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 2026

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

Cookies Settings

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

Rival IP teams return to court for a closely watched appeal over AI and copyright, but observers hoping for answers to some of the technology’s biggest legal questions may be left disappointed
Eight years after its launch, members of the Australian patent firm’s Singapore office explain its growth strategy over the past year
Lawyers at Bowmans Kenya discuss the digital blind spots posed by the transition from physical ledgers to cloud databases and digital co-development models
The Powell Gilbert co-founder discusses the confidence required to launch a firm, building an enduring patent litigation practice and why developing the next generation has changed her measure of success
Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
David Rodrigues and Evan Lazerowitz – attorneys at Robinson & Cole – offer practical guidance on the steps a business might consider to preserve and maximise IP value before entering financial distress or insolvency
Daniel Law CEO Alicia Daniel-Shores may have stepped into a family business, but she has spent two decades building her own vision around technology and litigation
Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
Gift this article