On December 27, 2025, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (“NPC”) issued a draft amendment of the PRC Trademark Law (“2025 Draft Amendment”), fixing a deadline for public comment of  February 10, 2026.

The original Chinese version of the draft can be accessed here, with East IP’s English translation available here. 

This paper summarizes and assesses the draft provisions of greatest interest to trademark owners, and recommends new provisions to address long-standing concerns of rights holders.

The 2025 Draft Amendment throttles back significantly on a wide range of changes – both positive and negative – proposed in the 2023 draft amendment of the PRC Trademark Law (“2023 Draft Amendment”) prepared by the China National IP Administration (“CNIPA”) (see East IP’s white paper on the 2023 Draft Amendment here).

Meanwhile, the 2025 Draft Amendment contains surprisingly few major changes to the current law.  But as explained below, the consultation process offers a valuable chance for trademark owners to provide suggestions to Chinese authorities on a range of issues of key concern.

The 2025 Draft Amendment is expected to work its way through the legislative process and become law by the end of 2026.

I. Key Changes Proposed

A) New Measures against Bad Faith Filings (Articles 18, 53, 64-67, 70)

Article 18: Filings must not obviously exceed the needs of normal production or business operations

Key change: This article introduces a new requirement that trademark applications filed without an intent to use and that “obviously exceed normal production or business operational needs” shall be not registered. This addition aims to curb trademark squatting and stockpiling by pirates with no real intent to use the marks.

Comments: While this provision may be useful for taking action against pirate marks (as grounds for filing oppositions and invalidation actions), it may prove to be a double-edged sword, as it could also be used to attack defensive trademark applications filed by legitimate brand owners.

If a party were to file an opposition or invalidation action against a defensive filing based on this article, the PRC Trademark Office (“TMO”) will either issue an examination opinion letter or directly refuse the application. The applicant brand owner would then need to provide evidence of use (or intent to use) on the designated goods / services to overcome the office action.

For example, a tea beverage company may, in addition to its primary business of selling tea and tea-based beverages (Classes 30 and 32), and providing teahouse (Class 43) and franchising services (Class 35), also wish to secure protection on items of defensive interest such as cups (Class 21), cushions (Class 20), clothing (Class 25), bags (Class 18), and other merchandise or gifts. If the company files in these classes for defensive purposes, under the provisions of this draft article, the company  may be required to provide evidence of use (or intent to use) on the designated items before it can secure registered rights.

Article 53: Fines

Key change: The article provides for warnings and fines of up to RMB 100,000 (~USD 14,500) if a trademark applicant commits the following acts of bad faith and “causes adverse effects”:

1. Knowingly filing trademarks that fall afoul of the absolute grounds listed in Article 15 (which is substantially similar to Article 10 of the current PRC Trademark Law), including but not limited to marks which are deceptive and likely to mislead the public as to the quality or other characteristics of goods, and marks that have adverse effects;  
2. Filing marks without an intent to use and that obviously exceed normal production or business operational needs, in contravention of Article 18 (see above); 
3. Intentionally filing marks that are reproductions, imitations, or translations of well-known trademarks (whether such well-known trademarks are registered or unregistered), in contravention of Article 20 (see below);
4. Intentionally filing marks without authorization from the brand owner, where the applicant is an agent, representative, contractual party, or business partner of the brand owner, in contravention of Article 21; and
5. Filing marks that harm others’ prior lawful interests (copyright, trade name rights, portrait rights, etc.) or that are intentional pre-emptive registrations of marks that are already in use and have a certain degree of influence, in contravention of Article 23.

Comments: Starting in  2022, CNIPA began rejecting new trademark applications citing absolute grounds under Article 10 of the current PRC Trademark Law in a much broader array of cases, reportedly with the goal of reducing the number of trademark registrations in China. Thereafter, CNIPA issued a notice warning of possible administrative sanctions for the use of such marks, although to date there have been no published decisions involving the imposition of sanctions in such cases (see here for more information).

