China’s 2026 Trademark Law Revision: A Shift Toward a Use-Oriented Trademark Regime

China IP Brief | Dispatches from the Frontiers of IP Law in China

On June 26, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPC) promulgated a revision of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China (2026 TML), which will take effect on Jan. 1, 2027.

The 2026 revision reflects a multiyear review process that began after the 2019 amendment and included a draft revision released for public comment by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) in January 2023 (2023 CNIPA Draft), a draft initially reviewed by the NPC Standing Committee and published for public comment in December 2025 (First Deliberation Draft) and a further draft reviewed by the NPC Standing Committee at the second deliberation stage in June 2026 that was not circulated for public comment (Second Deliberation Draft). Although the PRC Trademark Law has been amended four times since its enactment in 1983, the 2026 TML represents the first comprehensive revision since 2013.

See our analysis of the First Deliberation Draft here.

As was the First Deliberation Draft, the 2026 TML is ostensibly less ambitious than the controversial 2023 CNIPA version. Several widely discussed proposals from that earlier draft are not included in the final law, including a general “use in commerce” requirement for maintaining trademark registrations, a prohibition on duplicate registrations, and procedures for compulsory transfer requests in invalidation proceedings. The final text instead reflects a more targeted legislative approach, focusing on (1) bad faith filings, (2) misleading use of registered trademarks, (3) trademark agency regulation, (4) expanded well-known trademark support in overseas disputes involving Chinese brands and (5) more precise use-based defenses in infringement litigation.

Given that a number of these changes will require further procedural detail, industry groups and professional organizations will be watching closely for implementing regulations, judicial interpretations, and examination and review guidelines before and just after the law takes effect on Jan. 1, 2027.

The 2026 TML (in Chinese) can be accessed here. A Loeb translation and comparison of the current law (2019 TML) and the 2026 TML revision can be accessed here.

The 2026 TML consists of 87 articles in nine chapters (in contrast to 73 articles in eight chapters in the current law, 101 articles in 10 chapters in the 2023 CNIPA Draft and 84 articles in nine chapters in the First Deliberation Draft). The revised law addresses some long-standing issues and introduces enhanced provisions on actual use, the principles of honesty and good faith, portfolio discipline, the prohibition of misleading use, agency conduct, cross-border brand protection (for cross-border disputes involving Chinese parties) and the proper boundaries of trademark enforcement. These changes are evident in the expansion of enforcement options against bad faith filings, procedures for addressing nonuse and misleading use of registered trademarks, intensified regulation of trademark agencies and practitioners, a new support mechanism for overseas brand-protection matters involving well-known trademarks, and a refined nonuse defense in infringement damages claims.

Some of the more consequential revisions, along with our comments, are set out below.

I. Key Substantive and Related Procedural Revisions

Dynamic Marks as Registrable Signs

• Article 14 introduces “dynamic marks” to the list of signs that may be registered as trademarks. This provision is subject to the restrictions of Article 18, which stipulates that nontraditional trademarks remain subject to functionality-based limits.

Comment: This change is likely to be significant for internet platforms, consumer electronics companies, entertainment businesses, game companies, app operators and other businesses with brand assets that include motion logos, loading animations, app-opening sequences or interface effects. In practice, applicants seeking protection for product shapes, color combinations, sounds, motion logos, animations or other dynamic signs will be required to show that the relevant sign is not merely functional or technically necessary and does not consist of a feature that gives the product substantial value. Brand owners should identify these dynamic brand assets before the law takes effect and assess which elements are used and perceived by consumers as source identifiers. Applications for dynamic marks will likely require precise descriptions, high-definition visual representations and, in many cases, evidence demonstrating that the relevant public recognizes the dynamic element as a trademark. Further clarification may be forthcoming in implementing rules and is expected in revisions to the examination standards for functionality-based limitations.

Unified Bad Faith Filing Standards for Applications, Oppositions and Invalidations

• Article 19 provides that trademark applications that are not intended for use and that “clearly exceed normal production and business needs” shall not be registered. It further stipulates that trademark applications shall not be filed by deceptive or other improper means.

Comment: The “clearly exceed normal production and business needs” language of Article 19 reflects the general rules underlying Article 4 of the 2019 law while framing the bad faith filing standard in reference to bona fide operational requirements.

