- within Compliance topic(s)
The National People’s Congress (NPC) published the Draft Revision to the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China on December 27, 2025, for public comment.
I. Background of the Draft Provision
China’s Trademark Law, originally enacted in 1983, has undergone four revisions. To tackle growing issues of bad-faith trademark filings and infringement, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) conducted in-depth research and public consultations before submitting a draft revision to the State Council.
Following its review, the Ministry of Justice sought written opinions from central departments, local governments, courts, associations, enterprises, agencies, and experts. It also conducted field studies in Jiangsu and Sichuan provinces. The Ministry then revised the draft with CNIPA and other relevant units. The State Council adopted the revised draft at its recent executive meeting.
II. Overall Approach and Key Provisions
The Draft Revision comprises nine chapters and 84 articles, with the following significant amendments aimed at modernizing China’s trademark regime:
- Refining the legislative purpose to explicitly serve high-quality development
The Draft Revision mandates the implementation of the national IP strategy across all aspects of trademark protection, enforcement, management, and services (Article 2) while clarifying the division of responsibilities for these functions (Article 3).
It also introduces a formal definition of a trademark and emphasizes that trademark applications and use must not harm national or public interests or infringe upon the lawful rights of others (Articles 4 and 9).
- Clarifying and consolidating registration conditions within a new chapter
It expands protectable signs to include “motion marks” but excludes color combinations, sounds, or motion effects that are dictated by the nature of the goods, necessary for technical effects, or that provide substantial value to the goods (Articles 14 and 17).
To curb abuse, it stipulates that applications filed without intent to use and that are obviously beyond normal business needs shall be rejected (Article 18). It also strengthens well-known trademark protection by prohibiting the registration of another’s well-known mark on non-similar goods, regardless of whether the mark is already registered in China (Article 20).
- Optimizing examination procedures to improve efficiency and legal certainty
It shortens the opposition period from three months to two (Article 35). Furthermore, it addresses procedural suspensions, stating that proceedings should be suspended if the determination of prior rights depends on the outcome of another pending case.
It also clarifies judicial standards, specifying that when reviewing refusal, disapproval, or invalidation decisions under Article 19, courts must base their judgments on the facts existing at the time the original decision was rendered (Article 40).
- Strengthening trademark administration to uphold fair competition
It defines specific scenarios constituting bad-faith applications and outlines corresponding penalties (Article 53). It also regulates improper use, allowing fines or cancellation for misleading use of registered trademarks, and sets out management obligations and liabilities for collective and certification marks (Articles 56(1) and 59).
To encourage genuine use, it empowers the Trademark Office to cancel marks that have become generic or have not been used for three consecutive years without justified reasons (Article 56(3)). It also tightens oversight of trademark agencies and their practitioners (Articles 64–67).
- Enhancing protection of exclusive trademark rights and safeguarding legitimate interests
It improves investigation measures against infringement and adds provisions for referring suspected criminal cases and coordinating enforcement efforts (Articles 72 and 73). It also ensures that reasonable expenses incurred to stop infringement are included in damage awards (Article 74).
To balance rights, it defines boundaries for fair use, stating that using a trademark solely to indicate the purpose, applicable object, or scenario of one’s own goods, or to state their origin truthfully, does not constitute infringement (Article 70). Notably, it introduces penalties and civil liability for malicious trademark litigation that causes losses to the defendant (Article 78).
The Draft Revision mandates the implementation of the national IP strategy across all aspects of trademark protection, enforcement, management, and services while clarifying the division of responsibilities for these functions.
III. Analysis and Expectations
Key Revisions to the 2023 Draft Revision
The latest Draft Revision introduces substantial changes to the 2023 version of the draft, by removing several highly controversial clauses, which include provisions requiring “a use undertaking to be filed at the application stage,” “prohibition of repeat filings,” “mandatory transfer of bad-faith trademarks,” and “availability of civil damages for purely malicious applications.” Instead, the revision focuses on three core goals:
- Strengthening the protection of exclusive trademark rights;
- Streamlining the trademark administration system; and
- Curbing bad-faith trademark registrations.