Regarding applications, Article 68(4) of the current PRC Trademark Law provides that administrative punishment such as warnings and fines shall be imposed on applicants found to have filed in bad faith. The determination of whether a warning and/or fine would be imposed (and the amount of the fine) is made “based on the circumstances”.  The maximum amount of fines for bad faith filing behaviour is currently set at RMB 10,000 under relevant administrative regulations. Article 53 of the 2025 Draft Amendment now lists specific bad faith acts that will trigger warnings and possible fines of up to RMB 100,000 in cases where such acts cause adverse effects. In practice, where legal provisions are detailed and provide for explicit penalties, it is more likely the provisions will be enforced. The provisions of the current Article 68 are very general and do not specify the amount of fines that may be imposed.  This lack of clear guidance makes it difficult for authorities to apply these provisions in practice. If implemented in the next amendment to the PRC Trademark Law, here is a higher likelihood that the new, more specific Article 53 will be enforced.

Regarding use, Article 52 of the current PRC Trademark Law provides that trademark enforcement authorities shall issue rectification orders and may impose fines in cases where use of a mark violates Article 10. Article 61 of the 2025 Draft Amendment retains this provision. But as noted, to date, enforcement of these provisions is essentially unheard of.

The threat of fines and other penalties by CNIPA and local enforcement authorities further underscores the importance of moderating CNIPA’s current aggressive policies vis-à-vis marks deemed to violate the absolute grounds under the current Article 10 of the law.

On the issue of civil liability imposed on bad faith filers, the 2023 Draft Amendment confirmed the prevailing practice of the People’s Courts in various prior decisions by recognizing the right of victims of bad faith filings to pursue civil remedies to compensate their losses. This was assumed to cover enforcement-related expenses, including the cost of investigations, oppositions, invalidations and appeals of registry decisions. As Article 68(4) of the current PRC Trademark Law and Article 53 of the 2025 Draft Amendment already provide for administrative fines against bad faith filers, it may well be implied that victim brand owners retain the right to such civil remedies. However, it is strongly recommended that the right thereto be stated in the draft law in order to generate greater deterrence and eliminate any doubt among local courts regarding the availability of this remedy.  

It is noteworthy in this regard that countries that follow the “English Rule” in registry disputes generally find disputes easier to settle at an earlier stage due to bad faith filers’ fear of the economic consequences of losing.

Consistent with some recent civil case decisions, it is also recommended that the draft law (a) recognize the right of victims of bad faith filings to pursue trademark agents that knowingly assist in such filings to pursue joint and several liability against them; and (b) explicitly grant judicial authorities the power to issue temporary and permanent injunctions against bad faith filers from filing additional applications that target the plaintiff’s IP rights.

Articles 64 to 67: Trademark agents must act in good faith

Key change: These articles require agents to act in good faith and to refrain from assisting clients in the commission of acts that harm the lawful rights and interests of others, including where the agents accepted the entrustment even though it knew or should have known that application falls under the circumstances specified in Articles 15, 18, 20, 21 and 23 (as per Article 66).

Article 66 increases the penalties that can be imposed on trademark agencies from:

• A minimum of RMB 100,000 to a maximum of 200,000 (~USD 14,300 to 28,600) against trademark agencies in serious circumstances. (The existing fine of a minimum of RMB 10,000 to a maximum of RMB 100,000 under normal circumstances remains unchanged); and
• A minimum of RMB 50,000 to a maximum of 100,000 (~USD 7,150 to 14,300) against “directly responsible persons” in serious circumstances. (The existing fine of a minimum of RMB 5,000 to a maximum of RMB 50,000 under normal circumstances remains unchanged.)

Comments: The increase in monetary fines is a welcome addition and should further deter agents from assisting trademark pirates wishing to  engage in serial piracy.

Article 66 of the 2025 Draft Amendment and Article 68 of the current PRC Trademark Law both provide that CNIPA can deny trademark agencies the right to represent clients if they have committed the prohibited acts and where the circumstances are serious. It is suggested that the courts should also be empowered to stop agents from continuing their business as well.

Article 70: Fair use provisions

Key change: This article expands the scope of fair use of trademarks. Article 70(3) states that trademark registrants cannot prohibit others from using a mark if the mark is used: “merely to indicate the purpose, applicable target, application scenario of the goods provided or to indicate the true source (parallel imports), where such use does not cause consumer confusion.” 

Comments: Article 70(3) of the 2025 Draft Amendment introduces language explaining the circumstances where parties may engage in fair use of registered trademarks, with all such circumstances subject to the limitation that use of the mark will not cause consumer confusion.

It is not actually clear from the language of Article 70(3) whether the NPC is intending to widen or narrow access to the fair use exception, or whether it is simply seeking to codify existing judicial practice.