The revised language of Article 19 consolidates the bad faith filing rules previously set out in Articles 4 and 44.1 of the 2019 law. Specifically, it provides a unified legal basis for addressing bad faith filings in examination, opposition and invalidation proceedings. Under current practice, CNIPA has often addressed serial piracy and/or trademark hoarding in opposition proceedings by considering factors similar to those under Article 44.1, even if Article 44.1 is not expressly invoked as the direct legal basis. The bad faith-focused provisions of the current law have been less effective against pirate filers that target foreign SMEs, niche brands and early-stage companies that have yet to establish a substantial presence in the China market. Under current rules, the actions of filers that maintain only a small number of pirate filings (i.e., no more than three to five filings) may not be viewed as clearly exceeding normal business needs by volume alone, even if the filings were clearly targeting third-party trademarks in bad faith.

A persistent issue around the “not for the purpose of use” limitation in the first paragraph of Article 4 of the current law concerns the implications for defensive filings by rightful brand owners, and it is unclear whether the revised language of Article 19 will help with alleviating these concerns. The 2021 Trademark Examination and Review Guidelines provide that a defensive filing in good faith (for the purposes of actively/prudently defending piracy or preserving rights for business expansion) does not fall under the circumstances of Article 4 of the 2019 TML (“bad faith filings, not for the purposes of use”). Despite this helpful caveat, from around mid-2022 and lasting until at least mid-2023, CNIPA issued a series of examination opinions to brand owners with large portfolios of registered trademarks covering a wide range of goods/services classes (i.e., defensive filings). These examination opinions required that these brand owners submit proof of actual commercial use or intent to use the trademarks in the brand owner’s extensive portfolio of registered trademarks. This CNIPA campaign was discontinued in 2023, but not until it had caused significant concern about overzealous policing of the language of Article 4—language that was intended to address the issue of rampant piracy that incentivized the defensive filing programs of these targeted brand owners in the first place. It is unclear whether the “normal production and business needs” language of Article 19 of the 2026 TML would encompass the broad defensive filing strategies that have become common for brand owners in China. Additional clarification will thus be needed to assuage lingering concerns over such defensive filing strategies. Until we have further clarification, brand owners should be prepared to document the commercial rationale for broad filings, including product-line extension plans, prior enforcement actions against bad actors and evidence of trademark piracy involving remote goods or services.

Administrative Penalties for Bad Faith Filings

• Article 54 provides a basis for imposing administrative penalties on applicants who file trademark applications in bad faith (similar to Paragraph 4 of Article 68 in the 2019 law), where such filings result in “adverse effects” (不良影响). Under the language of Article 54, the administrative enforcement authorities (i.e., the relevant Administrations for Market Regulation, or AMRs) are empowered to issue warnings and impose fines of up to RMB 100,000 on applicants who (1) knowingly file trademark applications for prohibited signs (Article 15 or Article 16, Paragraph 1); (2) file trademark applications that clearly exceed normal production and business needs and are not intended for use, or that are filed by deception or other improper means (Article 19, consolidating Articles 4 and 44.1 of the 2019 law); or (3) intentionally file trademark applications that infringe the rights of well-known trademark owners (Article 21), that constitute preemptive registrations of trademarks by agents or business associates (Article 22), or that harm the lawful prior rights and interests of others or constitute intentional preemptive registrations of trademarks that are already in use by others and have obtained a certain degree of influence (Article 24).

Comment: Paragraph 4, Article 68, of the 2019 law provides a mechanism for the issuance of administrative fines for trademarks that are filed in bad faith, but it is ambiguous as to the amount of such fines and whether such fines should be issued directly against applicants or against an applicant’s trademark agent. The language of Article 54 further addresses ambiguities in current practice and provides a clear basis for sanctioning applicants who file trademarks in bad faith. Such sanctions have become more commonplace in the past five years, particularly when the brand owner and the bad faith filer are domiciled in the same locality. Even so, most successful AMR sanctions have arisen from campaign-driven enforcement (e.g., COVID-19-related and the Beijing Winter Olympics initiatives), and there is still no clear, consistent path for brand owners to seek penalties against known bad faith filers or their agencies. In practice, complaints to local AMRs have typically been based on provisions of the 2019 Several Provisions on Regulating Applications for Trademark Registration circulated by the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR 2019 Provisions). Also noteworthy is that the proposed maximum fine of RMB 100,000 is higher than the cap of RMB 30,000 set under Article 12 of the SAMR 2019 Provisions. The determination of “adverse effects” under revised Article 54 is unclear and  will require further clarification.

