China's 2026 Trademark Law Revision - 10 Changes Reshaping Brand Protection

China's fifth revision to its Trademark Law was passed in June 2026 and takes effect from 1 January 2027. It is not simply an incremental amendment, but the biggest major structural overhaul since 2013.

The revision reflects a direction stated explicitly by China's legislative authority, marking a shift from a system-centred on registration, to one that emphasises genuine use and penalises conduct that exploits the registration framework without a commercial basis.

The changes touch registration standards, enforcement mechanisms, well-known mark protection, agency regulation, and the treatment of online trademark use. We set out 10 key changes of practical significance for legal professionals and brand owners.

1. Bad-faith filings - from refusal to financial penalty

The 2019 law provided that trademark applications filed "not for the purpose of use" in bad faith should be refused. The revised law adjusts the language to "not intended for use, and clearly exceeding normal production and business needs." It's a change of wording that's intended to be more objective, and is expected in practice to reduce the risk of inadvertent impact on legitimate defensive registrations.

New financial penalties: The revised law introduces financial penalties for bad-faith trademark applicants. Where an applicant commits any of three enumerated categories of bad-faith registration conduct causing adverse effects, the trademark enforcement authority may issue a warning and impose a fine of up to RMB 100,000 (US$14,700). The three categories are knowingly applying for a mark that falls within the prohibited signs provisions (Articles 15 and 16(1)), applying in violation of Article 19 (not intended for use or using improper means) and intentionally applying in violation of Articles 21, 22, or 24 (well-known mark squatting, agent/representative squatting, or prior rights infringement).

The agency liability dimension: The new law extends responsibility to trademark agencies. An agency that knows or should know that a client's filing falls into the bad-faith category, and accepts the instruction anyway, bears corresponding legal liability.

2. Shorter opposition period - from three months reduced to two

Article 36 of the revised law shortens the period for filing an opposition against a published trademark application from three months to two following the date of publication.

The operational consequence: The two-month window is not merely shorter — it is structurally more demanding. A party seeking to oppose must identify the problematic application, retrieve the applicant's details, assess relative rights and grounds, conduct clearance searches, prepare grounds, engage counsel in the relevant jurisdiction - and file. The compressed timeline moves this from a process that could tolerate some internal delay to one that cannot.

Monitoring implications: Companies that conduct trademark watches on a quarterly or less frequent basis will structurally miss applications published between watch cycles. Monthly monitoring is now the minimum cadence for any brand with material China exposure. Automated watch systems need to be configured to surface potential conflicts faster.

3. Non-traditional dynamic marks now registrable, functionality doctrine extended

Article 14 of the revised law adds dynamic marks to the list of registrable signs, alongside text, figures, letters, numbers, three-dimensional marks, colour combinations, and sound marks. At the same time, Article 18 extends the functionality exclusion — previously applied only to three-dimensional marks — to all non-traditional mark types. A dynamic effect that arises from the nature of the goods, is technically necessary, or provides substantial value to the goods cannot be registered as a trademark.

The practical scope: Dynamic marks cover animated logos, motion graphics, and other time-based brand identifiers used in digital environments — start-up sequences, app animations, loading screens. The category is commercially significant but was previously unregistrable in China.

The functionality ceiling: The extension of the functionality doctrine to all non-traditional marks is the counterweight. Businesses seeking to register non-traditional marks — whether motion, colour, sound, or position marks — need to be able to demonstrate that the distinctive element does not arise from technical necessity or product value.

4. The indicative use and ex officio non-use cancellation

The revised law introduces two related provisions on trademark use, including indicative use and ex officio non-use cancellation – action taken by the authority itself.

Ex officio cancellation authority for non-use: Article 57 of the revised law adds a new paragraph granting the State Council trademark authority the power to initiate cancellation proceedings on its own motion against registered trademarks that have become generic for their registered goods, or that have not been used for three consecutive years without legitimate reason.

Under the 2019 law, three-year non-use cancellation could only be initiated by third parties. The new ex officio authority supplements rather than replaces the existing third-party cancellation mechanism. Notably, this has raised concern among some enterprises about the potential for defensive trademark registrations to be cancelled.

Indicative use – a new fair use clarification: Article 73 of the revised law adds a new category of permitted use that does not constitute infringement. Use of a registered trademark solely to indicate the purpose, intended users, or application scenarios of the goods, or to indicate the true source of goods, cannot be prohibited by the trademark owner — provided such use does not cause confusion.

This is a codification of descriptive/ indicative fair use as a defence, consistent with existing practice.

5. Misleading trademark use - administrative penalties and cancellation

The revised law introduces a two-layer mechanism addressing trademarks that mislead consumers about the nature, quality, craftsmanship, raw materials, or geographic origin of goods.

At the registration stage: an applicant who knowingly files a trademark that is deceptive or likely to mislead the public, causing adverse effects, faces a warning and a fine of up to RMB 100,000 (US$14,700) from trademark enforcement authorities.

At the use stage, a registered trademark used in a misleading manner, triggers an order to rectify. If the illegal business turnover exceeds RMB 50,000 (US$7,400), a fine of up to five times the illegal turnover may be imposed. If turnover is below RMB 50,000 (US$7,400), or non-existent, a fine of up to RMB 250,000 (US$34,000), applies. Failure to rectify within the required period results in revocation of the registered trademark by the State Council trademark authority.

The commercial context: This provision addresses the use of a registered trademark in a manner that misleads the public, including what has been widely discussed in China as so-called scheming trademarks - when a mark that appears unremarkable at registration is used in combination with other elements to mislead consumers about the nature, function, ingredients, or other characteristics of goods or services.

