China’s amended Trademark Law brings stronger protection

By the end of 2025, the number of valid registered trademarks in mainland China (excluding Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan) had reached 49.877 million. Meanwhile, malicious trademark registration activities remained high, with over 200,000 enforcement actions against bad-faith trademark filings recorded nationwide in both the first halves of 2023 and 2024.

The revision of the PRC Trademark Law adopts a problem-oriented approach aimed at addressing long-standing challenges in China’s trademark regime, including bad-faith trademark filings, trademark hoarding, excessive defensive registrations, the relatively low cost of trademark infringement, irregularities in the trademark agency industry, and the need to strengthen overseas intellectual property protection further.

The revised Trademark Law has been expanded from the original 8 chapters and 73 articles to 9 chapters and 87 articles, reflecting significant adjustments to its structural framework and a substantial expansion of its substantive provisions. It is scheduled to take effect on 1 January 2027

Key Amendments

Digital Economy

Article 2 – Expanding the Definition of Trademark Use

In response to the rapid development of the digital economy, commercial activities conducted through the Internet and other information networks are expressly recognised as constituting trademark use.

Article 14 – Expanding Registrable Subject Matter

To accommodate evolving branding practices in the multimedia era, “dynamic (motion) trademarks” are expressly included within the scope of registrable trademarks.

Article 26 – Electronic Data Examination Rules

This provision clarifies the standards under which electronic data is deemed to satisfy the written-form requirement in trademark registration applications. It significantly streamlines the filing process by simplifying documentation requirements and reducing application costs for market participants, while supporting the broader digitalisation of trademark administrative procedures.

Combating Bad-Faith Trademark Applications

Article 19 – Clarifying the Boundaries of Trademark Applications

The new Article 19 consolidates the provisions on bad-faith trademark filings that were previously scattered across Articles 4 and 44 of the current Trademark Law. For the first time, it establishes an independent provision defining the legal boundaries of trademark applications by expressly prohibiting applications filed without a genuine intention to use or those that manifestly exceed the applicant’s reasonable business needs.

By targeting applications that lack a legitimate commercial purpose or involve excessive trademark filings beyond normal business requirements, the amendment aims to curb trademark squatting and stockpiling at the source. It also fills a longstanding legislative gap by providing a direct legal basis for regulating abusive filing practices.

Article 54 – Introducing Administrative Sanctions for Bad-Faith Filings

Under Article 54, applicants who file trademarks in bad faith and whose conduct has adverse social consequences may not only have their applications rejected but may also be subject to administrative sanctions, including warnings and fines of up to RMB 100,000 (around USD 14,725).

This represents a significant departure from the previous regime, under which the primary consequence of bad-faith filings was the refusal or invalidation of the application. By empowering the authorities to impose administrative penalties in addition to rejecting abusive applications, the amendment enhances the deterrent effect against malicious filing activities. Further, it safeguards the integrity of the trademark registration system.

Streamlining Procedures: Shortening the Opposition Period

Article 36 – Reduction of the Opposition Period

The trademark opposition period will be shortened from three months to two months.

The amendment is intended to accelerate trademark examination and registration procedures, reduce waiting periods for uncontested applications, and enable bona fide businesses to obtain trademark rights more efficiently.

Increasing Enforcement and Strengthening Remedies

Article 56 – Regulating Misleading Use of Registered Trademarks

The revised law expressly identifies the misleading use of registered trademarks as an unlawful act. Violators may be ordered to rectify the violation within a prescribed period. Where illegal business revenue exceeds RMB 50,000 (around USD7,360), fines of up to five times the illegal revenue may be imposed; where the revenue is below RMB 50,000 (around USD7,360), fines of up to RMB 250,000 (around USD 36,805) may apply. Failure to rectify within the prescribed period may result in cancellation of the registered trademark.

Article 70 – Public Supervision and Framework

Article 70 grants any organisation or individual the right to file complaints or report unlawful trademark-related conduct—such as the misleading use of registered trademarks—to the competent trademark enforcement authorities.