Article 54 is one of three provisions that, when taken together, establish a comprehensive regime for deterring bad faith trademark filings, illegal trademark agency services and malicious litigation. The other provisions that support enhanced sanctions for bad faith actors are Article 67 (Administrative Penalties for Trademark Agencies) and Article 81 (Civil Liability for Malicious Trademark Litigation). These measures combine administrative supervision, administrative sanctions and civil remedies targeting the applicants of trademarks filed in bad faith; entities and individuals engaged in malicious post-registration enforcement (litigation); and the trademark agencies that support bad actors during the entire filing, prosecution and enforcement process. The recognition of liability by responsible agency personnel further ensures that rights holders have enhanced enforcement options and the ability to hold to account agencies that support such bad actors.

Enhanced Protection for Well-Known Trademarks

• Article 21 expands cross-class protection for unregistered well-known trademarks when such broad protection previously applied only to well-known trademarks registered in China. In doing so, the 2026 TML introduces unified cross-class protection for both registered and unregistered trademarks that are considered well-known in the China market. Article 63 (Scope and Applicable Scenarios for Affirming Well-Known Status) further expands the scenarios in which well-known status may be affirmed, including for certain unfair competition disputes. Article 69 (Affirmation of Well-Known Status for Overseas Proceedings) provides a mechanism for a China-based trademark holder to petition the CNIPA for affirmation of a trademark’s well-known status in China in accordance with Article 63, where such proof is needed in trademark-related proceedings in other jurisdictions.

Comment: Article 21 establishes that the scope and strength of protection extended to well-known trademarks is now wholly contingent on the degree of fame and likelihood of consumer confusion (Paragraph 1, exclusively for identical or similar goods) or dilution (Paragraph 2, applicable to dissimilar goods) rather than the registration status of a trademark in China. To align this unified standard for registered and unregistered well-known marks, the 2026 TML replaces the terms “registrant of a well-known trademark” (e.g., Article 13 of the 2019 law) and “owner of a well-known trademark” (Article 45 of the 2019 law) with “holder of a well-known trademark.”

The language of this provision replaces “recognition” with “affirmation.” Consistent with established judicial practice, well-known status is not acquired through generally broad “recognition”; rather, it is a status that the court “clarifies” in light of the facts and requirements of a specific case. In addition, the provision expands the factors for affirming a trademark’s well-known status to include the nature and geographic scope of trademark use.

Notably, Article 63 confirms that the status of a trademark as well-known may be affirmed when appropriate in the trial of unfair competition cases. By extending the affirmation of well-known trademarks to unfair competition cases, Article 63 provides a clear basis for the protection of goodwill associated with such trademarks in a wider range of commercial scenarios, such as when a well-known trademark is used by a third party as a trade name.

Furthermore, Article 69 introduces a new mechanism for affirming the well-known status of a trademark in China where such affirmation is needed in the context of trademark examination, adjudication or disputes in other jurisdictions. This mechanism is ostensibly intended to benefit Chinese brand owners, but it may be a solution in search of a problem, as it is unclear whether and how domestic well-known status could materially affect the independent judgment of foreign administrative and judicial authorities.

Penalties and Ex Officio Cancellation for Misleading Use of Registered Trademarks

• Article 56 introduces a range of penalties for using a registered trademark in a manner that misleads the public. The trademark administrative authorities are empowered to order the registrant to correct misleading use within a specified period. Administrative fines of up to five times the “illegal business revenue” can be levied when such revenue exceeds RMB 50,000. If there is no such illegal revenue or the revenue is below RMB 50,000, a fine of up to RMB 250,000 may be imposed. If the registrant fails to correct the misleading use within a prescribed period, the CNIPA may cancel the trademark registration.
  
  
• Article 70 provides that any organization or individual can file a complaint or report with CNIPA or an AMR regarding unlawful acts such as using a registered trademark in a manner that misleads the public or infringing the exclusive rights in a registered trademark.
  