But it is possible that the NPC had two main scenarios in mind when drafting this provision: use by registered marks in advertising for genuine products by unauthorized distributors, say in online storefronts, physical signage, printed publications, etc., and where a producer of goods uses the registered trademark of another brand to indicate compatibility with its technology.

B) Introduction of “Intentional” Standard (Articles 23, 74)

Key change: Article 23 (corresponding to Article 32 the current PRC Trademark Law), which prohibits the pre-emptive registration of marks that are in use and that have a certain degree of influence, replaces “pre-emptively register through improper means” with “intentionally pre-emptively register”. Article 23 also prohibits marks that harm others’ “lawful rights and interests” (currently “lawful rights” under Article 32 of the PRC Trademark Law).

Similarly, Article 74 (corresponding to Article 63 of the current PRC Trademark Law), which relates to compensation for trademark infringement, replaces “bad faith infringement of exclusive trademark rights” with “intentional infringement of exclusive trademark rights”.

Comments: Articles 23 and 74 of the 2025 Draft Amendment effectively seek to replace the concept of “bad faith” filing behavior / infringement with “intention” to register the mark of another party and to infringe. This change seems to be motivated in part by the legislature’s desire to bring adopt language and legal principles consistent with those in other Chinese laws, including the PRC Civil Code.

It is our understanding that the NPC drafters did not intend to change the burden of proof or legal standard for determining liability when replacing “bad faith” with “intention”.

In any case, it is recommended that the future law clarify that liability can be based on deemed knowledge, i.e., where there is sufficient evidence the pirate “should have known” the relevant mark was owned by another party.

It is noteworthy in this regard that CNIPA and court decisions involving bad faith filers occasionally adopt this approach to determining culpability, and Article 23 of the 2025 Draft Amendment restates the requirement within Article 32 of the current PRC Trademark Law that the victim’s mark be deemed to possess a certain degree of influence as a condition to protection. Arguably, this fame requirement equates to a deemed knowledge standard. But it is recommended that this be made more explicit in all language in the law where a finding of intentionality is raised.

The expansion of “lawful rights” to “lawful rights and interests” allows for more flexibility in attacking marks under Article 23 and echoes Article 22 of the “Several Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on the Trial of Administrative Cases Concerning Trademark Authorization and Confirmation”. Article 22 provides that protection is not limited to the works themselves within the term of copyright protection, but can also extend to the names of such works or characters in the works, etc., if these names or characters themselves have already gained a relatively high level of fame.

C) Changes to Procedure for Trademark Actions (Articles 35, 40, 48)

Article 35: Shortening of opposition period

Key change: This article shortens the opposition period from three months to two months.

Comments: The purpose of reducing the opposite period is clearly to accelerate the timeline for securing registrations, which is currently about nine or ten months in cases where no office actions, refusals, or oppositions are encountered.

But reducing the opposition period is likely to create substantially greater pressure on both foreign and local trademark owners by limiting the time they have to conduct relevant investigations and secure adequate legal advice on important cases.

Since the current timeline for securing registration in China is generally in line with international practice, it is recommended that the three-month opposition period be preserved. Otherwise, consideration could be given to introducing a procedure (similar to that adopted in other countries) whereby parties may file notices of opposition and/or requests for extension that will provide an additional time both to consider whether to file a complete opposition or to negotiate terms for coexistence with the applicant.

For International Registrations extended to China through the Madrid System, the opposition period is currently three months counting from the first date of the month following the month in which WIPO publishes the notification of extension. Article 35 would also impact International Registrations extended to China and would shorten the opposition period to two months.

This amendment was also found in the 2023 Draft Amendment.

Article 40: Suspension of cases, PRC courts unable to consider changes in circumstances once administrative litigation has begun

Key change: In relation to application appeals and opposition and invalidation proceedings, Article 40(1) of the 2025 Draft Amendment states that if the status of prior trademark rights in one case relies on the outcome of another case (e.g., a non-use cancellation / invalidation of a conflicting mark), then a suspension “shall generally” be granted. Contrast this with Article 35(4) of the current PRC Trademark law, which states that such cases “can be suspended”.

Article 40(2) states that for administrative litigation in the context of application appeals, opposition appeals, and invalidation proceedings, PRC courts shall base their rulings on the factual status “at the time the challenged decision or ruling was made”.