6. Expanded protection for well-known marks - unregistered marks gain cross-class coverage

Article 21 of the revised law removes the distinction between registered and unregistered well-known marks for the purposes of cross-class protection. Under the 2019 law, only registered well-known marks could block applications in dissimilar goods categories. The new law extends this protection to unregistered well-known marks: a trademark application for dissimilar goods that constitutes reproduction, imitation, or translation of another party's well-known trademark — whether registered or not — and that is likely to mislead the public in a way that could damage the well-known trademark holder's interests, will be refused and prohibited from use.

The evidentiary threshold remains high: Proving that a mark is well-known before CNIPA (China National Intellectual Property Administration) or the courts, requires substantial evidence of market recognition. That includes survey evidence, revenue data, advertising expenditure, media coverage, and prior enforcement history. The new provision extends the legal consequence of that recognition, but it does not lower the bar for achieving it.

Reinforcing the individual case rule: The revised law reaffirms that well-known trademark status is determined on a case-by-case basis. It remains prohibited to advertise a product as carrying a "well-known trademark" designation. This restriction is now stated more firmly than in prior versions.

7. One-year filing bar narrowed to voluntary cancellations only

Article 49 of the revised law makes a significant and somewhat counterintuitive change to the one-year filing bar. Under the 2019 law, a one-year bar applied in three circumstances: where a mark had been cancelled, declared invalid, or had lapsed through non-renewal. The new provision narrows this to a single circumstance when the trademark registrant has applied to cancel the registration.

This change significantly improves registration efficiency for most situations. However, it introduces a practical consideration. When a later applicant negotiates with an earlier registrant to have a conflicting mark cancelled by agreement, the later applicant will now need to wait for the one-year bar following the voluntary cancellation to expire before the new application can be approved.

8. Malicious litigation clarified and damages calculation refined

On the trademark infringement litigation front, the new law enumerates specific conduct for malicious trademark litigation and refines the damages calculation methodology to elevate infringer's gains to first order.

Malicious trademark litigation - specific conduct enumerated with civil liability: Article 81 of the revised law refines the provision on malicious trademark litigation. The 2019 law contained a general statement that parties bringing trademark litigation in bad faith would be sanctioned by the court. The revised law specifies two categories of conduct - malicious collusion between parties, and unilateral fabrication of the basic facts of a case. It further provides that where such conduct causes loss to the opposing party, the responsible party bears civil liability for that loss.

This provides clearer criteria for courts to identify and address abusive litigation than the prior general formulation.

Damages calculation - infringer's gains elevated to first-order method: Article 77 of the revised law adjusts the hierarchy of damages calculation methods. Under the 2019 law, the primary method was the rights holder's actual loss, with the infringer's gains as an alternative where actual loss was difficult to establish. The revised law places the infringer's gains on equal footing with the rights holder's actual loss as co-equal first-order methods, giving the rights holder greater flexibility to choose the basis for the claim.

The remaining elements — reference to license fees, statutory damages of up to RMB 5 million (US$736,000), and the explicit inclusion of reasonable enforcement costs in the damages amount — are unchanged.

9. Trademark agency regulation - strengthened obligations and penalties

Articles 65 to 68. of the revised law substantially expand the regulatory framework for trademark agencies and individual practitioners.

Key changes mean agencies and practitioners are now expressly required to register their information with the State Council trademark authority. Failure to do so attracts a fine of up to RMB 50,000 (US$7,400). The enumerated categories of prohibited conduct for agencies have been expanded to six, including conflict-of-interest representation, accepting instructions that the agency knows or should know involve bad-faith filings, and violation of the prohibition on self-filing beyond the agency's own services. Penalties for agencies have been increased, with serious violations attracting fines of up to RMB 200,000 (US$29,500).

Individual practitioners are now separately regulated - they may not accept instructions independently outside their agency, may not work for two or more agencies simultaneously, and are responsible for the work they personally sign off on. Fines of up to RMB 100,000 (US$14,700) apply to serious violations.

10. Internet and digital environment - express recognition of online use

The revised law expressly includes online use — on e-commerce platforms, social media, and other digital channels — within the definition of trademark use for the purposes of resisting non-use cancellation proceedings, and within the scope of infringing acts subject to administrative enforcement.

The practical significance: The explicit inclusion resolves a question that has been addressed inconsistently across proceedings - whether activity on Chinese digital platforms - Tmall, JD.com, Xiaohongshu, Douyin, WeChat - constitutes use of a trademark in commerce sufficient to satisfy use obligations.

This change has direct relevance to both non-use cancellation proceedings and trademark infringement cases. It codifies in the Trademark Law itself a position that has been applied in practice, providing a clear statutory basis for treating online commercial activity — including use on e-commerce platforms, social media, and digital advertising — as qualifying trademark use.

What brand owners and counsel should do next

Taken together, the 2026 revision tightens the conditions for obtaining trademark rights, raises the cost of bad faith conduct at every stage of the trademark lifecycle, and expands the tools available to rights holders whose marks have genuine commercial standing. The shift from registration-centred model to a more balanced model between registration and genuine use, is not merely a legislative preference, but expressed in specific penalty provisions, new enforcement powers, and clearer standards that courts and administrative authorities will apply from 1 January 2027.

For IP counsel and brand owners with China exposure, the six months before the effective date are the window in which portfolio positions, monitoring arrangements, and agency relationships can be reviewed against the new framework before it applies.

If you would like to discuss how these changes may impact your trademark strategy in China, please contact Jian Xu from our Intellectual Property team.

Read the original article on GowlingWLG.com