China’s legislature passed amendments to the PRC Trademark Law on June 26, 2026, and the revisions take effect on January 1, 2027.

The revised law largely codifies existing policies and practices, while introducing several targeted changes that brand owners should be aware of, including a shorter opposition period, additional tools to address bad-faith filings, and increased scrutiny of unused trademark registrations.

The original Chinese version of the finalized revision of the PRC Trademark Law can be accessed here, and we have prepared an English translation that can be found here.

For brand owners, the most important changes are: (i) the reduction of the opposition period from three months to two months; (ii) developments that may increase risks for defensive or unused registrations; and (iii) expanded provisions directed at bad-faith filings and trademark squatting. While many of these changes reflect existing practice, they reinforce the authorities’ continued focus on genuine trademark use and combating abusive filing behaviour.

The law provides stronger mechanisms to combat bad faith filings and trademark squatting, while imposing stricter obligations on trademark maintenance, enforcement, and use. A key theme is the promotion of genuine trademark use. While China remains a first-to-file jurisdiction, the revised law places greater emphasis on ensuring that trademark registrations correspond to real commercial activities and are not maintained merely for defensive or speculative purposes.

Please refer to our previous commentaries on the draft amendments released by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on December 27, 2025 (the “2025 Draft Amendment”), available here and here. Most of the amendments proposed in the 2025 Draft Amendment have been incorporated into the final revision of the Trademark Law, with relatively few substantive changes. The most notable differences are highlighted below.