Together with Article 56, this provision establishes a coordinated enforcement framework by incorporating public participation into trademark enforcement. Encouraging public oversight and reporting is expected to enhance the detection and enforcement of misleading trademark use, thereby increasing the cost of non-compliance and strengthening the overall effectiveness of trademark regulation.

Article 77 – Improving the Damages Regime

The revised provision expressly provides at the outset that damages for infringement of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark may be calculated based on either the actual losses suffered by the rights holder or the profits gained by the infringer. Unlike the traditional approach, the new provision does not require a sequential application of these methods (i.e., determining actual losses first and resorting to the infringer’s profits only if the former cannot be ascertained). Instead, the rights holder may elect either method of calculating damages, depending on which is more readily substantiated with evidence.

Furthermore, it expressly excludes reasonable enforcement expenses from the base used to calculate damages. It strengthens the enforceability of orders requiring the production of financial records, thereby addressing practical bottlenecks in the application of serious statutory and punitive damages.

Balancing Rights Protection and Preventing Abuse

Article 73 – Fair Use (Permissible Use of Trademarks)

This provision stipulates that where a registered trademark is used solely to indicate information such as the purpose, intended use, application scenarios of the goods provided, or to indicate their genuine origin, the trademark owner shall not have the right to prohibit such legitimate use, except where such use is likely to confuse. It clarifies the scope of exclusivity inherent in trademark rights at the source by excluding good-faith descriptive and indicative uses from the scope of infringement, thereby preventing the improper expansion of trademark rights into a monopolistic tool and preserving lawful space for legitimate commercial activities.

Article 78 – No Use, No Damages (Use Requirement for Damages)

In trademark infringement litigation, where the defendant raises a non-use defence, the trademark owner is required to provide evidence of genuine use of the trademark within the three years preceding the alleged infringing act. Failure to provide such evidence will result in the denial of damages, thereby addressing the practice of trademark hoarding without actual use at its source.

Article 81 – Deterring Malicious Trademark Litigation

This provision marks the first time under PRC Trademark Law that liability for malicious trademark litigation—such as collusive litigation or the unilateral fabrication of material facts—is expressly established. It provides a direct legal basis for addressing abusive enforcement practices. While safeguarding legitimate trademark rights, it also seeks to prevent abuse of rights and maintain a proper balance between intellectual property protection and the orderly functioning of the market.

Practical Implications and Actions

The revised Trademark Law is expected to further shift trademark management from a registration-oriented approach to one that emphasises “genuine use, brand operation, and ongoing compliance”.

For businesses, trademark management will extend beyond obtaining registrations to encompass the entire trademark lifecycle, including brand management, evidence preservation, trademark monitoring, and compliance risk management.

The revised Trademark Law is scheduled to take effect on 1 January 2027. During the transitional period from July to December 2026, businesses are advised to undertake the following preparatory measures:

• Conduct a comprehensive review of trademark portfolios: Examine all registered trademarks and pending trademark applications to assess the current status of trademark assets.

• Assess risks relating to misleading use of registered trademarks and non-use cancellation:
  • Review whether any registered trademarks are being used in a manner that may mislead the public as to the origin, quality, or characteristics of the relevant goods or services, and evaluate the potential regulatory and enforcement risks arising therefrom.
  • Identify trademarks that have remained unused for more than two and a half years and evaluate the potential risk of cancellation for non-use.

• Preserve evidence of trademark use: Establish a systematic evidence management framework by retaining invoices, contracts, online promotional records, marketing expenditure documents, shipping records, and screenshots of online stores or platforms associated with the registered trademarks, as well as other relevant documentation, to support future enforcement actions (including damages claims) or to defend against non-use cancellation proceedings.
• Enhance trademark monitoring: As the opposition period is shortened to two months, businesses should strengthen trademark watching mechanisms to ensure timely opposition against potentially conflicting applications within the statutory deadline.

Outlook

The revision of the PRC Trademark Law reflects China’s continuing efforts to modernise its trademark regime by placing greater emphasis on genuine use, good-faith applications, and fair competition.

Businesses should closely monitor the implementation of the revised law and related regulations, strengthen internal trademark management systems, and align trademark strategies with their commercial objectives. By doing so, they can enhance brand value, improve compliance, and better safeguard their intellectual property rights in China.