Upon enactment, the revised Trademark Law will expand from 8 chapters and 73 articles to 9 chapters and 84 articles, with a heightened emphasis on the obligation to use registered trademarks.
Tackling Bad-Faith Trademark Applications
The Draft Revision clearly defines the scope of bad-faith conduct, specifies typical scenarios of bad-faith trademark applications, and outlines corresponding penalties.
Core Provisions on Bad-Faith Applications
- Article 18 integrates the contents of Article 4 and Article 44(1) of the current law, targeting two major types of misconduct:
- Filing trademarks without intent to use (that is, mass hoarding of trademarks); and
- Obtaining registrations through fraud or other improper means (for example, large-scale copying or imitation of others’ trademarks).
The article stipulates that applications filed without intent to use and clearly exceeding normal production and business needs shall be rejected; registrations obtained through fraud or improper means shall be deemed invalid. As a provision under the “Conditions of Registration” chapter, it serves as a key basis for substantive examination of trademark applications.
- Article 53 identifies three categories of malicious trademark applications:
- Filing applications with full knowledge that they violate prohibitive provisions;
- Filing applications without intent to use or beyond the scope of legitimate business needs; and
- Filing applications to intentionally infringe on others’ prior rights.
For acts that cause adverse effects, offenders may face warnings or fines of up to 100,000 yuan (approximately US$ 14,200).
Outstanding Issues to Be Clarified
The practical implementation of these rules requires further clarification through supporting regulations and law enforcement practices. In particular, clear criteria need to be established for determining:
- What constitutes “adverse effects”;
- How to prove a party “has actual knowledge” of rights violations; and
- The threshold for identifying “intentional infringement.”
Clarification of these points will help avoid inconsistent penalties and ensure fairness in administrative enforcement.
The Draft Revision clearly defines the scope of bad-faith conduct, specifies typical scenarios of bad-faith trademark applications, and outlines corresponding penalties.
Reinforcing the Requirement for Trademark Use
China follows the first-to-file principle for trademark rights, meaning that registering trademarks to cover all relevant goods and services is the most effective way to secure protection. For this reason, the recommended strategy remains early and comprehensive filing.
While use of a trademark is not a prerequisite for filing an application, registrations are subject to non-use cancellation proceedings if unused for three consecutive years without just cause. The Draft Revision strengthens this rule through Article 56, which grants the CNIPA the authority to proactively cancel such unused registrations.
Penalties for Misuse of Registered Trademarks
Article 56 also specifies legal consequences for “using registered trademarks in a misleading manner,” including:
- Order to make corrections within a specified time limit;
- Fines of up to 50,000 yuan (approximately US$ 7,100) for failure to comply; and
- Cancellation of the trademark registration in serious cases.
In addition, CNIPA has issued the “Notice on Strengthening the Administration of Trademark Use,” which targets seven types of illegal or non-compliant trademark use practices. According to this notice, “misleading use” includes two typical scenarios:
- Using a registered trademark with generic product names, advertising slogans, or packaging/decorative elements in a way that misleads the public about the goods’ quality, origin, or production process; and
- Altering the registered trademark to mislead the public about product quality or to free ride on the reputation of other brands.
China follows the first-to-file principle for trademark rights, meaning that registering trademarks to cover all relevant goods and services is the most effective way to secure protection.
Expanding Protection for Well-Known Trademarks
The Draft Revision extends the protection scope of unregistered well-known trademarks in China to non-similar goods and services, marking a significant enhancement of well-known trademark protection.
Criteria for Determining Well-Known Trademarks
Article 62 lists five factors to be considered when recognizing a trademark as well-known:
- The degree of recognition of the trademark among the relevant public;
- The duration, manner, and geographical scope of the trademark’s use;
- The duration, intensity, and geographical scope of the trademark’s promotional activities;
- The record of the trademark’s protection, including (but not limited to) prior recognition as a well-known trademark; and
- Other factors contributing to the trademark’s reputation.
