China has adopted the most comprehensive revision of its Trademark Law in more than four decades. The amended law, adopted on June 26, 2026 and due to take effect on January 1, 2027, expands the statute from 73 to 87 articles and signals a recalibration of China’s trademark system from a regime focused heavily on registration volume to one that places greater weight on genuine use, good-faith conduct and responsible enforcement.

The change comes against the backdrop of an exceptionally large trademark register. Annual trademark applications in China peaked at approximately 9.45 million in 2021 and remained high at approximately 6.77 million in 2025; by the end of 2025, mainland China had more than 49.8 million valid trademark registrations. This scale has supported brand protection, but it has also intensified practical problems such as trademark hoarding, bad-faith filings, unused registrations, misleading use of marks and abusive enforcement.

For companies operating in or entering China, the revised law is therefore best understood not merely as a technical amendment but as part of a broader regulatory effort to improve the quality and integrity of the trademark system. The following themes are particularly relevant for brand owners and platform-based businesses.

The revised law expressly recognizes dynamic signs as registrable trademarks. This is a significant development for brands that increasingly rely on animated logos, app-opening sequences, motion graphics, interface transitions and other digital identifiers to distinguish their goods or services.

At the same time, the revised law preserves important limits. Dynamic effects, sounds, color combinations and other non-traditional signs remain unregistrable where they arise solely from the nature of the goods, are necessary to achieve a technical effect, or give substantial value to the goods. In practice, businesses should distinguish between dynamic elements that function as source identifiers and visual or functional features that are unlikely to qualify for trademark protection.

The revised law also confirms that trademark use includes use through the internet and other information networks. This codifies modern practice: brand use, infringement and evidence collection increasingly occur through e-commerce stores, social media accounts, livestreaming channels, short-video platforms and other digital touchpoints. For rights holders, this clarification reinforces the importance of preserving online evidence in a structured and admissible manner.

One practical change is the shortening of the opposition period from three months to two months from publication of a preliminarily approved application. This may accelerate registration, but it also reduces the response window for prior rights holders.

Companies should revisit their watch and escalation processes. International brand owners in particular may need to shorten internal decision-making timelines among local counsel, regional IP teams and headquarters to ensure that opposition opportunities are not missed.

The revised law also narrows the one-year separation rule so that it applies only where a registration is voluntarily cancelled by the registrant, and not where a mark has been revoked, invalidated or not renewed. In addition, the revised law expands the availability of suspension to opposition proceedings. These changes should reduce procedural friction in some filing and dispute scenarios, although detailed implementation will remain important.

Bad-faith trademark filings remain a central target of the amendments. Although bad-faith filing is not a new issue in China, and the 2019 amendment had already introduced the possibility of administrative penalties against bad-faith trademark filings, enforcement has not always been straightforward in practice. One practical challenge has been the lack of detailed statutory guidance on what specific conduct should be treated as bad faith and how penalties should be applied. Rights holders have therefore often needed to invest substantial effort in demonstrating the applicant’s filing pattern, lack of genuine business needs and improper intent before a bad-faith filing could ultimately be recognized and penalized.

Against this background, the revised law is important because it provides a clearer statutory framework. It expressly identifies certain categories of bad-faith conduct, including filings made without a genuine intention to use and clearly beyond normal production and business needs, registrations obtained by deception or other improper means, and other improper filing conduct that causes adverse impact. It also confirms that administrative penalties may be imposed in relevant circumstances. This should give both brand owners and local authorities more concrete tools when dealing with serial squatters and professional bad-faith applicants, although the standards for “bad faith” and “adverse impact” will still need to be further clarified through implementing rules and future practice.

It is also worth noting that the revised law did not adopt earlier proposals regarding certain measures for bad-faith filings, such as compulsory transfer of bad-faith registrations to the rightful owner or statutory compensation mechanisms. That said, civil enforcement remains an important parallel route. In recent years, an increasing number of Chinese courts have treated large-scale bad-faith filing activities as acts of unfair competition. From a brand owner’s perspective, this route may in some situations be more efficient and more deterrent than challenging individual applications or registrations one by one through opposition and invalidation proceedings, especially where the bad-faith applicant has engaged in repeated or systematic squatting activities.

The revision also strengthens the regulation of trademark agencies. While trademark agencies are already subject to penalties under the current law for certain improper conduct, the revised law broadens the scope of prohibited activities and significantly increases the available penalties. Separately, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (“CNIPA”) is empowered to proactively address certain unused or problematic registrations, including generic names and marks that have not been used for three consecutive years without justification. Together, these measures indicate a move from application-stage control toward broader portfolio-quality management.

