New Trademark Law: China’s Trademark System Moves from “Registration-Oriented” to “Use-Oriented”

On June 26, 2026, the 23rd Session of the Standing Committee of the 14th National People’s Congress approved the newly revised Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as ‘the New Law’), which was promulgated by Presidential Order No. 77 and will take effect on January 1, 2027. This is the first comprehensive revision of the Trademark Law in more than four decades since it took effect in 1983: the structure of the law expands from 8 chapters and 73 articles to 9 chapters and 87 articles, with a new dedicated chapter on “Conditions for Trademark Registration” consolidating the registration rules previously scattered across various chapters.

Unlike previous partial “amendments”, this “revision” is a wholesale update of the operating logic of the trademark system: restructures the systems of trademark registration conditions, use administration, regulatory supervision, and rights protection as a whole, responding to the long-standing problem of “emphasizing registration over use” and moving the trademark system from a “registration-oriented” approach toward a “use- and good-faith-oriented” one. Obtaining a registration certificate is no longer the end point of brand protection; whether a trademark is genuinely used, properly used, and enforced in good faith will increasingly determine the value and risk of trademark assets. This article outlines the key amendments and provides practical guidance for foreign companies operating in China.

I. Background

The revision has its roots in reality. By the end of 2025, the number of valid registered trademarks in mainland China had approached 50 million. Behind this impressive figure, however, bad-faith squatting, hoarding of idle marks, misleading use, and agency irregularities had long troubled the market — since 2023 alone, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has rejected more than 1.27 million trademark applications liable to mislead consumers. It was precisely to address this structural problem of “emphasizing registration over use” that CNIPA published a draft revision for public comment in January 2023; after the first reading by the NPC Standing Committee in December 2025, the law was finally adopted at the second reading in June 2026.

Notably, several of the more radical mechanisms in the 2023 consultation draft — such as filing statements of use every five years after registration, the prohibition of repeat registration, and the compulsory transfer of maliciously registered trademarks — were ultimately not adopted. For foreign enterprises operating in China, this revision does not create entirely new burdens but represents a deepening, refinement, and strengthening based on the existing framework; under Article 87, trademarks registered before the New Law takes effect remain valid, and the remainder of 2026 offers a window for enterprises to take stock of their trademark assets and adjust their management strategies at a measured pace.

II. Main Contents of This Revision

This update to the Trademarks Act represents a comprehensive overhaul, ranging from fundamental concepts to the regulatory framework, and covers all aspects of trademarks, including their definition, registration, use, protection and remedies. This section will provide a detailed overview.

1.Updates To Fundamental Concepts: Trademark Use Extended to Cyberspace and Dynamic Marks Open for Registration

The renewal of the trademark system begins at the most fundamental conceptual level. Brand operation today is no longer confined to offline packaging and shop signs; e-commerce pages, livestream selling, short videos, and social media have become the main scenarios in which consumers identify brands. In response, Article 2 of the New Law moves the definition of trademark use forward into the General Provisions and expressly provides that “the use of trademarks referred to in the preceding paragraph includes acts of use carried out through the internet and other information networks”; Article 14 further adds “dynamic signs” to the registrable elements, giving new types of brand assets such as animated logos and app opening animations a clear path to registration.

This change cuts both ways for enterprises: on the one hand, online evidence such as store pages, order records, livestream recordings, and advertising placement data becomes significantly more valuable in non-use cancellation defenses(cancellation due to three consecutive years of non-use), infringement determinations, and proof of reputation, so enterprises should establish routine preservation and evidence-fixing mechanisms for key online use; on the other hand, the use of others’ trademarks in product titles, detail pages, livestream scripts, and search keywords can more readily constitute trademark use and trigger infringement risks, so advertising compliance standards must be unified online and offline.