1. Key Takeaways for Brand Owners

• Digital and Internet Use Recognized (Article 2): Trademark use now expressly includes activities conducted through the internet and other information networks, confirming that e-commerce, digital marketing, and social media activities may constitute valid trademark use. This amendment appears largely to codify existing examination and enforcement practice, rather than introduce a fundamentally new concept of trademark use. (Newly added, did not appear in the 2025 Draft Amendment).
• Shorter Opposition Period (Article 36): The opposition period is reduced from three months to two months. Brand owners should strengthen trademark watching programs and streamline internal decision-making processes to ensure timely oppositions. The shorter timeframe is expected to improve registration efficiency and reduce opportunities for tactical delay by bad-faith filers. (Remains substantially the same as Article 35 of the 2025 Draft Amendment).
• New Additional Ground against Bad-Faith Filing (Article 19): Atrademark could be opposed or invalidated if it was filed using “deceptive or other improper means” and/or “not for the purpose of use and obviously exceed normal production or business operational needs”.This provision largely reflects grounds that have already been applied in practice by the authorities and courts when dealing with trademark hoarding and bad-faith filings, but its inclusion in the Trademark Law provides a clearer statutory basis for such actions. (Remains substantially the same as Article 18 of the 2025 Draft Amendment).
• Enhanced Good-Faith and Anti-Abuse Principle (Article 9): The revised law expressly prohibits the abuse of trademark rights that harms national interests, the public interest or “the lawful rights of others”, reinforcing the legislature’s focus on good faith trademark registration, use and enforcement. (Remains substantially the same as Article 9 of the 2025 Draft Amendment).
• Introduction of Motion Marks (Article 14): The law expressly recognizes dynamic or motion marks (动态标志), reflecting the growing importance of digital branding and non-traditional trademarks. Businesses using animated logos and other digital brand assets should consider whether additional trademark filings are appropriate. However, motion effects that are functional in nature, necessary to achieve a technical result, or confer substantial value on the goods remain ineligible for trademark protection. (The same as Article 14 of the 2025 Draft Amendment).
• Direct Penalties for Bad-Faith Filings (Article 54): Applicants engaging in malicious trademark filings may now face administrative fines of up to RMB 100,000, in addition to refusal of the application or invalidation of the registration. By elevating these sanctions from administrative regulations into the Trademark Law itself, Article 54 may signal that authorities intend to impose such penalties more routinely in appropriate cases. (Remains substantially the same as Article 53 of the 2025 Draft Amendment).
• Increased Penalties for Misleading Use of Registered Trademark (Article 56): Misleading use of a registered trademark may attract fines of up to five times the illegal turnover, or up to RMB 250,000 where no measurable turnover exists. Continued non-compliance may result in cancellation of the registration. Although misleading-use penalties have historically been uncommon in practice, the introduction of an express statutory penalty may encourage greater regulatory scrutiny in appropriate cases. (Newly added article, did not appear in the 2025 Draft Amendment).
• Greater Risks for Dormant Portfolios (Article 57): The CNIPA may proactively revoke generic trademarks or trademarks that have not been used for three consecutive years on its own initiative. This reflects a broader trend among trademark offices seeking more efficient tools to address trademark hoarding and warehousing. Brand owners with defensive registrations should review their portfolios carefully and maintain evidence of use for strategically important marks. (Remains substantially the same as Article 56 of the 2025 Draft Amendment).
• Public Reporting Mechanism (Article 70): Any person or entity may report misleading trademark use or trademark infringement to the authorities, formalizing an additional enforcement channel and increasing compliance risks. (Newly added article, did not appear in the 2025 Draft Amendment).
• More Flexible Suspension Mechanism (Article 41): Authorities may suspend opposition, review, or invalidation proceedings where the outcome depends on a related court or administrative action, providing greater procedural flexibility. (Remains substantially the same as Article 40 of the 2025 Draft Amendments, except that the legislature has replaced “shall” in the 2025 Draft Amendment with “may”, thus adopting a discretionary approach that is broadly consistent with current practice. As a result, we expect the practical handling of suspension requests to remain largely unchanged).
• Positive Change to the One-Year “Lock-Up” Period (Article 49): The provision narrowsthe scope of one-year “lock-up” rule under current law. Under the new provision, the one-year restriction applies only where a trademark owner voluntarily cancels its registration, in which case applications by third parties for the same or a similar mark on identical or similar goods will not be approved within one year of the cancellation announcement. As a result, applicants that successfully remove a blocking mark through invalidation or other cancellation proceedings should face fewer delays in obtaining registration, providing a more efficient path to clearance and registration. (The same as Article 48 of the 2025 Draft Amendment).
• Enhanced Protection for Well-Known Trademarks (Articles 21 and 63): The law reinforces protection for both registered and unregistered well-known marks and strengthens cross-class protection against bad faith filings. Specifically, it allows owners of unregistered trademarks to be recognized as “well-known” and protected vis-a-vis dissimilar goods and services. (Remain substantially the same as Articles 20 and 62 of the 2025 Draft Amendment with slight editorial amendments).
• Overseas Bad Faith Conduct and Well-Known Mark Recognition (Article 69): Permits the CNIPA to confirm a mark’s well known status for use in overseas proceedings but also extends China’s regulation of bad-faith trademark conduct to overseas trademark matters by imposing penalties on those (presumably agents) that use fraudulent or other improper means when handling overseas trademark filings for Chinese clients. It appears that this provision is intended to assist Chinese brand owners with overseas registration and enforcement proceedings. (Newly added article, did not appear in the 2025 Draft Amendment).
• Expanded Fair Use Defences (Article 73): Trademark owners may not prevent bona fide nominative fair use of their marks, including use indicating product purpose, target consumers, application scenarios, or genuine source, provided there is no likelihood of confusion.(The same as Article 70 of the 2025 Draft Amendment).
• Stricter Regulation of Trademark Agencies (Articles 65–68): Trademark agencies and practitioners face enhanced compliance obligations and higher penalties. Agencies may be fined up to RMB 200,000 (as opposed to RMB 100,000 in current law), while individual practitioners may face fines of up to RMB 100,000 (as opposed to RMB 50,000 in current law). (Articles 65-68 remain substantially the same as Articles 64-67 of the 2025 Draft Amendment).
• Malicious Trademark Litigation (Article 81): Parties that initiate trademark litigation through malicious collusion or fabrication of facts may be sanctioned by the courts and held liable for losses suffered by the other party. The provision appears aimed at deterring abusive litigation tactics, although its precise scope and application to disputes involving bad faith filers will likely depend on future judicial guidance. (Revised based on Article 78 of the 2025 Draft Amendment).