On the other hand, based on the current wording of the revised law and our observations of existing practice, the abovementioned changes, at least at this stage, are not expected to materially alter legitimate defensive filing strategies. Brand owners may still have valid reasons to file beyond their current product lines, including planned expansion, anti-dilution protection and consistency across markets. That said, the practical impact of these changes should be assessed dynamically in light of future implementing regulations and post-implementation practice, particularly as the authorities may place greater emphasis on whether broader filing programs are supported by reasonable commercial needs.

One of the most notable policy signals in the revised law is the regulation of misleading trademark use. This issue has attracted attention in China in recent years where registered marks are used in a manner that creates a factual impression about product quality, ingredients, craftsmanship, origin or other characteristics.

The concern is not merely that a mark may be descriptive. Rather, the problem arises where registration and presentation are used together to mislead consumers. For example, a mark suggesting a handmade process may be displayed in a way that makes consumers believe machine-made noodles are hand-made; a mark incorporating a “zero” claim may be presented as if the product contains no additives when that impression is not supported by the product formulation.

The revised law introduces a more complete regulatory chain. Misleading signs may be addressed at the application stage, improper use may be corrected at the use stage, trademark agencies face compliance obligations, competent authorities may take enforcement action, and the public is expressly empowered to report misleading trademark use.

For registered marks used in a misleading manner, authorities may order rectification and impose fines. If the registrant fails to rectify within the prescribed period, the registration may be cancelled. This highlights that trademark compliance does not end with obtaining a registration, and brand owners should also review how marks are actually displayed on packaging, e-commerce pages, livestreaming scripts and advertising materials.

The revised law further enhances protection for well-known marks. In particular, it removes the previous requirement that a well-known mark should be registered in order to obtain cross-class protection on dissimilar goods or services, thereby extending stronger protection to unregistered well-known marks where applicable.

The revised law also introduces a mechanism under which the CNIPA may, upon request and in accordance with applicable rules, confirm that a mark is well known among the relevant public in China where such proof is needed in overseas trademark examination, review or dispute proceedings. This could become a useful tool for global brand protection strategies, although its practical use will depend on implementing rules and administrative practice.

The revised law strengthens administrative enforcement tools by allowing authorities to examine and copy a broader range of materials in trademark infringement investigations, including documents, records, business correspondence, audiovisual materials and electronic data. It also clarifies coordination between administrative and criminal enforcement authorities in cases involving suspected criminal offences.

The law further recognizes nominative or indicative use as a form of fair use. Use of another party’s registered mark will not be prohibited where necessary to indicate the purpose, intended users, application scenarios or genuine source of goods or services, provided that consumer confusion is unlikely.

On the litigation side, the revised law introduces a dedicated provision addressing abusive trademark litigation, expressly covering lawsuits initiated through malicious collusion, fabrication of basic facts, and similar misconduct. At the same time, Chinese courts have developed a growing body of case law in recent years to address disputes involving the enforcement of warehoused trademarks, bad-faith registrations, and other forms of abusive assertion of trademark rights. However, these scenarios are not expressly addressed in the revised law. As a result, the precise scope of the new provision and its interaction with existing judicial practice will likely continue to evolve through future case law.

The revised law also clarifies the relevant assessment period for the non-use defense in trademark infringement litigation. Specifically, where the defense is raised, courts may require the trademark owner to provide evidence of actual use of the mark during the three years preceding the alleged infringing act. This amendment resolves a long-standing ambiguity in judicial practice and is expected to improve consistency and predictability in the application of the defense.

It is equally important to consider what the final law did not adopt. Earlier proposals that generated significant discussion included a prohibition on repeat filings, mandatory declarations of intent to use, periodic post-registration use statements, compulsory transfer of bad-faith registrations to rightful owners, compensation mechanisms for victims of bad-faith filings, and certain procedural changes to opposition appeals and suspension rules.

The fact that these proposals were not included in the final text does not necessarily mean that the relevant issues are closed. Some may continue to evolve through implementing regulations, administrative guidance and judicial practice. Brand owners should therefore monitor the next layer of rules after the law formally takes effect.

The revised law does not replace China’s first-to-file, registration-based trademark system but is likely to change how rights holders manage portfolios and present brands in practice. Companies may wish to consider, among other things, the following practical steps:

• identify dynamic and digital brand elements that may warrant trademark protection in China;
• review watch processes and internal approval timelines in light of the shortened opposition period;
• maintain stronger evidence of genuine use, including online use, to support portfolio management and defend against non-use challenges;
• document the commercial rationale for broader or defensive filings, particularly where filings extend beyond current product lines;
• review marks and marketing materials that may imply product quality, ingredients, function, craftsmanship, origin or other characteristics and take appropriate measures to mitigate potential risks where such implications could be considered misleading; and
• consider how the enhanced protection for well-known marks may fit within a broader global brand protection strategy, and make use of this mechanism where appropriate to strengthen brand protection across jurisdictions.