Pendency for Standard PRC Trademark Prosecution Matters

East IP

A list of typical timeframes for decisions on trademark prosecution procedures in the PRC.

Last Updated: April 2025

ProcedureTimeframe for Decision
Trademark Office
Issuance of official filing receipts for new applications1 month from application date (e-filings) 2 months (paper filings)
Notices of amendment1 to 1.5 months from application date
Examination and rejections3 to 5 months from application date
Publication of application5 to 8 months from application date
Non-use cancellations7 to 9 months from filing date
Cancellation based on genericness7 to 8 months from filing date
Oppositions10 to 11 months from filing date
Changes of name/address1 month from application date
Change of agent applications1 month from application date
Renewal of registrations1 to 2 months from application date
Assignments3 to 5 months from application date
Certified copies of registration certificates2 months from application date
Notices to defend against oppositions5 to 6 months from the response filing date
Re-issuance of registration certificates1 month from application date
Withdrawal of registrations / applications1 to 2 months from application date
Trademark Review and Adjudication Division (TRAD)
Application appeals6 to 8 months from filing date
Invalidations11 to 12 months from filing date
Non-use cancellation appeals 8 to 12 months from appeal filing date
Evidence exchange notice for invalidation6 to 10 months from response filing date

搜索

Most Read

Related Insights

The revised law largely codifies existing policies and practices, while introducing several targeted changes that brand owners should be aware of, including a shorter...
This Law is enacted for the purposes of protecting the exclusive right to use a registered trademark, strengthening trademark administration, standardizing the registration and...
近日,北京市高级人民法院就北京市东权律师事务所代理的易富公司和澳大利亚南社公司(以下合称“原告”)诉上海奔富公司、东方明日公司、曾氏文化公司、曾某、熊某等(以下合称“被告”)就涉及“奔富”品牌的商标侵权及不正当竞争纠纷案件作出终审判决,维持了一审判决。生效判决认定被告的行为构成商标侵权及不正当竞争,适用二倍惩罚性赔偿,判决被告上海奔富公司、东方明日公司和曾氏文化公司赔偿原告经济损失七千余万元,曾某和熊某应在4997万元范围内承担补充赔偿责任。 本案是继2022年最高人民法院在行政案件中以“奔富酒园”商标注册构成“以其他不正当手段取得注册”情形而无效该商标后,中国法院在民事案件中进一步对使用“奔富酒园”等商标的侵权行为进行的有力打击。...