China’s new Trademark Law improves brand protection

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

China’s new Trademark Law improves brand protection

China’s new Trademark Law, which came into effect on May 1, brings about many important changes. Many of the revisions aim to increase deterrence and speed up proceedings, and should be largely welcomed by brand owners

china-flag.jpg Increased deterrence

The new law looks to address what some see as a lack of deterrent effect of the old laws. The most obvious change is the six-fold increase in the statutory damages maximum, from RMB500,000 to RMB3 million (USD$80,000 to USD$480,000). Furthermore, the law now allows for punitive damages of up to three times the damages where the infringement is serious and committed in bad faith.

The new law also increases deterrence in other ways. Jack Chang of the Quality Brands Protection Committee says that the new law makes it easier for authorities to confiscate and destroy equipment used by infringers. “Under the old law, equipment used for making counterfeit goods could be confiscated and destroyed only if it was ‘exclusively used’ for counterfeiting, even though TRIPs used the language ‘predominantly used’,” explains Chang. “The new law, however, adopts the language used in TRIPs, which should help with enforcement efforts.”

Stepping on the gas

The new law also looks to speed up many of the procedures used by brand owners.It has several statutorily mandated timelines for proceedings before the CTMO and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB). For example, an application for cancellation based on non-use must be decided within nine months of the application. Similarly, registration examinations must also be completed in nine months, while an invalidation action based on relative grounds must be decided in 12 months.

Related to this goal is the move to limit bad faith actions. Oppositions based on prior rights, such as claims that a mark is confusingly similar to an existing registration, can now be brought only by interested parties, such as the holder of the prior right.

However, one such change has raised concerns. Under the new law, a mark that successfully survives an opposition is now immediately registered. Hui Huang of Wan Hui Da warns that this can be a big problem for legitimate brand owners, because the mark can now be used even if the opponent initiates invalidation proceedings.

“No civil action can be filed against this trademark, except by the owner of a well-known trademark or other prior rights,” Huang explains. “This means that, during the entire invalidation procedure, which can take several years all together, the trademark is free to build a reputation...which might, eventually, become an argument to resist the invalidation.”

Despite these concerns, many rights holders say that the changes in the law are generally positive. There is hope that it will build on the progress China has made in improving brand protection.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Leaders at US law firms explain what attorneys can learn from AI cases involving Meta and Anthropic, and why the outcomes could guide litigation strategies
Attorneys reveal the trademark and copyright trends they’ve noticed within the first half of 2025
Senior leaders at TE Connectivity and Clarivate explain how they see the future of innovation
A new action filed by Nokia against Asus and a landmark ruling on counterfeits by South Africa’s Supreme Court were also among the top talking points
Counsel explain how they’re navigating patent prosecution matters and highlight key takeaways from Federal Circuit cases
A partner who joined Fenwick alongside two others explains what drew her to the firm and her hopes for growth in Boston
The England and Wales High Court has granted Kirkland & Ellis client Samsung interim declaratory relief in its ongoing FRAND dispute with ZTE
A UDRP decision that found in favour of a small business in a domain name dispute could encourage more businesses to take a stand in ‘David v Goliath’ cases
In Iconix v Dream Pairs, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere with an earlier ruling, prompting questions about the appeal court’s remit
Chris Moore at HGF reflects on the ‘spirit of collegiality’ that led to an important ruling in G1/24, a case concerning how European patent claims should be interpreted
Gift this article