China’s 15-day challenge

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 15-day challenge

Trademark owners expressed concern over China’s strict 15-day deadline for responding to a refusal of a trademark application at the Madrid System User’s Meeting yesterday

“We get these scary notices from the Trademark Office,” said Carl Oppedahl of Oppedahl Patent Law Firm. “Usually by the time we get them there are only three days left to respond.”

Angela Leong, director of OPAL IP in Singapore, added that this deadline was particularly tight because the trademark owner would need to provide a power of attorney if they wanted to appeal the refused trademark application to China’s Trademark Review and Appeal Board.

Wen Xue, Deputy Director, International Registration Division at the China Trademark Office, admitted that the deadline was “very short” but clarified that, for overseas applicants, the deadline is calculated from the date of receipt, not the date when the notice was sent.

Wen added that China’s Trademark Law is in the process of being amended. In the latest draft, the deadlines for appealing a refused application will be extended to 30 days. Tao Junying from WIPO, who moderated yesterday’s session, described the proposed extension as “very good news.”

In his earlier presentation, Wen outlined some other important aspects of China’s trademark system that brand owners should take into account. These include that China does not accept sound and smell trademarks or marks that are, as the Trademark Act states, “detrimental to socialist morals or customs”. “If you want a mark registered in China, be cautious when making reference to political terms, names of political leaders or religions,” said Wen.

Wen also advised brand owners to make sure that all their trademarks in China are registered under the same name and address. If not, an application may be refused because of a conflicting registration, even if that registration belongs to the same brand owner.

In addition to Wen, Michael Arblaster from IP Australia and Miriam Taburiaux from OHIM explained how their offices deal with trademark applications made using the Madrid System.

The session began with a video message from WIPO Director General Francis Gurry in which he highlighted the 120th anniversary of the Madrid System and the 15th anniversary of the Protocol. He also looked forward to the accession of Algeria, the last remaining country that is a member of the Madrid Agreement but not the Protocol. “This will introduce a great deal of simplicity for all users and offices.”


Latest Madrid developments

• Tajikistan has become the latest member of the Madrid Protocol, with effect from next month. Its accession means only one country—Algeria—remains a member of the Agreement and not the Protocol.

• India’s Parliament has passed a bill to join the system and its trademark office is now working on cutting the backlog so that it can meet the Madrid System deadlines. It is expected to be ready to join by early next year. Other countries that are discussing accession are Colombia, Costa Rica and South Africa. All Asean member states are committed to joining by 2015: Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines are in advanced discussions.

• Filings using the Madrid System grew by 13% from 2009 to 2010, reversing the decline caused by the economic downturn. If the trends from the first four months of this year continue, 2011 is likely to break the annual record for registrations set in 2008.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Tilleke & Gibbins topped the leaderboard with four awards across the region, while Anand & Anand and Kim & Chang emerged as outstanding domestic firms
News of a new addition to Via LA’s Qi wireless charging patent pool, and potential fee increases at the UKIPO were also among the top talking points
The keenly awaited ruling should act as a ‘call to arms’ for a much-needed evolution of UK copyright law, says Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard
Lawyers at Lavoix provide an overview of the UPC’s approach to inventive step and whether the forum is promoting its own approach rather than following the EPO
Andrew Blattman, who helped IPH gain significant ground in Asia and Canada, will leave in the second half of 2026
The court ordering a complainant to rank its arguments in order of potential success and a win for Edwards Lifesciences were among the top developments in recent weeks
Frederick Lee has rejoined Boies Schiller Flexner, bolstering the firm’s capabilities across AI, media, and entertainment
Nirav Desai and Sasha S Rao at Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox explore how companies’ efforts to manage tariffs by altering corporate structures can undermine their ability to assert their patents and recover damages
Monika Żuraw, founder of Żuraw & Partners, discusses why IP should be part of the foundation of a business, and taking on projects that others walk away from
Lawyers say attention will turn to the UK government’s AI consultation after judgment fails to match pre-trial hype
Gift this article