The State Administration of Market Regulation (SAMR) recently issued draft regulations on November 14, 2025, intended to support investigations and administrative enforcement actions by local Market Supervision Bureaux (MSBs) against online sellers of goods infringing registered trademarks.
The draft “Regulations on E-commerce Platforms Assisting in the Investigation and Handling of Trademark Infringement Cases” (the “Regulations”) build on efforts by SAMR over the last two years to expand the scope of administrative enforcement against counterfeits advertised and sold online. The Regulations draw in particular on pilot programs and new IT systems and are expected to result next year in the launch of a nationwide program through which local MSBs could become routine partners in investigations and administrative enforcement against online infringers.
Depending on how they are implemented, the Regulations could fill a critical gap in the toolkit for trademark owners dealing with counterfeiting in China. Indeed, they may well end up serving as an important model for other governments seeking innovative solutions in the dealing with online counterfeiting.
See East IP’s unofficial translation here.
See SAMR’s announcement and a link to the Chinese-language version of the draft Regulations here.
SAMR is requesting comments from the public before the deadline of December 14, 2025.
Background
Consistent with global practice, trademark owners seeking protection of their brands against online sellers in China have to date relied mainly upon “notice-and-take-down” (NTDs) in the vast majority of cases. Most companies regard NTDs as necessary, but ultimately non-deterrent, and described invariably as “wac-a-mole”, even in cases where online trade platforms have provided a substantial level of support through greater self-policing, aka “proactive measures”.
Meanwhile, brand owners with sufficient resources will typically find a degree of success in bringing infringers to justice through traditional investigations into online sellers that results in uncovering of the location of warehouse and factories, followed by raids by local police (the Public Security Bureaux or “PSBs”) or MSBs. However, such investigations frequently fail or involve significant cost due to the clever use by infringers of shell companies and other tactics. Police also lack sufficient resources to assist in early-stage investigations, and as a result, the number of infringers successfully uncovered and prosecuted through traditional investigations has proved insufficient to generate real deterrence for most IP owners.
Both in China and worldwide, trademark owners have been handicapped by the absence of a government authority that is properly resourced to act upon complaints against online sellers and intervene directly, and without the IP owner first having identified the location of infringing goods.
For over 15 years, SAMR and its predecessor (the State Administration for Industry and Commerce) have been exploring ways of dealing with the deluge of online counterfeiting in China. Following several years of testing and pilot programs, as well as engagement with leading online trade platforms and trademark owners, SAMR now appears close to launching a new channel for the filing of complaints.
Overview of the Draft Regulations
(a) Scope of Regulations: Trademarks
While local MSBs have the authority to enforce most forms of IP, the Regulations appear limited in scope to the protection of trademarks registered in China. This clearly includes counterfeits, but also infringements of marks that are just similar and/or those covering similar (but not identical) goods or services. Article 2 of the Regulations also suggests an intention to protect geographical indications and other “special marks”. For the time being, it is unlikely that local MSBs will be willing to accept complaints under the Regulations for cases involving infringements of copyrights, design patents, trade dress or other acts of unfair competition – including unregistered trademarks.
(b) Platforms Support for MSB Investigations
Article 4 of the Regulations requires platforms to provide MSBs with information on suspected infringers within 15 working days (subject to extensions upon request). This information would principally include the identity, address and contact details of sellers, and relevant transaction data.
Platforms are required under Article 4 to verify the accuracy of information before submitting it to the requesting MSB through SAMR’s new “National Online Transaction Supervision Platform”, which is effectively a clearinghouse that will allow MSBs to identify infringers that are active in multiple regions and/or on multiple platforms.
Under existing rules and policies, platforms are not normally required to provide government authorities with extensive information on how business is conducted by sellers, including their actual place of business, the location of their warehouses, etc. But Article 4 explicitly requires platforms to assist in seeking such information through notifications to sellers.
Article 4 lists out the exact types of data that platforms can demand from sellers:
- the location of the person in charge of the seller;
- the location of the personnel engaged in business activities;
- the location of the computer terminal (server) supporting the online store;
- the location of the warehouse where relevant goods are stored; and
- the location from which goods are shipped.
It remains unclear whether the above list is exhaustive or whether the MSBs can require disclosure of additional data – including the factory or other source of the goods (see below for further comment in this regard).
(c) Complaints by Rights Holders
Article 5 of the Regulations clarifies that MSBs can initiate investigations based upon complaints from the trademark owner, with complaints supported by notarized or time-stamped evidence of a sample purchase, a formal document verifying the goods as infringing and other paperwork that is routinely required of trademark owners that file administrative complaints, such as evidence of ownership of registered trademarks, a power of attorney, etc.
(d) Platform Deadline for Intervening against Sightings
Aside from supporting MSB investigations, the draft Measures effectively require platforms to take appropriate measures to deal with suspected infringements through take-downs and other measures as provided in their IP protection policies and agreements with sellers.
Article 5 of the Regulations requires platforms to notify MSBs within five working days of the measures taken to address infringements.
(e) MSB Investigations
In many (if not most) counterfeiting cases, online sellers provide false addresses for their registered corporate offices, as well as the addresses provided to platforms. Where a seller’s address is confirmed inaccurate, Article 6 of the Regulations authorizes the MSBs to instruct platforms to:
- publish a notice to the public confirming the inaccuracy;
- instruct the seller to provide accurate contact details; and
- instruct sellers to cooperate with MSB investigations into infringements.