2. Practical Tips for Brand Owners

• Review trademark portfolios. Identify dormant registrations and maintain evidence of genuine use, and establish procedures for preserving online and offline use evidence, particularly for marks that may be vulnerable to non-use cancellation.
• Reassess filing strategies. Ensure new filings reflect genuine commercial needs and intended use and maintain documentation supporting any broader defensive filing strategy. Excessive filings without a legitimate business rationale may attract administrative scrutiny or penalties.
• Audit trademark use and marketing materials. Review how registered trademarks are used in advertising, packaging, e-commerce platforms, and social media. Businesses should ensure that trademark use is consistent with the scope and manner of the registered mark in order to mitigate the risk of complaints, regulatory scrutiny, or penalties arising from misleading use. This would include use that materially differs from the registered form of the mark (such as in font, stylization, color, additional wording, design and orientation).
• Guard against risk of becoming generic. If a trademark is at risk of becoming generic or frequently subject to fair use, brand owners should consider taking more proactive enforcement measures to reinforce the mark’s distinctiveness and source-identifying function, including maintaining robust evidence of use. In addition to limiting third party fair use to a minimum level, brand owners should consider filing opposition and/or invalidation actions against confusingly similar or potentially genericizing third-party applications. Consistent enforcement and proper trademark usage can help reduce the risk of the mark being deemed generic or becoming vulnerable to fair use defenses (raised by third parties) under the new law.
• Consider protection for non-traditional marks. Businesses using animated logos, digital branding elements, or other motion-based assets should evaluate whether additional trademark filings are appropriate.
• Preserve evidence supporting well-known status. Brand owners with significant market recognition should retain evidence of reputation and use, particularly if overseas registration or enforcement activities are anticipated.
• Continue to monitor and challenge bad-faith trademark filings. Where applicable, brand owners should explore arguing in opposition and invalidation actions that the mark under attack was filed using “deceptive or other improper means” and/or “not for the purpose of use and obviously exceed normal production or business operational needs”. Brand owners may also wish to take a fresh look at problematic marks that were not successfully knocked off on the grounds of bad faith before and consider if new actions are feasible, in light of recent legal developments and the law’s apparent increased scrutiny of bad faith filings. Although the scope of the new provisions is still developing, they may provide a stronger basis for attacking registrations where compelling evidence shows that the applicant’s true intent was inconsistent with legitimate trademark use and current bad faith elements may be taken into consideration retrospectively.
• Target the agents of bad-faith filers. The expanded regulation of trademark agencies and practitioners provides an additional avenue to address bad-faith trademark filings by scrutinizing and, where justified, pursuing action against the agents facilitating such conduct. If applicable, we can file complaints with local authorities against these agents.

3. 2025 Draft Amendment vs 2026 Finalized Version

While the 2025 Draft Amendment focused on introducing structural reforms – such as shortening the opposition period and strengthening measures against trademark hoarding – the final law further enhances enforcement by introducing broader regulatory powers, higher administrative penalties, and additional compliance obligations for trademark owners and practitioners.

Among the changes from the 2025 Draft Amendment to the final draft, there are certain notable updates:

Our Comment

The 2026 Trademark Law largely codifies policy directions and practices that have already emerged in recent years, while reinforcing the authorities’ focus on genuine trademark use, the deterrence of bad-faith filings and trademark hoarding, and the efficient administration of trademark rights. The most significant practical changes for many brand owners are likely to be the shortened opposition period, the increased scrutiny of dormant registrations, and the continued expansion of tools available to challenge bad-faith filings.

That said, the practical impact of many of the amendments will depend on future implementing regulations, examination guidelines, and judicial interpretations. Particular attention should be paid to the application of the new provisions on penalties for bad-faith filings, recognition of well-known trademarks for overseas use, ex officio cancellations, suspension of proceedings, and evidence of use. In the meantime, brand owners should review their filing strategies, strengthen trademark monitoring programmes, maintain robust evidence of use, and reassess dormant trademark registrations ahead of the law’s commencement on January 1, 2027.