2. Stricter Registration: Multi-Layered Regulation of Bad-Faith Filings and Squatting

Having consolidated the concept of use, the New Law places the first stop of its governance at the registration stage. Article 19 provides: “Where an application for trademark registration is filed without the purpose of use and manifestly exceeds the reasonable needs of normal production and business operations, registration shall be refused. No application for trademark registration may be filed by deception or other improper means.” The article adopts a dual test combining “without the purpose of use” and “manifestly exceeding the reasonable needs of normal production and business operations”, shifting the regulatory focus from abstract “bad faith” to the match between filing behavior and genuine commercial needs, while leaving room for reasonable portfolios built around core business, brand extension, and defense against squatting. As a complementary measure, Article 54 for the first time establishes independent administrative liability: bad-faith applications causing adverse effects may attract a warning and a fine of up to RMB 100,000.

With respect to squatting, Article 24 expands the former law’s “prior rights” to “prior legitimate rights and interests”, so that commercial signs carrying market-recognition value — such as trade names, product names, and packaging or trade dress — may all serve as grounds to block squatting; it also changes “preemptive registration by improper means” to “intentional preemptive registration”, focusing on the applicant’s actual or constructive knowledge. For foreign enterprises, distributors, agents, OEM partners, and former employees have always been high-risk squatters, and routinely preserving “contact evidence” such as negotiation records, contracts and orders, trade fair interactions, and correspondence will directly determine the success of opposition or invalidation proceedings. In addition, Article 49 narrows the one-year “quarantine period” after cancellation to cases where the registrant voluntarily cancels its own registration, so that after clearing squatted marks through non-use cancellation or invalidation, enterprises in principle no longer need to wait an additional year before filing.

3. Heavier Obligations at the Use Stage: From “Obtaining Registration” to “Regulated Use”

Securing registration, however, no longer means resting easy — the most striking changes of this revision occur precisely at the post-registration use stage. The amendments at the use stage have the most direct impact on enterprises’ daily operations. Article 57 restores the trademark authority’s power to cancel, ex officio, trademarks not used for three consecutive years, so the clearing of idle marks no longer depends entirely on third-party applications; Article 78 anchors the review period for the non-use defense to “the three years preceding the infringing act”, meaning that registered trademarks not genuinely used may recover no damages even where infringement is established. The certainty of survival of defensive marks, reserve marks, and legacy marks declines markedly, and use-evidence management should move forward from a “reactive litigation step” to a routine management mechanism.

The extended supervision covers not only “whether” a mark is used but also “how”. Article 56 adds regulation of “using a registered trademark in a manner that misleads the public”: where the illegal turnover is RMB 50,000 or more, a fine of up to five times the illegal turnover may be imposed, if it is less than RMB 50,000, a fine of up to RMB 250,000 may be imposed, and where correction is not made within the prescribed period, the registered trademark may be cancelled. Article 70 further entitles any entity or individual to complain about and report such conduct. This means the registration certificate is no longer a “talisman” for use compliance — even where a sign itself has been registered, if in actual use it misleads the public as to quality, origin, or craftsmanship through alteration, splitting, combination, or accompanying marketing language, it will still face penalties and even cancellation, and the presentation of trademarks containing elements suggesting quality, origin, or function on packaging, e-commerce pages, and in livestream promotion requires focused review. In addition, Article 55 grants the licensor a statutory right to terminate the license where the licensee fails to perform its quality-assurance obligations, making the design of quality-control clauses in brand licensing and co-branding arrangements increasingly important.

4. Expanded Protection: Well-Known Trademarks and Cross-Border Enforcement Support

Beyond tightening and pressure, the new law extends more generous protection to trademarks that genuinely embody goodwill, and the well-known trademark regime draws the most attention from international brands. Article 21 removes the precondition that a well-known trademark must be “already registered in China” to enjoy cross-class protection, so that well-known trademarks not registered in China are equally eligible — an important safety net for brands enjoying high reputation abroad that have not yet completed full-class portfolios in China. To be clear, what the New Law relaxes is the object of protection, not the evidentiary threshold: recognition of well-known status remains case-by-case and as-needed, and evidence of reputation within China — sales, advertising, media coverage, and records of protection — still needs to be accumulated over the long term and in a systematic manner.

