New Trademark Law in China Takes Effect on 1 January 2027: What Businesses Need to Know

China has issued the fifth iteration of its Trademark Law on 26 June 2026. The revised law, which focuses on combating bad-faith filings while also strengthening genuine use requirements, anti-abuse enforcement, and protection for well-known brands, will take effect on 1 January 2027.

A number of controversial proposals from a previous draft—including mandatory transfer of bad-faith registrations and periodic post-registration use statement requirements—were not adopted in the final law. This reflects a cautious legislative approach toward tools that would significantly alter the rights structure or substantially increase operational costs. Nonetheless, the new law introduces a number of measures aimed at: (i) tackling bad-faith filings and “scheming marks;” (ii) tightening regulations on trademark use, and (iii) improving procedural efficiency.

1. Enhanced Tools for Combating Bad-faith Filers

Prohibition on applications without intent to use (Article 19)

A new Article 19 provides that applications filed without intent to use and clearly exceeding normal production or business operational needs shall be refused. A similar provision in Article 4 of the existing law was less explicit. The new provision provides a statutory basis for both opposition and invalidation actions on this ground  and is consolidated in Chapter 2, which governs trademark registration criteria. Notably, while Article 4 of the existing law emphasises “bad-faith applications filed without intent to use,” the reference to “bad faith” has been removed in the new Article 19. This changes the focus from subjective intent to a more objective standard—and considers whether the volume of applications matches actual business needs. On a prima facie basis, this reframing may make it easier to combat hoarding, though the precise boundaries of what constitutes applications “clearly exceeding normal production or business operational needs” remain undefined.

It is not clear whether legitimate defensive or forward-looking registrations will be inadvertently caught under new Article 19—given that bad faith is no longer an express criterion—so this will have to be tested in practice. One possible argument is that defensive filing falls within the “normal production or business operational needs” of large enterprises. A prudent approach for brand owners filing defensive applications is to adopt specifications that are as closely aligned with their actual business as possible, and to prepare materials that substantiate the legitimacy of such filings in advance, such as preliminary evidence of use, business plans, or brand portfolio strategies, so they are ready if challenged.

The second limb of the new Article 19 covers a prohibition against “applications obtained by deception or other improper means.” This is expected to cover situations where trademarks are obtained through forged documents and other types of squatting behaviour, consistent with interpretations of the relevant provisions in the existing law.

Prohibition on pre-emptive filings (Article 24): Under Article 32 of the existing law, an application for trademark registration shall be refused if it damages another party's “existing prior rights” (现有的在先权利), or if it seeks pre-emptive registration via “improper means” (不正当手段) of a third party trademark that had been in use and had a certain degree of influence.

The new law expands the scope of prohibition in the first limb by replacing “existing prior rights” with a broader formulation referring to “existing prior lawful interests” (现有的在先合法权益).

The second limb of Article 24 replaces “improper means” with “intentional” (故意) pre-emptive registration. In other words, under the new law, it is specifically prohibited to intentionally pre-emptively register a trademark that another party has already used and that has a certain influence, regardless of whether improper means are involved. However, “intentional” (故意) is a subjective element. How administrative and judicial practice will assess the requisite degree of knowledge, burden of proof, and applicable presumptions is unclear, and the practical threshold for applying this ground may not necessarily be lower than, or materially different from the existing threshold for “improper means” (不正当手段) under the current law.

Administrative penalties for malicious filings: Article 54 of the new law incorporates administrative penalties for malicious filings into the statute itself. Enforcement authorities may impose a warning and/or a fine of up to RMB 100,000 (approximately USD 14,700) where bad-faith filing conduct causes “negative influence.”

Complaint mechanism (Article 70): The law empowers any person or entity to formally report misleading use of registered trademarks and trademark infringement to the competent authorities, institutionalising complaint-driven enforcement and increasing regulatory risk for non-compliant use.

Penalties for malicious lawsuits (Article 81): Additionally, parties that bring trademark lawsuits through “malicious collusion” or fabrication of basic facts may be sanctioned by the courts and held liable for defendants’ losses, thus providing defendants with a remedy against abusive litigation.

Stricter supervision of agencies (Articles 65–68): Agencies that “know or should know” that filings fall into prohibited categories but still accept instructions, or otherwise breach their statutory duties, face increased sanctions, including a fine of up to RMB 200,000 (approximately USD 29,500).

2. Trademark Use and Potential Risks to Defensive Portfolios

Online use expressly recognised (Article 2): The law confirms that trademark use includes use via the internet and other information networks. This codifies existing practice that online use—such as e‑commerce, digital advertising, and social media—can support genuine use and be used to defend non‑use cancellation actions.

No five‑year “statements of use” requirement: The formal requirement has been dropped, but the CNIPA has the power to revoke marks ex officio where they are unused for three years or have become generic.

Proactive clearance of dormant registrations (Articles 19, 57): The law also introduces heightened scrutiny of trademark portfolios which introduces potential risks for defensive portfolios. The use‑based filing standard is now that: registration will be refused where an application is not for the stated purpose of use and obviously exceeds normal production or business operational needs.

In addition, the CNIPA is now expressly empowered to cancel, on its own initiative, trademarks that have become generic or that have not been used for three consecutive years—supplementing the existing three‑year non‑use cancellation mechanism available to any party. Given the sheer volume of registered marks in China, the CNIPA is unlikely to police every registration and exercise this power broadly. Rather, this power is expected to be reserved for specific scenarios based on guidelines to be published.