Comments: Under the current PRC Trademark Law, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Department (“TRAD”) of CNIPA was granted the discretion to suspend pending application appeals, opposition appeals and invalidations upon the request of one of the parties where justified by the fact there is a separate case pending that would impact on the TRAD’s handling of the case. In practice, the TRAD has been granting such suspensions on a fairly reliable basis (see here for more details on the suspension procedure), and Article 40(2) of the 2025 Draft Amendment would codify this by indicating that the TRAD should “generally approve” such requests.

Since Article 40(1) provides that suspension applications at the TRAD stage should now be generally approved, Article 40(2) counterbalances this change by depriving the PRC courts the power to revoke decisions or rulings of CNIPA in administrative litigation on grounds of changed circumstances.

Under current judicial practice, the Beijing IP Court and Beijing Higher People’s Court will suspend cases pending the outcome of relevant co-pending actions, but only for up to one year. In practice, this has served the interests of litigants well, and in rare cases where decisions are issued after the one-year limit, the Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”) has been willing to reinstate trademark applications following retrial requests.

However, new language in Article 40(2) of the 2025 Draft Amendment would seemingly force the Beijing courts to render decisions based upon on the factual status “at the time the challenged decision or ruling was made”.  

While it is unclear whether the NPC intended to eliminate the current policy of granting one-year extensions or access to retrial requests with the SPC, it is recommended that the status quo be preserved so that courts can do so.  Suspensions by the courts are critical to ensuring that decisions are made based upon the full facts and that resources are not unnecessarily wasted for either the courts or rights holders.

Article 48: One year lock-up period removed

Key change: Article 50 of the current PRC Trademark law provides that within one year of a registered trademark being cancelled, declared invalid, or not renewed, the TMO shall not approve any application for registration of a trademark that is identical or similar to this mark.

Article 48 now limits the lock-up period to apply only where a trademark registrant voluntarily cancels their trademark registration. Within one year of the voluntary cancellation, the TMO shall not approve any application filed by another for an identical / similar mark on identical / similar goods and services.

Comments: Under the current law and practice, trademark applicants would need to file appeals and request for suspension until the prior blocking mark that has been cancelled, declared invalid or expired has passed the one-year lock up period. Article 48 of the 2025 Draft Amendment now provides that the one-year lock up period will only apply in the limited circumstance where the registrant of the prior mark has voluntarily cancelled their registration (a situation which is rare in practice). Applicants who are able to invalidate a blocking prior mark should therefore have a quicker path to registration under the proposed Article 48.

D) Well-Known Trademark Recognition for Unregistered Trademarks for Cross-Class Protection and in Unfair Competition Cases (Articles 20, 62)

Key change: Currently, cross-class protection based on well-known trademark grounds is restricted to registered trademarks. Under Article 20 of the 2025 Draft Amendment, unregistered trademarks may now also be recognized as well-known trademarks where cross-class protection is sought.

Article 62 of the 2025 Draft Amendment further stipulates that PRC courts may, in Anti-Unfair Competition Law cases (which are akin to passing-off cases in common law jurisdictions), confirm the well-known status of an unregistered trademark. This amendment parallels Article 7 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law (full English translation here), which prohibits various unauthorized uses of unregistered well-known trademarks.

Comments: These amendments are good news, as they aim to provide brand owners with a broader basis for obtaining well-known trademark recognition in registry and civil actions against trademark pirates and counterfeiters in situations where the brand owners have not yet obtained registration in China. Brand owners are often prevented from obtaining registrations for well-known marks in China due to lengthy disputes with pirates.

E) Other Changes (Articles 14, 56, 59, 73)

Article 14: New Category of Trademarks – “Dynamic Works”

Key change: The amended article adds “dynamic works” (e.g., logos with animated or multimedia elements) as a new category of registrable trademarks, in line with other countries that recognize such trademarks. This is a welcome addition. While animated or multimedia works can typically be protected via copyright, permitting registration of such works as trademarks will allow brand owners to make use of relatively low-cost administrative trademark enforcement mechanisms to deal with infringements that might not warrant civil action.

Article 56: Misleading Use and Proactive Cancellation by the PRC Trademark Office

Key change: The amended article introduces two new changes:

1. A registrant that alters a registered mark or the registrant’s name or address, or that uses the registered mark in a way that misleads the public, may now be subject to a fine of up to RMB 50,000 (~US$7,200). In serious circumstances, CNIPA shall cancel the registered mark; and
2. CNIPA has the power to proactively cancel generic trademarks or trademarks that have not been used for three consecutive years.

