The new Chinese Trademark Law 2026 will become effective on 1 January 2027. In response to this, the CNIPA announced the following drafts on 28 September 2026 for comments:
- Implementation of the procedures for handling matters related to the revised Trademark Law (https://www.cnipa.gov.cn/art/2026/9/28/art_75_208337.html)
- Trademark Examination Guidelines (https://www.cnipa.gov.cn/art/2026/9/28/art_75_208336.html)
The draft of 1) mainly concerns the transition, which in my view are reasonable, except one thing that will be mentioned below. The discussions below are mainly on the changes in 2). These, including the suggested changes, are just my two cents, and as always, and suggestions and thoughts are welcomed.
Major changes in the draft of 2):
- Introduction of provision on examining motion trademark.
- Requiring Chinese firms to register as trademark agencies, and introduction of governing rules.
- Changes requirements on suspending cases (for example review of refused application) at the CNIPA.
- Positive changes in “bad faith” threshold, prior rights, and acceptable proof of internet/electronic use.
- Introduction of decisions to illustrate various examination principles.
1. Potential Difficulties & Risks for Applicants (Especially Foreigners)
- Rigid Material Format for Motion Trademarks The Requirement: The video file requirements parallel those of the EUIPO for EU Community Design. The requirements on the static representation of the motion mark are very specific (3 to 9 sequential high-resolution JPEG 静态图样应当采用JPEG 格式，数量为3 至9 帧). These requirements are also in 1). Such specific limitation may not be compatible with motion marks with drastic transitions (for example, changing from a dragon to a sports car). Suggest replacing the rigid 9-frame upper limit with a flexible tier, for example “sufficient frames to show the transitions”.
- Stricter Verification Rules and Agent Liabilities The Requirement: Local Chinese trademark agencies are now required to verify that the copies of an applicant's business registration/identity documents match the physical originals. Failing this can cause the agency to lose its official registry. This will make local firms demanding certified/notarized foreign papers well in advance before filing. Suggest removing this requirement, or at most replacing it with a reasonable care standard requiring clients to confirm the documents sent to the Chinese agencies are authentic.
- Case Suspensions only triggered by substantive influence (实质影响) Suspension only occurs when the cited mark/prior rights have substantive influence on the case (trademark opposition, review of refusal, review of refusal of registration, and invalidation). Suggest changing to automatic stay regardless of the influence of the cited marks/prior right.
2. Positive Changes for Legitimate Right Owners
The text alters legal vocabulary to lower evidentiary hurdles, making it much simpler to stop or invalidate malicious trademark hijackers.
- Lowered Intentional Squatting Threshold The Benefit: The text officially changes the criteria from "undue/improper means" to "intentional squatting" (故意抢先注册) could be a change from proving how ("undue/improper means") to why (“intentional squatting”), making proving bad faith easier.
- Expanded Definition of Prior Rights The Benefit: Expand to include the following:
§ Online handle (网名), abbreviation of name.
§ Geographical indications, packaging and decorations.
- Expanded acceptable proof of use, especially internet and electronic related
The Benefit: Expand to include the uses on internet, electronic official receipts, virtual exhibitions, and so on. However, how these are to be accepted is another question, for example what red tapes the CNIPA would impose. My guess is that the CNIPA would generally accept proof of internet/electronic use that could not be altered after occurrence, for example platform online sales records, instant chat records, and so on, as in many recent court decisions.
3. Expanded Powers to Revoke/Cancel Bad Trademarks
New processing gives the public and market enforcement authorities rights to cancel invalid or deceptive marks off the register. Positive changes in my view.
- Public Complaint Track for Misleading Use Revocations.
- Total Deletion for Unapproved Serious Modifications.
- Hard Data Analytics to Catch Trademark Hoarders The Mechanism: Under the revised "lack of intent to use" clause, examiners can cross-examine systemic filing frequencies. The guidelines outline exact parameters to block bad-faith applications that mismatch a company’s operational scope, registration categories, or industry habits (e.g., massive multi-class filings in less than 9 months without proof of business capability). However, this could be a double-edged sword that could have unintentional consequences.
While there are many positive changes, there are concerns on motion trademarks, Chinese trademark agencies governing, and suspension of cases.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