This new provision can be a double-edged sword for legitimate brand owners. On the one hand, defensive filing is a commonly used tactic against bad-faith filers; on the other hand, the new power may also help clear unused marks, including those filed by bad-faith filers. Large defensive portfolios, especially those covering many classes with limited use, are more likely to attract attention. Evidence of use, including online use, for core and strategically important marks will be critical to withstand third‑party non‑use attacks and possible CNIPA ex officio reviews.

3. Measures tackling “scheming marks”

Increased penalties for misleading use of trademarks (Article 56): In addition to provisions regarding bad-faith filings, another major target of the new law is “scheming marks” (心机商标)—a prevalent and problematic practice in China in recent years where trademark owners disguise trademark elements as product features to make misleading or false claims. Examples include marks incorporating characters like “零” (zero) to form phrases such as “零添加” (zero additives), which are then used to make false health claims on food products, and marks featuring “手打面” (hand-made noodles) for products that are in fact ordinary machine-made noodles.

The new Article 56 creates a standalone provision regarding  misleading use, prescribing an order to correct within a specified period, fines of up to five times the illegal turnover where turnover exceeds RMB 50,000 (approximately USD 7,360), fines of up to RMB 250,000 (approximately USD 36,800) where turnover is below RMB 50,000 or not measurable, and revocation of the registration if non‑compliance persists. These penalties raise the cost of improper conduct at the use stage to a level comparable to that for registration-stage violations and demonstrate the government’s determination to combat this problematic practice.

4. Expanded Protection for Well‑Known Trademarks

The law enhances the well‑known trademarks regime.

Broader cross‑class protection for unregistered marks in China (Article 21): Owners of unregistered well‑known trademarks may now prevent registration and use of reproductions, imitations, or translations on dissimilar goods or services that mislead the public and may harm their interests. This removes the former distinction that effectively limited cross‑class protection to marks registered in China.

Confirmation of well-known status (Articles 63, 69): Authorities may now confirm well-known status in domestic contexts during examination and adjudication of registration and enforcement cases, or in unfair competition disputes before the CNIPA or certain courts.

At the request of a party, confirmation may also be provided for use in overseas proceedings where an overseas registration or dispute requires proof that the mark is well known to the relevant public in China. This “exportable” well‑known confirmation mechanism is a notable innovation. It is designed to assist companies whose marks enjoy substantial fame in China but face squatting or conflicts abroad, or who face cross‑border enforcement challenges.

5. Procedural and Structural Adjustments That Affect Rights Management

Shortened opposition period (Article 36): A notable procedural change under the new law is the reduction of the trademark opposition period from three months to two months. This means that once a trademark application is published for opposition, interested parties now have only two months to file an opposition, rather than the previous three-month window. The compressed timeframe is intended to accelerate the registration process.

Given this shorter opposition period, brand owners should review and enhance their trademark watch and monitoring systems to ensure prompt identification of potentially conflicting applications. Internal processes for evaluating and authorising oppositions should also be streamlined so that decisions can be made and actions filed within the new two months deadline. Proactive monitoring and efficient internal coordination will be essential to safeguard trademark rights under the revised regime.

Suspension mechanism (Article 41): The new law codifies the administrative authority’s power to suspend opposition, review, or invalidation proceedings where the outcome hinges on a related court or administrative action. The final version has replaced “shall” with “may” from the 2025 draft, adopting a discretionary rather than mandatory approach.

Changes to the “lock-up” rule (Article 49): Under Article 50 of the existing law, where a registered trademark is revoked, invalidated, or not renewed upon expiration, applications by third parties for identical or similar marks are not to be approved within one year from the relevant date. As a welcome move for applicants seeking to shorten the time required to clear obstacles, the new law narrows this “one-year lock-up period” so that it applies only where the owner voluntarily surrenders its registration.

6. Introduction of Motion Marks

Motion marks (Article 14, 18): The list of registrable signs has been expanded to cover motion marks and combinations of existing elements, including sound and colours. However, consistent with international norms, motion effects and other unconventional features that are solely dictated by the nature of the goods, necessary to obtain a technical result, or give the goods substantial value remain ineligible for registration.

7. Key Action Points for Brand Owners Before 1 January 2027

In anticipation of the law coming into effect, companies may consider the following:

• Before 1 January 2027, businesses should adjust and strengthen monitoring and opposition processes by implementing or enhancing watch services in China and streamlining internal review so that opposition decisions can be made within two months of publication.
• Marketing and use practices should be reviewed for compliance, ensuring that use of registered marks on packaging, advertising, e‑commerce, and social media does not materially differ from the registered form or mislead as to quality, nature, or origin, and adjust materials that could be interpreted as misleading use under the new penalty regime.
• Create and maintain comprehensive evidence files for marks with strong recognition in China, covering use, sales, promotion, recognition, and enforcement and have them ready for domestic well‑known confirmation and requests to support overseas proceedings.
• Reassess filing strategies to ensure that new filings align with actual and reasonably foreseeable business needs as much as possible, and where defensive strategies remain necessary, the commercial rationale should be clearly explained and documented.

Conclusion

The 2026 Trademark Law marks a fundamental policy shift from a registration-centric system to a registration-and-use system, with stronger tools to curb stockpiling, deceptive trademark practices, and abuse of trademark procedures, while simultaneously expanding protection for legitimate rights holders.

The new law sets out the main intentions, concerns, and frameworks going forward but it is expected that the new measures and details will be fleshed out through implementing regulations, examination and adjudication guidelines, and judicial interpretations to be published by the authorities. This means that the practical effects of many provisions will only become clearer through supporting rules and regulations and new decisions.