Comments: Assuming these draft provisions are enacted, trademark owners are advised to take greater care to ensure that the registrant details recorded with the TMO are up to date.

Meanwhile, it remains unclear how CNIPA will monitor trademarks for genericide and non-use.

Notably, and while not directly stated, this article would likely be of considerable use to CNIPA in dealing with bad faith filers in a more cost-efficient manner – particularly those that engage in large-scale filings.

However, it is also possible that CNIPA will be tempted to target good faith filers, including those that need defensive registrations to address the risk of bad faith filings, as well as parties that do not sell in China but need registrations to support sourcing by Chinese factories and/or anti-counterfeiting work.  As such, it is recommended that the NPC draft clarify that trademark registrants have the right to respond to cancellations with evidence and explanations, as well as the right to appeal decisions to the TRAD and courts.

Article 59: Collective and Certification Marks

Key change: This article provides that a registrant of a collective or certification trademark may be fined up to RMB 10,000 (~USD 1,450), or in serious circumstances, between RMB 10,000 and 100,000 (around ~USD 1,450 to 14,500), for committing one of the following acts (and failing to rectify such breach within the time limit set by the relevant enforcement authority):

• Failing to perform trademark administration duties, thereby causing harm to consumers;
• Not permitting members to use a collective mark, or not licensing eligible applicants to use a certification mark, without justifiable reasons; or
• Otherwise exercising the exclusive rights in the collective or certification mark in violation of PRC laws, causing adverse effects.

Article 73: Evidence Preservation Powers of Enforcement Authorities

Key change: The proposed amendment would provide administrative enforcement authorities (the Market Supervision Bureaux or “MSB”) with the power to consult and copy electronic data when investigating infringements.  This compares to the narrower list of items specified in Article 62 of the current law, which covers “contracts, invoices, account books”.

The proposed Article 73 further provides that local authorities have the power to preserve evidence where such evidence may be lost or difficult to obtain later (roughly equivalent to subpoena powers).

Comments: Currently, the most common forms of evidence preservation in trademark infringement cases are requests to online trade platforms for data confirming the amount of prior sales by a defendant seller. Such data is not typically at risk of loss or destruction, since platforms are legally required to maintain sales records for three years. However, IP owners will sometimes seek such evidence in order to confirm the level of sales and potential compensation before committing to the filing of a civil action. It is therefore recommended that Article 73 be amended in a manner that would continue to allow for such requests to the courts. Otherwise, there is a risk online platforms will refuse to provide transactional records and other data when it is most useful to the plaintiff rights holder.

East IP’s English translation of the table issued by CNIPA comparing the 2025 Draft Amendment with the PRC Trademark Law as currently enacted is available here.

II. Changes From the 2023 Draft Amendment

The following provisions from the 2023 Draft Amendment have not been included in the 2025 Draft Amendment:

• Five-year use requirement:  The 2023 Draft Amendment proposed a requirement under which all registrants must confirm use of their marks every five years, which drew concern from many brand owners as it would inevitably increase costs for maintaining trademarks registrations in China.
• Prohibition on repeat filings: The 2023 Draft Amendment proposed a requirement prohibiting registrants from filing new applications for the same mark on identical or similar goods and services.

At the time, many brand owners considered this provision to be overly cumbersome, as it would have prevented legitimate brand owners from filing back-up applications while they dealt with blocking marks to clear the path for registration. At that time, the TRAD was not routinely suspending its review of refusal appeals to await the outcome of registry actions intended to neutralize cited conflicts, and repeated re-filings were generally necessary to maintain rights on the registry while these related actions played out. As the TRAD now routinely suspends its review of refusal appeals in such cases, repeat filings are generally no longer necessary.

• Transfer of pirated marks: The 2023 Draft Amendment would have allowed authorities to order the transfer of registered pirate marks to the rightful trademark owner incidental to invalidation actions, but only in cases where marks have been invalidated under provisions of the law prohibiting the registration of well-known marks, where there is a prior business relationship between the parties, and other cases where bad faith is determined.

This provision is consistent with practice in the EU and would benefit victim brand owners in several ways. As such, it is recommended that this provision be included in the next NPC draft.

• Accelerated opposition appeal procedure: The 2023 Draft Amendment proposed removing administrative opposition appeals that challenge unfavorable opposition decisions issued by the TMO, thereby allowing applicants to challenge such decisions by filing appeals directly with the PRC courts (bypassing the TRAD).