Article 6 imposes a deadline of 48 hours for platforms to take the above actions, and they must report to the MSB with the results of their actions within five working days.
(f) Prohibition on Sellers Terminating Accounts
Article 7 of the Regulations would prohibit sellers from responding to MSB and platform investigations by closing their accounts, thereby helping to prevent the seller from avoiding fines and other MSB sanctions.
(g) Jurisdiction
In Article 8, the draft Regulations sets out principles for assigning responsibility among MSBs in different regions, with jurisdiction transferred to the MSB in the region of “the actual business location of the (seller)”. This location is alternately defined in Article 8 as covering a range of locations, including:
- the seller’s physical premises;
- the seller’s permanent residence;
- the location where the seller’s computer server is based;
- the location where the seller warehouses its products; and
- the location from which the good are shipped.
Article 8 suggests that if two or more of the above locations are known, priority will be given to transferring responsibility from the MSB receiving the administrative complaint to the MSB at the same level in “the infringer’s actual business location”.
Article 8 further clarifies that where disputes arise among different MSBs, they should attempt to decide on jurisdiction through mutual consultations, and within seven days. Failing that, jurisdiction would be decided by “the common superior (MSB)”. Where the MSBs are located in different provinces, presumably jurisdiction would be determined at the national level, by SAMR.
(h) Potential Penalties for Platforms
Article 9 of the draft Regulations indicates that where local MSBs find that a platform has failed in its duties under Articles 4 through 7, and without providing good reasons, the platform may be ordered by provincial or national authorities to rectify, failing which the platform may be subject to relevant penalties under the law.
East IP Comments on Draft Regulations
| Article / Topic | Comment |
| Suspected Criminal Cases | Under relevant Regulations of the Trademark Law, local MSBs are required to transfer cases suspected of constituting a crime to local PSBs. Query whether various provisions of the draft Regulations should be amended or supplemented to help facilitate successful transfers, including for example by requiring platforms to refrain from notifying sellers of fakes of pending investigations. |
| Article 2 – MSB Sanctions on Sellers | The draft Regulations are intended to assist local MSBs in investigating infringements, including locating their warehouses. But it is quite likely that such investigations will be unsuccessful, in which case MSBs could still impose administrative sanctions – including fines – against sellers based upon notarized or time-stamped sample purchases and transactional data gathered from platforms. It is recommended that the draft Regulations be amended to make clear that MSBs can and should impose such penalties. Otherwise, some local MSBs may decide to limit their actions to ordering platforms to take down ads for infringing goods. |
| Articles 3 and 4 – Platform Agreements with Sellers | (a) Article 4 suggests that if necessary, platforms may approach sellers of infringing goods for verification of sellers’ identity, address and contact information. But such approaches will likely put sellers on notice, thereby giving them a chance to take evasive measures. These risks can be managed in various ways. But query whether it might also be desirable to require platforms to demand sellers to provide additional information to platforms that could be useful in tracing the origin and location of goods – including the location of warehouses and factory or other supplier of goods. In that case, platforms could supply this critical information to MSBs without running the risk of alerting sellers to the fact they are being investigated. (b) Platform agreement could also be strengthened to grant platforms the right to terminate seller accounts after any incidence of counterfeiting, rather than only after “three strikes”. |
| Article 4 – Platform Requests for Info from Sellers | (a) The draft Regulations appear to give platforms the discretion to contact sellers to seek or verify information in furtherance of MSB investigations. – It is reasonable to assume that just making such approaches may tip off the seller to the MSB’s investigations. – Query also why platforms are given the discretion to contact sellers for information, and whether it might not be more effective to leave such decisions to the MSB. (b) The MSBs should have broad authority already with respect to the types of information they can request platforms to provide. But it is recommended that two particular types of data be explicitly mentioned in the Regulations: – information on prior investigations into violations by the platform against a targeted seller and the sanctions imposed on it (if any) by the platform as a result of those violations; and – the results of “cluster searches”, i.e., research by platforms into prior sales and sanctions against affiliated seller accounts, i.e., accounts operated by parties using the same bank account, contact details, address, etc., as the targeted seller. Such research can in practice be critical for determining if the targeted seller is part of an organized network that warrants deeper investigation. |
| Article 5 – Complaints by Victim Brand Owners | The draft Regulations indicate that complaints over suspected infringements may be filed by rights holders or their agents. But in many cases, the same seller offers counterfeits of multiple brands, and if sales of all infringed brands are considered, the penalties (including criminal transfers) may be significantly higher. Since most brand owners do not cooperate or coordinate their enforcement work, it is normally a decision for the MSBs to contact the affected victims to encourage them provide verification reports. It is therefore suggested that Article 5 be amended to encourage MSBs and platforms to seek verification and other support from other infringed brands. |
| Article 5(iii) – Similar marks/similar goods or services | This clause of the draft Regulations is laudable in that it suggests MSBs will be willing to investigate and make determinations of infringement in cases where the marks and/or the goods or services offered by a seller are non-identical. Traditionally, platforms have been unwilling to conduct take-downs in such cases, thus requiring that trademark owners seek remedies from the People’s Courts. Thus, Article 5(iii) offers a significant new potential remedy that will be welcomed by trademark owners. |