China Passes Revised Trademark Law: Key Changes for Trademark Owners

On 26 June 2026, the 23^rd session of the Standing Committee of the 14^th National People's Congress passed the revised Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China ("Trademark Law"). It will come into effect on 1 January 2027.

1. Background

The Trademark Law has been in effect since 1983 with multiple revisions in 1993, 2001, 2013 and 2019 respectively. In recent years, issues including bad-faith trademark squatting and mass filing of trademarks with no actual use purpose have remained prominent in China. To combat such improper practices and shift away from the trademark management model that overemphasizes registration while neglecting actual trademark use, the newly revised Trademark Law has introduced comprehensive systematic improvements.

Its structure has been expanded from eight chapters to nine, with the total number of articles increased from 73 to 87. This revision covers a wide range of content such as refined trademark registration conditions, enhanced well-known trademark protection, and strengthened enforcement mechanisms, etc. This newsletter will focus exclusively on core revisions impacting trademark owners’ business operations, excluding specific areas such as misconduct of trademark agencies.

2. Key revisions

a) Refinement of trademark application

• Clarified definition of trademark and trademark use

For the first time, Article 2 of the revised Trademark Law defines the concept of a trademark in statutory terms as "a sign used to identify and distinguish the source of goods or services". The definition of trademark use has also been moved forward from Article 48 to Article 2 for the unification of foundational trademark definitions. To address the demands of the digital economy, the law explicitly stipulates that trademark use includes use via the internet and other information networks. For trademark owners, the use of trademarks in online scenarios such as e-commerce platform product detail pages, social media promotions and livestream e-commerce, now has formal legal basis.

• New introduction of motion trademarks

In addition to traditional trademarks including word marks, figurative marks, letter marks, numeral marks, three-dimensional marks, color combination marks and sound marks, the revised Trademark Law also incorporates motion marks as a new protectable trademark category. Companies may consider filing trademark applications for motion logos such as application launch screen animations and iconic special-effect animations for trademark protection. This update aligns with international trends in trademark protection.

However, any motion effect that results exclusively from the nature of the goods themselves, is necessary to achieve a technical effect, or gives the goods substantial value, are not registrable.

• Extended scope of prohibited and unregistrable trademarks

The revised Trademark Law adds a new category of signs that are prohibited from registration and use. Signs that are identical with or similar to the name, flag, emblem, medals or emblematic elements relating to major theoretical achievements or historical events of the Communist Party of China shall not be registered and used as trademarks. This revision elevates the protection of symbols of the Communist Party of China to the same level as national symbols. 

Further, signs that may mislead consumers about a product’s manufacturing process or the raw materials used are prohibited from trademark registration and use. Therefore, companies are advised to conduct stringent compliance reviews when developing brand names and trademark designs.

b) Improvement of trademark rules

• Refinement of regulations on malicious registrations

Compared to the current standard of "not intended for use", Article 19 of the revised Trademark Law introduces a new tangible objective criterion for malicious registration, i.e. "obviously exceeding the normal needs of production and business operations". This enables examination authorities to directly reject mass applications at the application stage, without having to wait for subsequent opposition or invalidation procedures. Compared to the difficulty of proving subjective bad faith under the current law, this objective standard facilitates the examination process. Meanwhile, trademark owners may be able to reduce the time and financial resources spent on monitoring and opposing such malicious registrations.

• Shortened opposition period

The opposition period for preliminarily approved and published trademarks has been shortened from three months to two months. If no opposition is filed after this period expires, the trademark will be approved for registration. This change expedites the entire trademark registration process, yet it requires trademark owners to file oppositions promptly upon discovering new conflicting trademark applications. Therefore, it is highly recommended that trademark owners optimize their trademark monitoring mechanisms and establish rapid response procedures to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests.

• Clear rules for withdrawing trademark applications

The revised Trademark Law clearly states that both trademark registration applicants and trademark appeal applicants can voluntarily withdraw their applications. This gives trademark owners a clear legal basis to adjust their trademark strategy, so they can handle applications flexibly as their business changes.

• Unification of suspension rules for trademark examination

The revised Trademark Law expands the scope of suspension of proceedings, extending its application from opposition appeal and invalidation proceedings, to refusal appeal and opposition proceedings. This means where the determination of prior rights in any of the four types of trademark review proceedings depends on the outcome of another pending administrative or judicial case, the China National Intellectual Property Administration ("CNIPA") could suspend the review proceedings. When trademark owners face complex disputes involving multiple overlapping cases, this rule can reasonably streamline the proceedings and alleviate the burden on trademark owners.

• Improved trademark cancellation rules

The revised Trademark Law incorporates into the statutory framework the voluntary trademark cancellation regime previously provided for in the Implementing Regulations of the PRC Trademark Law. Under the new rules, trademark owners may apply to cancel all their registered trademarks or cancel the trademark registration for only some designated goods or services. Notably, trademark rights will terminate only upon publication of the cancellation gazette, rather than on the date the cancellation application is filed, as under the current rules.

