Key revisions to the Trade Mark Law finally arrive

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

Key revisions to the Trade Mark Law finally arrive

After a process lasting ten years, China has recently revised its Trade Mark Law, which will take effect on May 1 2014. At an opinion-collecting meeting hosted by the Law Committee of the National People's Congress and the Legislative Affairs of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress and Legislature of China last year, changes in the new law, and the need for such changes were discussed. Such changes are summarised below.

The new law prohibits the use of the term well-known trade mark for commodities, packaging, and containers of the commodities, and its use in advertisements, promotional activities,and expositions as well as in other commercial activities. This new provision will quench the abnormal desires of quite a few trade mark owners for obtaining recognition of the well-known status of their marks from the Chinese authorities. At one time, obtaining the well-known status was such an overheated process which caused wide debate, as certain trade mark owners pursued the status by unfair means with the sole purpose of gaining an unfair advantage in business competition. This eventually led to the degeneration of the status Prohibiting the commercial use of the status will definitely reduce the overheated enthusiasm, and will also benefit owners of real famous marks. (See article 14 of the new law).

The new law explicitly provides that the basic principle of honesty and credibility should be observed throughout the process of either applying or using a trade mark, and should also be observed by the trade mark agency. It signals that bad faith will be examined more closely by the authorities in the future. (See article 7 of the new law).

The new law sets up qualification limits to eligible opponents whenever a trade mark opposition is brought on the basis of infringing others' prior rights. In this situation, the opponent must be the owner of the prior right, or the interested party. (See article 33 of the new law).

The new law makes great changes to relief routes of opposition in order to speed up the registration procedure and to prohibit the abuse of the opposition procedure. The new law states that opposition to an application is still be filed with the Trademark Office (TMO), but when the TMO decides to grant registration to the opposed trade mark and dismiss the opposition, the TMO will immediately issue the Certificate of Trademark Registration. The opponent is no longer entitled to file a review and appeal against such decision. The opponent can only file an invalidation request with the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) to invalidate the registration of the opposed mark. On the other hand, if the application is not approved, the applicant, unlike the opponent, is entitled to file a review and then an appeal with the court if TRAB's decision still rejects the application. (See article 35 of the new law).

The new law stipulates new statutory time limits for examining different trade mark matters, such as trade mark applications, opposition, reviews and invalidation procedures, from six to 12 months.

The new law admits priority of trade mark use. An owner of a registered mark may not prevent such prior user from using a mark similar or identical to the registered one and in respect of similar or identical goods, in the same way and within the same scope as the law has previously permitted. But the owner of the registered mark can ask the prior user to add distinguishable marks in a reasonable way. (See article 59 of the new law).

The new law increases the amount of compensation for damages for a trade mark infringement; the statutory compensation for damages is up to Rmb3 million ($496,000). (See article 63 of the new law).

The new law enlarges the scope of the registration elements by including sound trade mark, it makes one application for a multi-class of goods possible, and electronic applications may be filed.

Wen Zhong, Liu Shen & Associates

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Brian Paul Gearing brings technical depth, litigation expertise, and experience with Japanese business culture to Pillsbury’s IP practice
News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Gift this article