New Chinese Trademark Law: key changes and implications as 2027 implementation approaches

The fifth revised Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China (the New Trademark Law) was officially adopted on June 26 2026 and will take effect on January 1 2027. The New Trademark Law continues to refine mechanisms to combat bad-faith filings, enhances penalties and consequences for misleading use of trademarks, widens the applicability of well-known marks, and expands eligible protectable marks.

This article highlights the key provisions of the New Trademark Law and its implications for rightful owners, and addresses the changes proposed in a draft amendment released by the CNIPA in 2023 and the second draft released in December 2025 not adopted in the New Trademark Law.

While combating bad-faith filings has been the authorities’ key initiative since the 2013 third revised Trademark Law, as the authorities become more experienced in adjudicating cases involving bad faith, the New Trademark Law clarifies and refines the definition of bad faith, and further discourages bad-faith filings by introducing administrative sanctions against bad-faith filers.

The New Trademark Law clarifies the criteria for bad-faith trademark filing, replacing the vague blanket term “bad faith” with objective standards. It provides that where an application for trademark registration is filed for a purpose other than use and exceeding what is required for normal production and business operations, registration shall be refused (Article 19 of the New Trademark Law, Article 4 of the 2019 Trademark Law).

The New Trademark Law further clarifies that obtaining trademark registrations through deceptive or other improper means can serve as a legal basis in both opposition and invalidation proceedings (articles 36 and 50).

Another notable amendment in bad-faith provisions relates to the prohibition on pre-emptive filings of unregistered trademarks that have acquired a certain degree of influence via illicit means. The new law clarifies that “intentional” pre-emptive filings of such marks are prohibited (Article 24 of the New Trademark Law). The addition of the term “intentional” is noteworthy. Vivien Chan & Co will continue to monitor the CNIPA’s decisions as to whether evidence on intent or subjective intent is required under this provision.

For redress against bad-faith trademark registrations, the New Trademark Law does not include the compulsory transfer regime proposed in the initial draft amendment.

Accordingly, rightful owners still need to pursue invalidation proceedings against bad-faith trademark registrations.

Notably, the New Trademark Law introduces administrative penalties for bad-faith filings, reinforcing efforts to deter abusive filings and hold bad-faith filers accountable. In particular, such penalties may be imposed where an applicant commits any of the following acts that cause “negative influence”:

• Intentionally filing deceptive trademarks or trademarks with negative influence;

• Filing applications without intent to use that clearly exceed normal business needs;

• Obtaining trademark registrations through deceptive or other improper means;

• Filing trademarks that are copies or imitations of well-known marks;

• Filing pre-emptive applications for trademarks of others despite the existence of a prior business relationship; or

• Intentionally filing pre-emptive applications for trademarks of others that have a certain degree of influence.

A violation of the above would result in a warning and/or a maximum fine of RMB 100,000 (about $14,700) (Article 54 of the New Trademark Law).

Despite the heightened scrutiny of marks that may mislead or deceive the public or exert negative social influence, the authors are of the view that the provision is unlikely to have a material impact on law-abiding brand owners. The provision appears to empower the authorities to sanction individuals and entities that deliberately engage in such conduct, rather than bona fide applicants whose marks are merely refused on the basis of potential misleading effect, deception, or negative influence.

Also, Article 81 of the New Trademark Law stipulates civil liability for parties sustaining losses from malicious trademark lawsuits, giving defendants a remedy against abusive litigation.

The New Trademark Law has intensified efforts to crack down on misleading use of registered trademarks. Entities that use registered trademarks in a misleading way would be warned and fined. Where revenue from illegal turnover falls below RMB 50,000, the maximum administrative fine is up to RMB 250,000. Where the illegal turnover is above RMB 50,000, the administrative fine can be five times the illegal turnover. Failure to remedy non-compliance within the prescribed period will result in the direct cancellation of the trademark registrations (Article 56 of the New Trademark Law). It is worth noting that the penalty is far higher than that proposed in the second draft amendment circulated in December 2025.

The New Trademark Law also imposes harsher penalties on violations committed by trademark agencies, including those that knowingly assist clients in applying for marks that are misleading, deceptive, filed in bad faith, etc. Furthermore, officials that approve trademark registrations that should not otherwise be approved under the law and that have a negative impact may face disciplinary action (articles 67 and 84 of the New Trademark Law).

Article 70 of the New Trademark Law also specifically provides that the public can file complaints to the relevant authorities on the misleading use of registered trademarks and trademark infringement.

From the breadth and strength of provisions against registration of deceptive marks and use of registered marks in a misleading way, we can see that combating misleading trademarks is a key area that the authorities wish to address under the New Trademark Law. Given such emphasis, the authors believe that the CNIPA may become more cautious in examining marks that may be interpreted as misleading and deceptive, and may be more stringent in its examination standard.

