China’s Trademark Law Overhaul Forces a Strategic Reset for Pharma and Medtech Brand Owners

China’s draft fifth revision of the Trademark Law shifts from a registration-focused to a use- and governance-driven model, curbing bad-faith filings, unlocking idle trademark resources, and strengthening enforcement. This will significantly affect pharma and MedTech firms’ brand strategy, portfolio governance and enforcement planning in China’s key healthcare market.

Life sciences companies rely on trademarks for commercialisation, regulatory approvals, lifecycle management, digital health and patient trust. The reforms thus require closer integration of IP strategy with regulatory planning and digital product development.

From “hoarding for squatting” to “use-oriented registration”

A central reform is heightened scrutiny of trademark applications that lack genuine use intent and clearly exceed the needs of normal production and business operations. Authorities may reject and penalise such speculative filings. 

Pharmaceutical and life science enterprises must not unnecessarily hoard trademarks, and defensive registrations must align with R&D, product/clinical pipeline progress, and regulatory roadmaps. Cross-class applications must relate to business expansion; otherwise, they may be deemed malicious filings. Legitimate cross-Class defensive registrations for brand protection are lawful. In addition, enterprises must retain continuous evidence of trademark use (e.g., advertising and sales documents, etc.) after registration to respond to potential cancellations or invalidations.

Dynamic Digital Brand Elements Become Registrable

China will, for the first time, recognise dynamic signs (e.g., app animations, digital logos) as registrable trademarks. This opens new avenues for brand protection for pharma and life sciences firms, but dynamic marks must meet non-functionality and distinctiveness requirements. Functional effects (e.g., medical device therapeutic operation demos) will be rejected. Enterprises should screen dynamic elements, distinguish functional from distinctive ones, and prioritise registering highly distinctive, brand-specific dynamics.

Expanded Protection for Unregistered Well-Known Marks

The draft law strengthens cross-Class protection for unregistered well-known trademarks, addressing early-stage brand squatting risks.

Pharma products have 5-10-year R&D-to-launch cycles, with trademarks often gaining recognition during clinical phases but remaining unregistered and vulnerable to cross-Class squatting. The draft allows such well-known unregistered marks (via clinical/academic/market use) to prohibit registration/use on dissimilar goods/services. It is important to note that actual use and market recognition are the core elements in determining whether a trademark is well-known. Enterprises must continuously retain evidence of trademark use, market recognition, and commercial reputation; otherwise, they will fail to have the mark recognised as a well-known trademark and thus cannot secure cross-Class protection.

Procedural Efficiency and Reduced Time and Economic Costs

The draft shortens the trademark opposition period from 3 to 2 months, accelerating right confirmation and aligning with pharma’s 5-10-year R&D cycle, which needs early rights protection and anti-squatting. It revises examination suspension rules from “may suspend” to “shall generally suspend” when prior rights depend on another case’s outcome, reducing right instability and costs. For example, if an application is rejected due to cited marks and the enterprise initiates cancellation/invalidation, it can more smoothly suspend examination, avoiding potential litigation from premature review decisions.

Faster Recycling of Dormant Marks

The draft abolishes the 1-year grace period for cancelled/invalidated/non-renewed trademarks, accelerating the recycling of idle resources and eliminating procedural inefficiencies arising from citing lapsed marks as prior obstacles, aligning with pharma’s need for early anti-squatting and right confirmation.

However, risks exist: pharma products with long lifecycles may still circulate post-mark lapse, leading to patient confusion and even triggering compliance risks if third parties squat similar marks; malicious squatters may also exploit pharma’s long R&D cycle to extort fees or dilute brand distinctiveness by immediately squatting on an enterprise’s trademark once it is cancelled/invalidated/non-renewed. 

This requires enterprises to: 1) timely remove lapsed-mark goods from circulation; 2) strengthen trademark monitoring and re-register promptly after lapse; 3) continuously retain use evidence to ensure taking the initiative in procedures such as non-use cancellation and trademark invalidation.

Stricter Oversight of Trademark Use and Claims

The draft imposes penalties (corrective orders, fines, potential cancellation) for misleading trademark use, such as misstating origin, quality or characteristics.

Pharma firms face key challenges: 1) long lifecycles and complex use scenarios (e.g., packaging updates) risking “misleading the public” claims; 2) high genericization risk via clinical/academic use (e.g., Aspirin); 3) the long R&D cycle exposes reserve trademarks to the risk of cancellation due to “non-use for three consecutive years”. Enterprises must integrate trademark compliance into R&D, clinical and launch processes to stabilise trademark assets.

Deterrence Against Malicious Litigation

China proposes penalties and civil liability for bad-faith trademark litigation (e.g., rights extortion), thereby protecting enterprises against such litigation while imposing higher requirements of legality and prudence on their own litigation activities.

China vs EU/US: A Converging Trend

China’s reforms mirror broader global shifts toward use-based trademark governance.

• United States: Intent-to-use filings require proof of use before registration, and non-use cancellation actions are increasingly utilised.
• European Union: Use requirements and revocation actions are actively enforced, particularly against trademark hoarding.

China’s reforms therefore signal convergence with Western regimes—but with stronger administrative penalties and an explicit policy objective of freeing trademark resources.

What Pharma and MedTech Companies Should Do Now

Align trademark filings with pipeline strategy.
Map trademark portfolios to clinical development and market entry plans, with documentation to substantiate intent to use.

Strengthen portfolio governance.
Actively manage renewals, cancellations, and legacy brands to prevent inadvertent loss or third-party appropriation.

Integrate IP into regulatory and digital workflows.
Coordinate trademark strategy with regulatory, medical, and digital product teams, particularly for digital health interfaces.

Build brand evidence early.
Maintain documentation of promotion, scientific publications, KOL engagement, and market recognition to support enforcement.

Calibrate enforcement strategies.
Ensure litigation and administrative actions are evidence-based and proportionate to avoid allegations of malicious litigation.

Conclusion: Trademarks as Regulated Commercial Assets

China’s proposed revision to the Trademark Law is more than a minor update—it signals a shift toward governance-driven brand regulation. For pharma and MedTech firms, trademarks are now regulated commercial assets linked to clinical development, compliance and digital strategy.

Integrating trademark governance into lifecycle, regulatory and digital frameworks will help firms secure brand protection, speed market entry and mitigate risks in China’s evolving IP landscape.