Revised Anti-Unfair Competition Law Expands Acts Of Confusion (2025)

Recent changes to China's Anti-Unfair Competition Law reshape how businesses can use trade names, branding and search keywords. Practices that are commonly used in digital marketing now carry clearer legal risk. We look at what has changed, why it matters, and provide practical tips for brand owners.

The Standing Committee of the 14th National People's Congress passed the revision of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China on 27 June 2025, which came into effect on 15 October 2025.

One of the core contents of the revised Anti-Unfair Competition Law is Article 7, which focuses on refining and expanding provisions regarding acts of confusion in the market. This revision aims to address challenges posed by new, emerging forms of unfair competition in the digital economy era, particularly issues related to trade name infringement and the use of search keywords.

For companies operating in or connected with China, these changes have direct implications for branding strategies, digital marketing and compliance planning. Understanding how the revised rules on "acts of confusion" are likely to be interpreted and enforced is increasingly important, not only to avoid disputes but also to protect brand value and market position in a fast evolving regulatory environment.

In this article, we will analyze the revised Article 7 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, evaluate its role in regulating market competition and protecting the legitimate rights and interests of business operators, and explore potential issues as well as corresponding response strategies during its implementation.

Key takeaways

• China's revised Anti-Unfair competition law significantly expands the rules on "acts of confusion", with a particular focus on digital and online commercial behaviour.
• The updated Article 7 strengthens protection for trade names, trademarks and other commercial identifiers, including their use in enterprise names and as search keywords.
• Businesses operating in or connected with China will need to reassess branding, naming and digital marketing practices to manage increased compliance and enforcement risk.

Key amendments in Article 7

The revised Article 7 introduces four major changes to the 2019 version: expands the scope of prohibited Acts of Confusion to cover online identifiers, trade name misuse and the setting of others' commercial identifiers as search keywords.

It also introduces an explicit prohibition on assisting acts of confusion, strengthening accountability across the market.

Article 7 of the 2025 revision

Scope of protected items (Paragraph 1)

The scope of Acts of Confusion have now been expanded to include unauthorised and misleading uses of "online names, the name of a new media account, the name of an application, or an icon".

Trade name infringement (Paragraph 2)

An act of confusion is expanded to include unauthorized and misleading use of "another person's registered trademark or unregistered well-known trademark as the trade name in an enterprise name".

Search keyword use & rules (Paragraph 2)

Any unauthorized and misleading use of "setting another person's product name, enterprise name (including an abbreviation or trade name), registered trademark, or unregistered well-known trademark as a search keyword" also constitutes an act of confusion.

Aiding Acts of Confusion prohibited (Paragraph 3)

It is now an offence for business operators to aid others in committing acts of confusion.

Extending beyond traditional trade name infringement to cover online names, app identifiers and search keywords, the revisions to Article 7 reflect the legislators' proactive response to new, emerging forms of unfair competition in the digital economy era.

They strengthen protection against confusing uses of brands and business identifiers, and broaden liability – making enforcement more effective in complex digital and platform based environments.

Harmonisation with existing Trademark Law

The new Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law aligns with Article 58 of the Trademark Law, which clarifies that the use of another person's registered trade mark or unregistered well-known trade mark as a trade name to mislead the public constitutes an act of unfair competition, thereby harmonizing the provisions of the two laws on this issue.

It provides a clearer legal basis for determining trade name infringement and enhances the consistency and predictability of legal application.

The current mainstream judicial practice regarding trade name infringement on prior trade mark rights issues are:  

Non-prominent use of a trade name is regulated under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law (previously under Item 4 of Article 6, now under paragraph 2 of Article 7)

In the case of Xuanwo Automotive Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd ("Xuanwo") v. Qiaoba Taifeng Co., Ltd. ("Qiaoba Taifeng"), etc., the Intermediate People's Court of Hangzhou ruled that Qiaoba Taifeng, despite being aware of the reputation and influence of the registered trademarks of Xuanwo, such as "G.PATTON", still used the corporate names "USG-PATTONVEHICLESINC." and "USG-PATTONGROUP", which are identical or similar to the said registered trademarks.

Such acts are likely to mislead others into believing that the products at issue belong to Xuanwo or that there is a connection between Qiaoba Taifeng and Xuanwo. Qiaoba Taifeng has the intent to free-ride on the goodwill of Xuanwo's registered trademarks, and such acts are likely to cause confusion objectively. Therefore, Qiaoba Taifeng's acts constitute unfair competition under Item 4 of Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law (2019).

Prominent use of a trade name (similar to trademark use) is regulated under the Trademark Law (Article 57 of the Trademark Law)

In the case of Delixi Group Corporation ("Delixi Group") v. Shanghai Delixi Switch Company Limited ("Shanghai Delixi Switch"), Shanghai Delixi Switch prominently used its trade name "上海德力西" (Shanghai Delixi) and "上海德力西开关" (Shanghai Delixi Switch) on packaging and promotional materials for similar goods.

The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court (Court of Second Instance) ruled that the term "德力西" (Delixi) is the most distinctive part, serving to identify the source of the goods, and such usage qualifies as trademark use. The term "德力西" (Delixi) is similar to the registered trademarks of the Delixi Group, such as ; and the relevant public may be confused with Delixi Group's registered trademarks. The Delixi Group's "德力西" (Delixi) trademarks enjoy high fame and reputation, and such usage by Shanghai Delixi Switch demonstrated a clear intent to take a free-ride on the reputation of the Delixi Group's well-known trademarks, thereby constituting trademark infringement.

That said, the revised Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law does not distinguish between prominent use and non-prominent use of trade names. How the revised law will affect the application of the existing judicial interpretations regarding "prominent use of trade names" remains to be seen.

Setting commercial identifiers as search keywords

 The use of search keywords has become a high-risk area for unfair competition disputes.

The newly introduced Paragraph 2 of Article 7 clarifies that setting another person's product name, enterprise name (including an abbreviation or trade name), registered trademark, or unregistered well-known trademark, among others, as a search keyword to mislead the public constitutes an act of confusion.

By explicitly defining the improper use of others' business identifiers as search keywords as an act of confusion, this revision effectively fills the regulatory gap in online search-related competition, providing clearer legal boundaries for enterprises' digital marketing behaviors.

Practical recommendations

 With the implementation of the newly revised law, enterprises should strengthen compliance management, respect others' intellectual property rights, abide by the principles of good faith, and jointly maintain a fair and competitive market environment.

To reduce the risk of misleading or infringing uses of trade name or keywords, we should keep the following in mind:

• Avoid using others' influential registered trademarks, well-known trademarks, or influential trade names as a trade name, particularly for identical or similar goods or services.
• Conduct thorough searches before registering a trade name to avoid conflicts with influential trademarks or trade names.
• Prioritise distinctive and easily recognizable trade names to reduce infringement risks.
• Register trade names as trademarks to secure legal protection.
• Avoid using others' influential trademarks or trade names as search keywords that could mislead the public.

How we can help

Recent changes to China's Anti-Unfair Competition Law significantly raise the stakes for how businesses name themselves, market their products and operate online. Practices that were once treated as grey area commercial tactics, such as the use of trade names, online identifiers or competitors' brands as search keywords are now more clearly regulated and exposed to legal risk.

Our teams are well-informed about all of the local changes and strategic nuances across the range of jurisdictions we assist clients with. If you are looking for clear, actionable and strategic guidance at any stage of your trade mark registration, reach out to our team.

Contributor: Serene Khoo, Trademark Associate, Malaysia