  
• Article 84 provides disciplinary accountability for public officials involved in trademark registration, administration and enforcement. Officials may be subject to disciplinary action if they violate the law by engaging in trademark agency services or commercial business activities, or if they abuse their authority, neglect their duties or engage in favoritism or other misconduct. The provision identifies specific circumstances that may trigger disciplinary measures, including approving trademark registrations that do not meet registration requirements and cause “adverse effects,” failing to issue required correction orders or administrative penalties, failing to perform trademark administration or enforcement duties after discovering unlawful conduct or receiving complaints, and other conduct that warrants discipline under the law.

Comment: The 2026 TML introduces a new rule targeting the misleading use of registered trademarks, an issue not specifically addressed in the 2019 law. This provision is aimed in particular at so-called “scheming trademarks” (心机商标), where a trademark may appear acceptable at the examination stage but is later used together with other elements in a way that misleads the public as to the product function, purpose, ingredients, raw materials, production process or other characteristics. In early 2026, CNIPA escalated its crackdown on deceptive trademarks—announcing intensified enforcement on Jan. 23 and confirming on April 23 that any party can seek invalidation, and began publishing ex officio invalidation decisions on its website in late April to early May. As of the latest published updates, 1,442 ex officio invalidation decisions have taken effect, with 3,351 cases announced in total. In response to this campaign-style enforcement, many brand owners have been conducting internal audits of problematic uses to potentially reset brand strategy, monitoring consumer perception and public sentiment and, where appropriate, preparing to phase down existing use to mitigate exposure and commercial loss.

Article 56 creates a separate rule to address such conduct and provides a mechanism for the administrative enforcement authorities to order correction and to impose hefty fines when illegal business revenue exceeds RMB 50,000. Failure to correct misleading use may also result in the ex officio cancellation of the registration by CNIPA. This revision provides enforcement authorities with stronger tools to address registered trademarks that are intentionally used as deceptive commercial signs. Whether a use is “misleading” should still be assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the trademark itself, the goods or services covered, the manner and context of use, the registration and use history in regional markets (for global brands, across jurisdictions), and the likelihood of actual consumer deception in purchasing decisions.

These changes align with the trend toward stricter standards for administrative enforcement of the improper uses of registered trademarks, and they expand the enforcement powers introduced in the 2021 Criteria for the Determination of General Trademark Violations issued by CNIPA, which provided local AMRs with a basis to enjoin the use of registered trademarks in ways that are misleading as to the features/characters or the origin of the designated goods or services (rather than trademarks that infringe specific third-party rights).

Article 84 also reinforces official accountability by providing disciplinary consequences for public officials who improperly approve registrations that do not meet registration requirements, fail to impose required corrective measures or penalties, or fail to perform enforcement duties after discovering violations or receiving complaints. This provision may have practical implications beyond public-official accountability. By imposing disciplinary consequences for improperly approving trademarks that lack inherent registrability, the provision could incentivize an even more conservative approach to examination and review by examiners than we have seen in the past five or so years, particularly for cases involving absolute grounds rejections. Without more practical examination and review guidelines, brand owners could see a further tightening of registration standards resulting in default absolute grounds rejections that, in some cases, delay or restrict market entry for legitimate foreign brands.

Brand owners should conduct comprehensive audits of actual use of their registered trademarks, particularly for key brands. Clearance strategies should place greater emphasis on inherent registrability, including whether the trademark could be considered misleading, merely descriptive or highly suggestive, functional, or otherwise vulnerable to ex officio challenges. Trademark registration should also be viewed as part of a long-term compliance process, requiring post-registration guidance on proper trademark use and ongoing monitoring of consumer perceptions of the actual use of registered trademarks in the market.

Administrative Oversight, Administrative Penalties and Civil Liability for Trademark Agencies

• Article 67 strengthens the oversight of trademark agencies by expanding prohibited conduct, increasing penalties and expanding the range of sanctions for both agencies and responsible individuals. In particular, the administrative authorities may order a trademark agency to correct misconduct and impose fines of RMB 10,000 to RMB 100,000. In serious circumstances, the fine may be increased to an amount between RMB 100,000 and RMB 200,000. The persons in charge and other directly responsible personnel may be subject to warnings and fines of RMB 5,000 to RMB 50,000, or RMB 50,000 to RMB 100,000 in serious cases.
  
