Source

East IP White Paper on the Draft Amendment issued by the NPC Standing Committee on December 27, 2025 (see here).

The public comment deadline is February 10, 2026, and the law is expected to be enacted in mid-to-late 2026.

Overview

The 2025 Draft Amendment proposes modest changes to the current law, with most being beneficial to trademark owners. The most notable in this regard are provisions increasing the level of administrative fines that can be imposed against trademark agents that knowingly assist bad faith filers, and provisions granting the Trademark Office of the China National IP Administration (“CNIPA”) the power to order cancellation of trademark registrations based upon non-use – a tool that is likely to be particularly helpful in addressing bad faith filers that operate on a larger scale.

The draft omits a number of proposals set out in a 2023 draft issued by CNIPA that would have offered even stronger protection against registry pirates, and it fails to address certain priority concerns of brand owners, including CNIPA’s refusal to accept consent letters and the recent trend of examiners in rejecting applications based upon a range of absolute grounds.

Summary of Key Changes Proposed

1. Strengthened Enforcement Against Bad Faith Filings:

• Article 18 codifies existing practice whereby the Trademark Office can reject applications filed without intent to use, which “obviously exceed normal production or business operational needs.” This provision is mainly intended to target trademark squatters, but may also impact legitimate defensive filings by brand owners. 
• Article 53 specifies administrative warnings and fines of up to RMB 100,000 (currently RMB 10,000 under relevant administrative regulations) for defined bad faith filings that cause adverse effects, such as filing deceptive marks, copying well-known marks, unauthorized pre-emptive registrations without prior permission or making unauthorized filings by trademark agents.
• Articles 64-67 increase penalties for trademark agents that knowingly assist in bad-faith filings, with fines of up to RMB 200,000 for agencies and RMB 100,000 for responsible individuals in serious cases. 
• Article 70(3) includes new language intended to explain the scope of “fair use” in the use of registered trademarks.  The language in this regard seems on its face to codify existing policy.  But it is unclear for now whether the NPC intended to widen or narrow the scope under particular circumstances.

2. Introduction of an “Intentional” Standard:

• Articles 23 and 74 replace the term “bad faith” with “intentional” in cases involving pre-emptive registration and determinations of damages. This change in language seems intended to bring consistency with that in other Chinese laws such as the Civil Code. It does not appear intended to alter the burden of proof for rights holders.

3. Procedural Adjustments:

• Article 35 would shorten the opposition period from three months to two months, a step that would accelerate registration but reduce the time for rights holders to conduct investigation and secure advice on potential oppositions. If introduced, we would expect that rights holders would continue to enjoy the current three month grace period after initial filing to file more detailed arguments and supporting evidence.
• Article 40 codifies that registry cases should “generally” be suspended if awaiting the outcome of a related proceeding. However, it also states courts must base rulings on facts “at the time the challenged decision was made,” potentially limiting consideration of changed circumstances later in litigation.
• Article 48 significantly relaxes the one-year “lock-up” rule under which a new filer may not secure approval for a mark within one year of its invalidation, voluntary cancellation or expiration. The draft would eliminate this restriction, which has resulted in delays in registration for many rightsholders, only to marks voluntarily cancelled by their owners. However, under the draft, a registrant that applies for cancellation of its mark who then re-applies for the same or similar marks will not be subject to this restriction.

4. Well-Known Trademark Recognition for Unregistered Marks:

• Articles 20 and 62 would allow owners of unregistered trademarks to be recognized as “well-known” and protected vis-a-vis dissimilar goods and services, something not currently allowed under the Trademark Law.

5. Other Notable Changes:

• Article 14 adds “dynamic works” (e.g., animated logos) as a new category of registrable trademark.
• Article 56 introduces fines for misleading use of a registered mark and grants CNIPA the power to proactively cancel generic trademarks or those not used for three consecutive years.
• Article 73 provides that enforcement authorities can preserve evidence during investigations.

Notable Omissions from the 2023 Draft

The 2025 draft does not include several contentious 2023 proposals, such as: a mandatory five-year use confirmation requirement for all registrations; a prohibition on repeat filings for identical marks/goods; a mechanism to transfer invalidated pirate marks to the rightful owner; an accelerated opposition appeal procedure bypassing the TRAD; and explicit provisions for civil remedies or criminal liability against bad-faith filers.

Main Concerns of Rights Holders

East IP’s White Paper recommends that the final law should:

• Explicitly state the right of victims to seek civil remedies (e.g., legal cost recovery) from bad faith filers.
• Grant courts the power to issue preliminary injunctions to stop bad faith applicants.
• Allow for registration of marks based upon coexistence agreements with the owners of similar marks, subject to reasonable conditions.
• Adopt provisions that will make it easier to obtain preliminary injunctions in serious trademark infringement cases – including all counterfeiting cases.
• Allow courts and administrative authorities the power to order online trade platforms and other intermediaries to conduct reasonable investigations into the full scope of infringing behavior, including “cluster searches” that help to identify connected online seller accounts.
• Guarantee parties’ rights to access and rebut evidence in first-stage opposition and non-use cancellation proceedings.