This proposal would have increased costs for pirates challenging unfavorable opposition decisions, and potentially accelerated resolution of such oppositions by about a year.

• Civil remedies and criminal liability for filing applications in bad faith: The 2023 Draft Amendment gave trademark owners access to civil compensation for legal costs and other harm caused by bad faith filers. The 2023 Draft Amendment also proposed criminal sanctions against bad faith filers in cases where there is “damage to national interests or social public interests, or [where] major adverse effects [are caused]”.

While no other countries explicitly grant judicial authorities the power to investigate and prosecute bad faith filers, given the prevalence of bad faith filings in China – and indeed other countries – it is recommended that the NPC further consider this issue and reinstate this provision in the next draft and make corresponding changes to the PRC Criminal Law. We understand that criminal sanctions can only be imposed through amendments to the PRC Criminal Law, and at present there are no criminal sanctions for acts of unfair competition of this nature.

III. Other issues

• Access to evidence and arguments in first instance oppositions: The current law does not provide the opportunity for opposing parties to review the arguments and evidence of the applicant or to file rebuttals in first-instance proceedings. It is recommended that this right be inserted under the future law, consistent with practice elsewhere as well as China’s WTO obligations to allow due process.

While allowing access to submissions and a chance to file rebuttals may result in lengthening of the period of time needed for decisions in many cases, doing so is more likely to result in a just decision in the first instance, and thus reduce the need for further appeals and invalidations to the TRAD.

• Inability to review evidence and file rebuttal in non-use cancellations: Under current law and practice, after filing a non-use cancellation in the first instance with the TMO, the petitioner will not be provided a copy of the registrant’s evidence of use or an opportunity to file a rebuttal with supporting evidence. As with oppositions in the first instance, it is recommended that petitioners in non-use cancellations before the TMO be provided the chance to review and rebut evidence, and with the objective of reducing the number of appeals, and at the same time achieving a proper outcome more quickly.

It is quite routine for bad faith registrants to present forged evidence of use in first-instance proceedings, and granting the petitioner access to this evidence early should help to mitigate this phenomenon.

• Consent letters: Prior to 2023, the TRAD and courts would typically accept consent arrangements between the owners of similar trademarks. Their practices and standards in this regard were generally consistent with international practice and satisfied the needs of enterprises for registration of marks on a global basis, in particular to address the risks of counterfeiting. After 2023, CNIPA and the courts seem to have begun rejecting nearly all consent arrangements, and ostensibly for the same reason noted for absolute grounds objections: to reduce the number of trademark registrations in China.

Given the critical importance of consents in supporting legitimate trade and investment, it is strongly recommended that the NPC add provisions to the future law that explicitly recognize the right of trademark owners to rely on consents, subject to the reasonable conditions that applied in China before 2023 (and apply also in other countries) that help to manage the risk of consumer confusion.

• Preliminary injunctions: Article 76 of the 2025 Draft Amendment allows for preliminary injunctions, subject to a finding that the victim brand owner would otherwise suffer “irreparable harm”. This provision mirrors those set out in Article 65 of the current PRC Trademark Law. But in practice, trademark owners dealing with counterfeit cases rarely approach Chinese courts for preliminary injunctions due to the record of the courts of issuing such injunctions only sparingly. Since counterfeiting poses such severe risks to both brand owners and consumers, it is recommended that the NPC consider amending Article 76 in a manner that would strengthen the ability of trademark owners to secure preliminary injunctions against counterfeiters.
  
• Enforcement against online sellers: Quite often, online sellers of counterfeits operate in networks of connected seller accounts, and in practice, the only cost-effective way to identify such networks and sellers is where the online trade platform conducts a specialized “cluster search”. It is strongly recommended that the future law be amended to explicitly allow courts as well as administrative enforcement authorities not only to provide transactional data but to conduct cluster searches and other limited and reasonable investigations to help judges, police and local Market Supervision Bureaux to efficiently investigate the full circumstances of a given case.

In November 2025, the State Administration for Market Regulation (“SAMR”) issued draft rules for public comment that would facilitate investigations and enforcement by local MSBs, and it is likewise recommended that the NPC drafters review these draft regulations to ensure that SAMR and local MSBs enjoy all of the investigation powers they need to compel online trade platforms and other intermediary service providers to produce relevant evidence.

—END—