  The prohibited conduct includes(1) soliciting business through fraud, inducement or disparagement of other agencies; (2) representing parties with conflicting interests in the same trademark matter; (3) knowingly accepting instructions for bad faith or otherwise unlawful trademark filings (i.e., filings that harm the rights and interests of others, for hoarding purposes without intent to use, or for prohibited signs); (4) directly engaging in bad faith filings; and (5) disrupting the trademark agency market by other improper means.
  

Comment: Articles 65 – 69 strengthen the oversight of trademark agencies and responsible personnel by expanding the range of prohibited behaviors (Article 65), enhancing industry self-regulation and best practices (Article 66) and introducing specific penalties for practitioner misconduct (Articles 67 and 68). A notable development is the extension of direct oversight to both trademark agencies and individual practitioners. Specifically, trademark agencies and practitioners are required to act in good faith, comply with legal and professional obligations, protect client interests and confidential information, and refrain from conduct that harms public or private rights. Practitioners are further prohibited from independently accepting client instructions or working for multiple agencies at the same time, with violators subject to warnings, corrective orders and monetary penalties.

The language of Article 69 appears to extend regulatory oversight to overseas trademark matters by penalizing the fraudulent or improper handling of foreign trademark filings for Chinese applicants where such filings harm the lawful rights and interests of others. It is not clear whether and how foreign brand owners can report agency misconduct to the relevant AMRs, but with further clarification of the processes and procedures for doing so, brand owners could eventually have additional tools for addressing serial piracy and other acts of bad faith by seeking sanctions against unlawful Chinese agencies and responsible practitioners.

These changes are particularly important because agencies and individual practitioners often play a guiding and facilitating role for entities and individuals engaged in acts of serial piracy and trademark hoarding. Many of these requirements—particularly Articles 65 and 67—appear in existing rules, including the SAMR’s Provisions on the Supervision and Administration of Trademark Agencies. By codifying an expansion of liability for both agencies and responsible individuals, the 2026 TML could provide stronger deterrence against collusion in bad faith filings and abuse of rights.

Damages Calculation and Defenses

• Article 77 addresses the calculation of damages in cases of trademark infringement. The revised language no longer prioritizes actual losses over the profits obtained from infringements, and it explicitly provides that damages calculated on the basis of actual losses, infringer profits, royalty multiples or statutory damages should also include “the reasonable expenses incurred by the rights holder” in addressing the infringement.
  
  
• Article 78 clarifies that, where a defendant raises a nonuse defense, the relevant period for proving use is three years before the alleged infringing act.
  

Comment: Article 63 of the 2019 law provides an overview of the ways in which damages for infringement can be calculated. It prioritizes a determination of actual losses followed by a determination of the profits obtained from the acts of infringement. Article 77 of the 2026 TML now places actual losses and infringer profits on an equal footing, aligning the damages calculation method with the revised Copyright Law, Patent Law and Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Additionally, the term “malicious” (恶意) referenced in the current law has been changed to “intentional” (故意), aligning the language of the Trademark Law with the language of the PRC Civil Code, Patent Law, Copyright Law and Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Furthermore, it provides that the calculation of damages for infringement should include additional reasonable costs incurred to address the infringement (e.g., attorney fees, notary fees and expenses associated with collecting evidence of infringement). These costs are distinct from compensatory losses directly resulting from infringing acts. In practice, it is often challenging for rights holders to obtain evidence of infringer profits or actual market loss, leading to a frequent application of statutory damages. The proposed changes could offer more consistent and practical guidance for the recovery of reasonable enforcement expenses by rights holders, even in cases involving statutory damages.

Brand owners should preserve evidence of actual commercial use during the three-year period prior to the alleged infringing acts and, when acting as defendants, assess potential nonuse defenses based on the timing of the alleged infringing acts rather than the date of case filing.

Recognition of Civil Liability for Malicious Trademark Litigation

• Article 81 provides that where a trademark lawsuit is brought through malicious collusion, unilateral fabrication of basic facts or similar means, the people’s court can impose sanctions in accordance with law. Where such litigation causes losses to the opposing party, the claimant shall bear civil liability.
  

Comment: Article 81 substantially carries forward the malicious-litigation provision in the 2025 CNIPA draft. The substantive rule is generally consistent with the malicious-litigation provision in Article 78 of the 2025 draft. The final wording of Article 81 does not create a broad penalty for unsuccessful trademark enforcement, but it targets litigation conduct that abuses trademark rights or the judicial process, including the filing of claims brought on a knowingly defective rights basis, claims supported by fabricated facts, collusive proceedings, or lawsuits used as a profit-making or competitive tool rather than as a bona fide means to protect lawful rights.

