by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) in 2023 and the second draft released in December 2025 not adopted in the New Trademark Law.
Combating Bad Faith Filings and Misleading Use
While combatting bad faith filings has been the authorities’ key initiative since the 2013 third revised Trademark Law, as the authorities become more experienced in adjudicating cases involving bad faith, the New Trademark Law clarified and refined the definition of bad faith, and further discouraged bad faith filings by introducing administrative sanctions against bad faith filers.
Provisions of Bad Faith in Combating Bad‑Faith Trademark Filings
The New Trademark Law clarifies the criteria for bad-faith trademark filing. It replaces the vague blanket term "bad faith" with objective standards. The New Trademark Law provides that where an application for trademark registration is filed for a purpose other than use and exceeding what is required for normal production and business operations, registration shall be refused. (Article 19 of the New Trademark Law, Article 4 of the 2019 Trademark Law). The New Trademark Law further clarifies that obtaining trademark registrations through deceptive or other improper means can serve as a legal basis in both opposition and invalidation proceedings (Articles 36 and 50 of the New Trademark Law). Another notable amendment in bad faith provisions relates to the prohibition on pre‑emptive filings of unregistered trademarks that have acquired a certain degree of influence via illicit means. The new Law clarifies that “intentional” pre‑emptive filings of such marks are prohibited (Article 24 of the New Trademark Law). The addition of the wording of “intentional” is worth noticing. We would continue to monitor the CNIPA’s decisions as to whether evidence on intent or subjective intent is required in establishing this provision.
For redress against bad-faith trademark registrations, the New Trademark Law did not include the compulsory transfer regime proposed in the initial draft amendment. Accordingly, rightful owners still need to pursue invalidation proceedings against bad faith trademark registrations.
Administrative Penalties against Entities that File Marks in Bad Faith or Use Marks in a Misleading Way
Notably, the New Trademark Law introduced administrative penalties for bad faith filings, reinforcing efforts to deter abusive filings and hold bad faith filers accountable. Particularly, 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 pre-emptive applications for trademarks of others that have a certain degree of influence.
A violation of the above would result in warning and/or a maximum fine of RMB 100,000 (~USD 14,700).
(Article 54 of the New Trademark Law)
Despite the heightened scrutiny of marks that may mislead or deceive the public or exert negative social influence, we are of the view that the provision is unlikely to have a material impact on law‑abiding brand owners. 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.
Also, the new Trademark Law stipulates civil liability for parties sustaining losses from malicious trademark lawsuits, giving defendants with a remedy against abusive litigation. (Article 81 of the New Trademark Law)
Intensified Punishment against Misleading Use of Trademark Marks
The new Trademark Law has intensified efforts to crack down misleading use of registered trademarks. Entities that use registered trademarks in a misleading way would be warned and fined. Where revenue from illegal turnover falls below RMB 50,000 (~USD 7360), the maximum administrative fine is up to RMB 250,000 (~USD 36,800). Where the illegal turnover is above RMB 50,000 (~USD 7360), the administrative fine can be five times of the illegal turnover. Failure to remedy non-compliance within the prescribed period will result in the direct cancellation of the trademark registrations. (Article 56 of the New Trademark Law) It is worth noting that the penalty is far higher than that proposed in the 2nd draft amendment circulated in December 2025.
The New Trademark Law also imposes harsher penalties on violations committed by trademark agencies, including those that knowingly assist clients in applying for marks that are misleading, deceptive, filed in bad faith, etc. Furthermore, officials that approve trademark registrations that should otherwise be not approved under the law and causing negative impact may face disciplinary actions. (Article 67 and Article 84 of the New Trademark Law)
The New Trademark Law also specifically provides that the public can file complaints to the relevant authorities on the misleading use of registered trademarks and trademark infringement. (Article 70 of the New Trademark Law)
From the breadth and strength of provisions against registration of deceptive marks and use of registered marks in a misleading way, we can see that combatting misleading trademarks is a key area which the authorities wish to address under the New Trademark Law. Given such emphasis, we consider that the CNIPA may be more cautious in examining marks that may be interpreted as misleading and deceptive, and may be more stringent on their examination standard.