Notably, compared with the current law, the revised provision expands the scope of “protection records” to include favorable court judgments, administrative rulings against infringement or counterfeiting, and inclusion in local key trademark protection lists.
Evidentiary Requirements in Practice
In practice, claiming well-known trademark protection requires substantial evidence. Generally, applicants must demonstrate that the trademark has been used in the Chinese market for:
- At least three years for registered trademarks; and
- At least five years for unregistered trademarks.
Revising the Suspension Rule for Trademark Proceedings
The Draft Revision clarifies both the scope and criteria for suspending the examination of trademark cases—covering oppositions, refusal-review proceedings, and other related matters. It shifts the rule from a discretionary “may suspend” to a principle-based “shall suspend,” which standardizes adjudication criteria, reduces resource waste caused by ambiguous rules, and elevates proven administrative practices to statutory law.
A Key Limitation: No Consideration of Subsequent Factual Changes
However, the revision includes a provision restricting administrative litigation: courts hearing trademark-related administrative cases must base their judgments on facts as they existed at the time the challenged administrative decision or ruling was made. This effectively excludes the application of the doctrine of changed circumstances in such litigation.
For example, in a refusal-review case, even if the cited trademark (the basis for refusal) undergoes material changes during litigation—such as revocation, invalidation, assignment, or cancellation—the court must still rule based on the cited trademark’s valid status at the time of the original review. This may result in the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim despite subsequent changes in the factual basis.
Recognizing Motion Marks as Registrable Trademarks
To keep pace with technological development and market demand, the Draft Revision responds to the growing use of dynamic signs (for example, continuous image sequences) in commercial activities by recognizing motion marks as a new type of registrable nontraditional trademark.
Compared with the 2023 draft, the latest revision narrows the scope of protectable nontraditional trademarks to four categories:
- 3D marks;
- Sound marks;
- Color combination marks; and
- Motion marks.
Single-color marks, position marks, scent marks, and other nontraditional signs remain unregistrable under the current proposal.
Shortening the Trademark Opposition Period
The Draft Revision reduces the trademark opposition period from the current three months to two months, aiming to shorten the overall trademark registration process and improve administrative efficiency.
Implications for Opposition Applicants
The shortened timeline compresses the window for decision-making and evidence submission. Applicants intending to file oppositions must now:
- Quickly assess whether to initiate opposition proceedings; and
- Complete evidence preservation, document collation, and submission within a tighter timeframe.
This places higher demands on the timeliness, completeness, and professionalism of evidence collection. To adapt to this change, relevant parties should implement robust trademark monitoring systems and prepare opposition materials in advance.
IV. Key Takeaways and Outlook
The Draft Revision to the Trademark Law represents a targeted and pragmatic upgrade to China’s trademark legal framework, responding proactively to the demands of the digital economy, evolving market practices, and enhanced intellectual property (IP) protection.
By clarifying registration rules for new trademark forms (for example, motion marks), intensifying the crackdown on bad-faith applications, optimizing procedural efficiency through a shorter opposition period, and strengthening protections for well-known trademarks and legitimate use rights, the revision strikes a balance between three core objectives: promoting innovation, safeguarding fair competition, and streamlining administrative management.
While the draft addresses long-standing issues such as malicious registration and procedural ambiguity—by removing controversial clauses and focusing on key priorities—it still faces implementation challenges. In particular, the definition of subjective elements in bad faith claims and the coordination between suspension rules and subsequent factual changes will require further refinement through supporting regulations and consistent law enforcement.
Overall, this amendment underscores China’s commitment to improving its IP governance system, enhancing the predictability and enforceability of trademark rights, and fostering a more transparent, efficient, and fair business environment. As the draft advances through public consultation and legislative review, it is expected to establish a more robust legal foundation for supporting high-quality economic development, protecting the legitimate rights and interests of market entities, and facilitating the healthy development of China’s trademark ecosystem in the new era.
Although every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of this article, readers are urged to check independently on matters of specific concern or interest. The opinions expressed in this feature are those of the author and do not purport to reflect the views of INTA or its members.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]