The provision echoes and gives practical effect to the broader principles of honesty and good faith set out in Article 19 of the 2026 TML. Article 9 expressly requires trademark applications and use to comply with the principles of honesty and good faith, and it prohibits the abuse of rights in a manner that harms state interests, public interests or the legitimate rights and interests of others. Article 81 translates that general principle into a more concrete litigation consequence: Malicious enforcement may result not only in court-imposed sanctions, but also in civil liability to the party harmed by the abusive litigation.

Article 81 also reflects the long-awaited recognition of existing judicial and prosecutorial practice. Chinese courts had already recognized, in appropriate cases, that trademark rights should not be enforced in a manner that constitutes an abuse of rights. The Supreme People’s Court’s Guiding Case No. 82, commonly referred to as the Ellassay case, is often cited for recognizing an abuse-of-rights defense in trademark infringement litigation. More recently, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate released Typical Cases on the Supervision and Correction of Malicious Intellectual Property Litigation, including trademark cases involving the lack of genuine business use, knowingly defective rights, fabricated evidence of use and lawsuits filed to benefit from transfers to actual market operators.

A practical prefiling review will be needed for brand owners to assess the stability and legitimacy of the asserted rights, the existence and scope of actual use, the factual basis for infringement allegations, the evidence supporting damages and requested relief, and whether the contemplated litigation could reasonably be viewed as part of an improper competitive strategy. This is particularly important where the asserted trademark was recently acquired or registered, where the brand owner has little or no business presence, where the trademark has not been genuinely used, where a large number of similar enforcement actions have been filed, or where the defendant appears to have prior use or stronger commercial legitimacy.

II. General Provisions and Procedural Revisions

Definitions of ‘Trademark’ and ‘Trademark Use’

• Article 2 expands the definition of “trademark use” to explicitly include use through the internet and other information networks.

Comment: This amendment favors platform-centric digital businesses—such as e-commerce, digital content and social media platforms—by expressly recognizing use via the internet and other information networks, potentially providing a clearer basis for rules on online trademark use. It does not change the governing standard: Use must still function as a source identifier in any context.

Opposition Proceedings

• Article 36 shortens the period in which oppositions can be filed from three to two months. It provides that any prior rights holder or interested party can file an opposition based on Articles 20 – 22 (rejection of identical or similar trademarks for identical or similar goods; well-known trademarks; preemptive registration by agents and business associates), Article 23.1 (geographical indications) and Article 24 (prior rights and interests and prior use of trademarks with a certain influence in the market). In addition, any person can file an opposition based on Article 15 (prohibited signs), Article 16.1 (geographical names), Articles 17 – 19 (lack of distinctiveness; nonfunctionality of nontraditional marks; bad faith filings) and Article 25 (restrictions on trademark filings by trademark agencies).
  

Comment: This article shortens the opposition period from three to two months and thus effectively reduces the timeline for the filing of a trademark through to registration. While the shortened period for filing oppositions compresses the timeline for the preparation of initial opposition filings, the rule that provides petitioners with a three-month window to supplement an opposition with supporting evidence under Article 27 of the 2014 Implementing Regulations will continue to be in effect, at least until new implementing regulations are issued in due course. On the introduction of a provision permitting any person to file oppositions on absolute grounds, there is some concern among industry watchers and trademark pundits that this change could provide fertile ground for malicious and vexatious oppositions and thus undercut efforts to address the proliferation of malicious opposition challenges.

Suspension of Procedures

• Article 41 provides a unified basis for suspension in oppositions, appeals to CNIPA office actions, opposition appeals and invalidation proceedings. The 2026 TML retains the discretionary “can suspend” wording adopted in the 2019 TML and the 2023 CNIPA Draft. This article expands on paragraph 4 of Article 35 of the 2019 law, and it introduces a mechanism for the suspension of examination and review proceedings for oppositions, rejection appeals, opposition appeals and invalidations. Paragraph 2 of the article proposed in the 2025 and 2023 CNIPA drafts—i.e., abolition of the “change in circumstances” principle—was ultimately removed from the final law.
  