Widened Scope of Protection and Applicability of Well-known Trademarks
The New Trademark Law retains the proposed provisions relating to the protection scope and recognition of well-known trademarks in the 2nd draft amendment. Particularly, in cases involving the registration of trademarks copying well‑known marks on dissimilar goods or services, such protection in the existing 2019 Trademark Law is confined to well-known trademarks registered in China. The New Trademark Law extends protection to well‑known trademarks unregistered in China. Also, the New Law specifies that the well-known status of trademarks may be confirmed in the examination of unfair competition disputes. (Article 21 and 63 of the New Trademark Law)
Another notable amendment of the New Trademark Law is the mechanism for confirming well-known trademark status in China for overseas proceedings. In the New Trademark Law, where in the course of the examination and adjudication of an overseas trademark registration or the handling of an overseas trademark case, if it is required to prove that the trademark is well known to the relevant public in China, the party may request the authorities to confirm the well-known status of the trademark. (Article 69 of the New Trademark Law) While confirming well-known status in China has always been granted on a need-to basis where there is a dispute in opposition, invalidation or infringement proceedings in China where all other provisions of the Trademark Law cannot adequately protect the claimant’s rights, such mechanism is a major expansion of applicability of well-known status confirmation in China. This mechanism would be particularly helpful for Chinese and international companies that have substantial fame and reputation in China whose marks are squatted overseas or are engaging in international disputes.
Suspension Procedure
Codifying existing examination practices, the New Trademark Law 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 can suspend the proceedings. (Article 41 of the New Trademark Law)
While a more progressive approach was adopted in the 2nd draft amendment, which provides that the CNIPA “should generally” suspend the proceeding in such circumstances, as opposed to “can”, this was not adopted in the New Trademark Law. Also, the more controversial provision in the 2nd draft amendment, which indicates that the appellate court should base its finding on the trademark status as of the time when the CNIPA’s decision was made, was also not adopted.
In other words, the provision on suspension procedure between the New Trademark Law and the current Trademark Law are substantively identical. As the current practice concerning suspension is already mature and stable, it is likely the current practice to suspend on-going cases pending the resolution of procedures against the cited marks would continue after the New Trademark Law becomes effective.
Lifting the ban on Trademark Re-filing and Implication to Defensive Filings
Restrictions on re‑filing marks covering identical goods or services within a period in the first draft amendment 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.
However, as discussed above, the New Trademark Law has refined the provision on prohibition of marks that are not filed for use:-
“where an application for trademark registration is filed in bad faith for a purpose other than use and exceeding what is required for normal production and business operations, registration shall be refused.” (Article 19 of New Trademark Law)
With the removal of the term “bad faith”, we would continue to see if the CNIPA would be more stringent in bulk defensive filings covering multiple unrelated classes, even by good faith companies.
CNIPA’s Power to Cancel Trademarks and Removal of Statement of Use Requirements
While the first draft amendment suggested a statement of use requirement mandating trademark owners to submit statements of use every five years after registration, this was not retained in the New Trademark Law. Instead, the New Trademark Law introduces a new provision empowering the CNIPA to initiate ex officio cancellation procedures if the mark is not used in the past 3 years. (Article 57 of New Trademark Law) It is worth noting that compared to the 2nd draft amendment, the New Trademark Law provides that the specific measures shall be prescribed by the CNIPA.
This provision empowers the CNIPA to further introduce mechanisms to clear the register and curb the prevalent issue of registered-but-unused trademarks. We would continue to closely monitor any further measures or regulations taken by the CNIPA.
Other Notable Proposed Amendments
The New Trademark Law also introduces the below notable amendments:
- recognition of motion marks as registrable trademark;
- confirm that online trademark use constitutes use of a trademark under the Law;
- 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.
Implications to Rightful Owners
The New Trademark Law shows a measured approach in improving trademark registration, administration and rights enforcement. As with the previous amendments in 2013 and 2019, we expect that the CNIPA and other authorities may begin to gradually shift its practice to address the concerns reflected in the new amendments, even before the New Trademark Law becomes effective on January 1, 2027. Also, similar to the previous rounds of revisions, we expect that further implementing regulations may be enacted to implement the New Trademark Law. We will continue to closely monitor developments and provide updates, particularly regarding any CNIPA regulations on ex officio cancellation of trademarks that have not been used for three years.
Trademark owners need to fully document trademark use, regularly review portfolios and update its defensive filing strategy, step up monitoring of malicious applications amid shorter opposition windows. Rightful owners should also remain attentive to any changes in evidence requirements in establishing the bad faith element.
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 over 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.