The scenarios in which well-known status applies are expanding in parallel. Article 63 extends the scenarios for confirming well-known status to administrative investigations and judicial proceedings in unfair competition cases, providing enterprises with a more direct basis for tackling disputes such as brand free-riding, trade-name imitation, and packaging or trade dress copying, and dovetailing with the new Anti-Unfair Competition Law effective October 2025. Article 69 adds a cross-border mechanism: where a party needs to prove in overseas proceedings that its trademark is well known in China, it may request confirmation from the trademark administration department under the State Council; the article also regulates agency conduct that handles overseas trademark matters through fraud or other improper means. For enterprises operating in both China and other markets, this official confirmation can serve as important supporting evidence in overseas oppositions, invalidations, or litigation.

5. Boundaries and Remedies: Faster Procedures, Fair Use, and Damages Rules

Stronger protection does not come without boundaries, and the adjustments to procedure and remedies embody precisely this balance. Procedurally, Article 36 shortens the opposition period from three months to two: the granting of rights speeds up overall, but the reaction window of prior rights holders is markedly compressed — from spotting a published mark to organizing evidence and filing an opposition, the time left to enterprises is more limited, turning a routine trademark watch and rapid decision-making mechanism from an “option” into a “must”. On remedies, Article 77 places the rights holder’s actual losses and the infringer’s illegal gains side by side as alternative methods of calculation, in systemic consistency with the Civil Code and the Supreme People’s Court’s judicial interpretation on punitive damages newly revised in 2026; for willful infringement with serious circumstances, punitive damages of one to five times remain available, and the statutory damages cap stays at RMB 5 million.

Corresponding to the strengthened protection, the New Law simultaneously delineates the limits of rights. Article 73 adds an indicative fair use provision — use that merely indicates the purpose or intended users of goods or their true source, such as a parts manufacturer labeling compatible models or an independent repairer describing the products it services, may not be prohibited by the rights holder, unless it is likely to cause confusion; Article 81 provides that where trademark litigation is initiated through malicious collusion or unilateral fabrication of basic facts, the people’s court shall impose sanctions in accordance with the law and civil liability shall be borne. The “mass registration plus mass complaints” model of reverse enforcement will face substantive constraints, and rights holders should also review the solidity of their own rights basis and use evidence before initiating enforcement.

III. Conclusion

Overall, the new Trademark Law neither merely strengthens rights holders’ protection nor simply raises the registration threshold; rather, it moves the trademark system from “acquisition by registration” toward equal emphasis on “registration, use, administration, and enforcement”: the trademark registration certificate remains the foundation of brand protection, but is no longer sufficient on its own to support a complete compliance system; whether a trademark is genuinely used, whether its use is regulated, and whether enforcement is conducted in good faith will together determine the value and risk of trademark assets.

For foreign enterprises operating in China, it is advisable to take advantage of the transitional period before the New Law takes effect to complete the following tasks: first, conduct a comprehensive review of the trademark portfolio in China, identifying idle registrations, applications that clearly exceed business needs, and obstructive registrations that need to be cleared; second, establish a trademark monitoring and rapid response mechanism covering the two‑month opposition period — as the New Law shortens the opposition period from three months to two months, significantly compressing the window for action, enterprises should streamline their internal approval procedures for opposition materials and prepare in advance evidence of brand recognition and prior use, so that upon discovering a third‑party filing, they can quickly file an opposition to block it; third, systematically archive evidence of use, both online and offline, on a per‑trademark and per‑class basis — such materials not only serve as the core basis for avoiding non‑use cancellation for three consecutive years, but can also be directly used as evidence for damages in infringement claims and for establishing brand reputation; fourth, review packaging, e‑commerce pages, and live‑streaming promotional content for risks of misleading use; and fifth, review the quality control and termination clauses in trademark license agreements. A trademark legal environment with clearer rules and more predictable enforcement is taking shape, and enterprises that prepare in advance will be the first to benefit.