The New Trademark Law retains the proposed provisions relating to the protection scope and recognition of well-known trademarks in the second draft amendment. In particular, in cases involving the registration of trademarks copying well-known marks on dissimilar goods or services, such protection in the existing 2019 Trademark Law is confined to well-known trademarks registered in China. The New Trademark Law extends protection to well-known trademarks unregistered in China. Also, articles 21 and 63 of the new law specify that the well-known status of trademarks may be confirmed in the examination of unfair competition disputes.

Another notable amendment under the New Trademark Law is the mechanism for confirming well-known trademark status in China for overseas proceedings. Under Article 69 of the new law, where in the course of the examination and adjudication of an overseas trademark registration or the handling of an overseas trademark case it is required to prove that the trademark is well known to the relevant public in China, the party may request that the authorities confirm the well-known status of the trademark.

While the confirmation of well-known status in China has always been granted on a need-to basis where there is a dispute in opposition, invalidation, or infringement proceedings in China where all other provisions of the Trademark Law cannot adequately protect the claimant’s rights, such mechanism is a major expansion of the applicability of well-known status confirmation in China. This mechanism would be particularly helpful for Chinese and international companies that have substantial fame and reputation in China whose marks are squatted overseas or are engaging in international disputes.

Codifying existing examination practices, Article 41 of the New Trademark Law expressly provides that where the adjudication of oppositions, opposition reviews, refusal reviews, or invalidations depends on the outcome of another court or administrative proceeding, the CNIPA can suspend the proceedings.

While a more progressive approach was adopted in the second draft amendment, which provides that the CNIPA “should generally” suspend the proceedings in such circumstances, as opposed to “can”, this was not adopted in the New Trademark Law. Also, the more controversial provision in the second draft amendment, which indicates that the appellate court should base its finding on the trademark status as of the time when the CNIPA’s decision was made, was also not adopted.

In other words, the provisions on suspension procedures in the New Trademark Law and the current Trademark Law are substantively identical. As the current practice concerning suspension is already mature and stable, it is likely that the suspension of cases pending the resolution of proceedings against cited marks will continue after the New Trademark Law becomes effective.

Restrictions on refiling marks covering identical goods or services within a certain period in the first draft amendment were not retained, implying that brand owners may continue to refile their marks if they are not in active use to avoid the risk of non-use cancellations.

However, as discussed above, Article 19 of the New Trademark Law has refined the provision on prohibition of marks that are not filed for use: “[W]here an application for trademark registration is filed in bad faith for a purpose other than use and exceeding what is required for normal production and business operations, registration shall be refused.”

With the removal of the term “bad faith”, it remains to be seen if the CNIPA will be more stringent in bulk defensive filings covering multiple unrelated classes, even by good-faith companies.

While the first draft amendment suggested a statement of use requirement mandating trademark owners to submit such statements every five years after registration, this was not retained in the New Trademark Law. Instead, Article 57 of the new law introduces a provision empowering the CNIPA to initiate ex officio cancellation procedures if the mark has not been used in the past three years. It is worth noting that compared with the second draft amendment, the New Trademark Law provides that the specific measures shall be prescribed by the CNIPA.

This provision empowers the CNIPA to further introduce mechanisms to clear the register and curb the prevalent issue of registered-but-unused trademarks. Vivien Chan & Co will closely monitor any further measures or regulations set forth by the CNIPA.

The New Trademark Law also introduces the below notable amendments:

• Recognition of motion marks as registrable trademarks;

• Confirmation that online trademark use constitutes use of a trademark;

• Shortening of opposition periods from three months to two months; and

• Removal of the requirement to observe a one-year waiting period following the expiry, cancellation, or invalidation of a trademark before filing similar marks.

The New Trademark Law shows a measured approach in improving trademark registration, administration, and rights enforcement. As with the previous amendments in 2013 and 2019, the authors expect that the CNIPA and other authorities may begin to gradually shift their practice to address the concerns reflected in the new amendments, even before the New Trademark Law becomes effective on January 1 2027.

Also, similar to the previous rounds of revisions, it is expected that further regulations may be enacted to implement the New Trademark Law. Vivien Chan & Co will continue to closely monitor developments and provide updates, particularly regarding any CNIPA regulations on ex officio cancellation of trademarks that have not been used for three years.

Trademark owners need to fully document trademark use, regularly review their portfolios and update their defensive filing strategies, and step up their monitoring of malicious applications amid shorter opposition windows. Rightful owners should also remain attentive to any changes in evidence requirements in establishing the bad-faith element.