Comment: This provision abandons the “generally mandatory” (一般应当) language for suspension of procedures proposed in previous drafts and retains the “can” (可以) language of Articles 35 and 45 of the 2019 TML. It provides that the CNIPA and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Department (TRAD) can suspend their review of cases when the status of a cited trademark is contingent on the outcome of a parallel prosecution or litigation matter.

Under current law, the provisions that address the suspension of review for trademark cases stipulate that a suspension decision is discretionary, which has resulted in inconsistencies in the issuance of suspension grants. Official statistics indicate that the rate of reversal in TRAD cases involving “changes of circumstances” (情势变更) accounts for 44.3% and 60.1% of the total reversed cases in 2019 and 2020, respectively. The moderately high reversal rate for TRAD cases is illustrative of the lack of clear and consistent guidelines for suspension grants under current practice.

In June 2023, the CNIPA circulated the Standards for Suspension of Review Cases (CNIPA 2023 Standards). The CNIPA 2023 Standards introduced the principle of “necessity” (必要) for suspending review of cases before the TRAD, echoing language proposed in the 2023 CNIPA Draft. Before issuance of the CNIPA 2023 Standards, the TRAD had rarely accepted suspension petitions, despite efforts by an applicant to clear the registry in parallel actions prior to the filing of a trademark application. Because the current “necessity” standard is discretionary, actual suspension practice under these standards has been inconsistent.

During 2024 and 2025, the reversal rate in TRAD cases involving “changes of circumstances” declined significantly. Although the text of the final law remains ambiguous, recent practice suggests that trademark applicants now have more cost-effective tools to secure rights by linking parallel proceedings to remove third-party blocking trademarks from the registry while preserving their priority filing dates and mitigating the risk of additional third-party marks jumping the queue. It is encouraging that the final law no longer supports the previously proposed abolition of the “change in circumstances” principle. However, industry continues to be concerned about the procedural burden for parallel proceedings, particularly where related matters are not suspended or coordinated in a timely manner.

One-Year Quarantine Period

• Article 49 narrows the one-year filing embargo of Article 50 of the 2019 TML to situations where the trademark registrant voluntarily applies to cancel its registered trademark. Clearance and refiling strategies may become more efficient where blocking trademarks have been cancelled, invalidated or not renewed.
  

Comment: Article 50 of the 2019 TML and Article 73 of the 2014 Implementing Regulations provide for a one-year embargo on the filing of trademarks that are identical or similar to trademarks that have been cancelled or invalidated or have expired. In theory, the embargo rule was intended to prevent consumer confusion, but it has occasionally had the undesired effect of preventing rightful brand owners from timely registering their trademarks after successfully removing third-party pirate trademarks from the registry in invalidation proceedings.

The revised language clarifies that the one-year “quarantine” period is calculated from the publication date of the cancellation, and it further addresses brand owners’ concerns by confirming that the one-year embargo rule will no longer apply to marks that have been cancelled, invalidated or not renewed.

Post-registration Compliance and Cancellation for Nonuse or Genericide

• Article 57 authorizes CNIPA to cancel a registered trademark ex officio where it has become generic or has not been used for three consecutive years without proper justification.
  

Comment: Consistent with the 2023 CNIPA Draft, the 2026 TML provides CNIPA with the ability to cancel trademarks ex officio for genericness and nonuse, a mechanism previously reflected in Article 44 of the 2001 TML. This marks a partial shift away from the current application-driven cancellation practice. Although the earlier proposal for mandatory five-year use declarations was not adopted, the new ex officio cancellation mechanism could support CNIPA campaigns to actively clear the registry of unused trademarks. Brand owners that maintain evidence of use and adopt multilayered brand protection strategies will be better positioned to withstand possible post-registration scrutiny by CNIPA under the new trademark regime.

While the 2026 TML will not take effect until Jan. 1, 2027, brand owners and their counsel should be proactively engaged in compliance and portfolio audits in preparation for the changes to come. Brand owners that align clearance and filing strategies, tighten use discipline, adopt sound enforcement practices and elevate compliance to standards reflected in the 2026 TML revision will be better positioned when the more use-oriented regime of the 2026 TML and ensuing implementing regulations take effect.

Loeb & Loeb will continue to monitor further developments, including the issuance of new implementing regulations, as well as administrative measures, examination and review updates, and judicial interpretations. Stay tuned!