Further, the current rule that identical or similar trademark applications could not be approved within one year after a trademark is deregistered, cancelled or invalidated, has been significantly changed. This one-year application restriction now only applies to trademarks voluntarily cancelled by their registrants. In practice, this means companies may file new trademark applications immediately after eliminating conflicting prior trademarks through non-use cancellation or invalidation proceedings, without the one-year waiting period. This greatly improves the efficiency of trademark portfolio planning.

c) Stronger protection for well-known trademarks

• Cross-class protection for unregistered well-known trademarks 

Under the current Trademark Law, unregistered well-known trademarks were protected only in relation to identical or similar goods or services, whereas only registered well-known trademarks could enjoy cross-class protection. The revised Trademark Law extends cross-class protection to well-known trademarks regardless of whether they are registered in China. As a result, owners of unregistered well-known trademarks may now seek protection against the use of identical trademarks by others on dissimilar goods or services. However, trademark registration is still strongly recommended whenever possible, as registered trademarks enjoy stronger protection and serve as solid evidence of ownership.

• Recognition expanded to unfair competition cases

Currently, well-known trademark recognition is only applicable to civil and administrative trademark cases. The revised Trademark Law clarifies that the People’s Courts may also recognize well-known trademarks in unfair competition litigation, and administrative enforcement authorities may recognize well-known trademark status during unfair competition investigations. For trademark owners that encounter unfair competition conduct including free-riding and improper exploitation of their brand reputation, they could claim well-known trademark protection to defend their brand against copycats and unfair business practices.

• Well-known status confirmation for overseas enforcement

The revised Trademark Law introduces a mechanism allowing trademark owners involved in overseas trademark registration reviews or case proceedings to request an official confirmation of their well-known status from the CNIPA. This provides trademark owners in China with a formal evidentiary channel to enforce their rights and resolve trademark disputes abroad.

d) Statutory right for licensors to terminate license agreements

Building on the current rules that the licensor supervises product quality and the licensee guarantees product quality, the revised Trademark Law grants a statutory right for licensors to terminate the license agreement: if the licensee fails to fulfill its quality guarantee obligations, the licensor has the right to terminate the trademark license agreement.

This rule gives trademark owners a clear legal remedy. When a licensee's product quality fails to meet standards and damages the brand's reputation, the trademark owners can directly terminate the license agreement according to the revised Trademark Law to cut losses without delay and without relying only on the termination terms written in the agreement.

e) Strengthened administrative punishment

• Bad-faith trademark applications

The revised Trademark Law defines three categories of bad-faith trademark applications: filing trademark applications for signs that are known to be prohibited from registration and use, filing trademark applications without genuine intent to use and beyond reasonable business needs, and intentionally squatting on trademarks belonging to other parties. The current Trademark Law stipulates administrative penalties such as warnings and fines, and the revised Trademark Law further establishes a clear maximum fine of RMB 100,000. This measure raises the cost of engaging in bad-faith trademark registration and makes law enforcement practices more enforceable.

• Misleading use of registered trademarks

For using a registered trademark in a way that misleads the public, the revised Trademark Law now sets tiered punishment. A trademark owner may first be ordered to rectify the violation within a prescribed period. Where the illegal business turnover is RMB 50,000 or more, a fine of up to five times the turnover may be imposed. Where there is no illegal turnover, or the turnover is less than RMB 50,000, a fine of up to RMB 250,000 may be imposed. If a correction is not made within the time limit, the registered trademark will be directly cancelled. Trademark owners should pay particular attention to avoiding trademark use that may create misleading impressions regarding a product’s ingredients, place of origin, manufacturing process, or efficacy, especially in industries such as food, cosmetics, and agricultural products. The provision may also apply where such misleading representations appear on product packaging, online product detail pages, or other marketing materials.

• Unauthorized changes to registered trademark 

The revised Trademark Law further strengthens regulatory oversight of unauthorized changes to registered trademark information. Under the new provisions, if a trademark owner alters a registered trademark, the owner’s name, address, or other registered particulars during use, it may be subject to an order for rectification, a fine of up to RMB 50,000, and, in serious cases, cancellation of the registered trademark. By contrast, the current Trademark Law provides only for cancellation where the trademark owner fails to make the required corrections and does not impose monetary penalties.

In practice, many trademark owners make certain modifications to their registered trademarks to meet business needs. Once the revised Trademark Law takes effect, trademark owners should ensure that trademarks are used in the form in which they are registered or promptly apply for registration of any modified versions, so as to mitigate the risk of administrative penalties or cancellation of the trademark registration.

• Proactive trademark cancellation by authorities

The revised Trademark Law grants the CNIPA the power to cancel trademarks on its own initiative. If a registered trademark becomes the generic name of the approved goods or has not been used for three consecutive years without proper reason, the CNIPA can cancel it by its own authority. 

Under the current Trademark Law, non-used trademarks could only be cancelled through applications filed by interested parties. In the absence of non-use cancellation applications, these non-used marks would remain registered and take up limited public trademark resources. This rule is expected to free up a substantial number of unused registrations, thereby facilitating trademark registration by new applicants.

• Unauthorized use of “well-known trademark” in commercial promotion

Under the revised Trademark Law, where trademark owners use the wording “well-known trademark” in relation to goods, advertisements, live-streaming activities, or other promotional materials, the competent trademark administrative enforcement authorities may order corrective action and impose a fine of up to RMB 100,000. By contrast, the current Trademark Law prohibits such promotional use but does not provide for monetary penalties. Trademark owners should therefore more carefully review their advertising and promotional materials.

f) Coordinated law enforcement mechanism

The revised Trademark Law establishes a complete framework for cross-authorities case transfer and coordinated law enforcement. Trademark administrative enforcement authorities shall promptly transfer trademark infringement cases suspected of involving crimes to public security organs. A new reverse transfer rule mandates public security organs, procuratorates and the People’s Courts to send cases back to trademark administrative enforcement authorities. Such a transfer is required when criminal charges cannot be pursued but administrative punishment remains necessary. All related authorities are obligated to cooperate on professional assessment, infringement identification and disposal of counterfeit goods. Currently, cases that fail to meet the threshold for criminal prosecution often fall into an enforcement gap with no follow-up administrative punishment, and this new reverse transfer system solves the issue.

The revised Trademark Law also upgrades law enforcement capabilities for trademark investigations. The trademark administrative enforcement authorities can now inspect more types of evidence including receipts, documents, records, business correspondence, audio-visual materials and electronic data. The trademark administrative enforcement authorities are also granted the power to register and preserve evidence in advance in cases where evidence may be lost or difficult to obtain later. These updated measures adapt law enforcement tools to digital evidence in e-commerce business. 

g) Optimized litigation compensation rules

• More flexible compensation calculation

Under the current Trademark Law, trademark infringement compensation followed a strict step-by-step order. The calculation must first be based on the actual losses suffered by trademark owners. If actual losses cannot be clearly determined, the infringer's profits are then considered. If neither of these can be ascertained, compensation is determined by a multiple of the trademark license fee.

The revised Trademark Law puts trademark owners' actual loss and the infringers' illegal profits on the same order. Trademark owners can choose either one to claim compensation, and do not need to first prove that their losses cannot be calculated before claiming the infringer's profits. Therefore, trademark owners can pick the method that is easier for them to prove, which significantly lowers the difficulty of providing evidence.

At the same time, the subjective requirement for punitive damages has been changed from "malice" to "intent", consistent with the wording in the PRC Civil Code and other intellectual property related laws. The maximum statutory compensation remains RMB five million. However, the provision regarding reasonable expenses for rights enforcement is placed in a separate paragraph, rather than being incorporated into the damages paragraph. This change may indicate that in future judgments, reasonable expenses will be specified more explicitly as a separate judgment part, rather than being merged into the calculation of compensation amount.

• Clarifying the timing of the non-use defense

When a trademark owner seeks damages and the alleged infringer raises a non-use defense on the grounds that the trademark owner has not used the registered trademark, the current Trademark Law did not specify the exact timeframe for this defense. The judicial practice generally required the rights holder to provide evidence of use within the three years preceding the litigation. However, the revised Trademark Law explicitly regulates that the rights holder shall prove actual use within the three years prior to the alleged infringement. For example, if a trademark was registered in 2019, infringement began in 2020, and the trademark owner did not file a litigation until 2028, the revised Trademark Law requires the trademark owner to provide proof of use within the three years preceding 2020. Therefore, the later a trademark owner discovers the infringement, the greater the burden of proving past trademark use. To mitigate this risk, trademark owners should establish routine practices for retaining trademark use evidence.

• Civil compensation for bad-faith trademark litigations

The revised Trademark Law refines the definition of abusive trademark litigation by specifying two forms of litigations, i.e. litigations filed through joint malicious collusion and litigations filed based on unilateral fabrication of material facts. It further expands the legal consequence for such misconduct from court sanctions to civil compensation liability, clarifying that any party filing these improper litigations and causing losses to the counterparty shall bear corresponding civil liabilities. This provision will effectively stop trademark owners from taking unfair advantage by filing trademark litigations against competitors.

3. Conclusion

The revised Trademark Law will officially take effect on 1 January 2027. During the upcoming six months' transition period, trademark owners should build a highly efficient trademark management system. This includes upgrading monitoring mechanisms to adapt to the shortened opposition period, as well as optimizing their application portfolio to ensure each filing meets legal requirements and aligns with actual business needs. Beyond registration, trademark owners must retain solid use evidence and actively combat infringement by claiming punitive damages as a strong deterrent. Further, supporting regulations and rules will be released afterwards. Trademark owners should closely monitor official updates and adjust their strategies accordingly to fully protect their brand value.