Intellectual property protection in China is undergoing its most significant transformation in decades. On June 26, 2026, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress adopted the revised Trademark Law, marking the fifth major update to the statute since its inception. This overhaul expands the law from 73 articles across eight chapters to 87 articles across nine chapters. Notably, it introduces a standalone chapter on registration conditions and significantly broadens the scope of trademark administration.
Set to take effect on January 1, 2027, this legislative shift signals a decisive move away from purely formalistic registration toward a system anchored in genuine commercial use. For global businesses operating in China, understanding these nuances is a critical component of risk management and brand strategy.
Anchoring Registration in Genuine Use
The central theme of the amendment is the redefinition of "bad faith." New Article 19 refines the previous standard by targeting applications filed without intent to use and manifestly exceeding normal business needs. This objective test replaces the vague inquiry into subjective bad faith, focusing instead on the verifiable alignment between filing volume and actual business operations. The requirement that both conditions be met ensures that defensive filings supported by legitimate business planning are not automatically penalized.
The cost of abusive filing has increased dramatically. Under Article 54, applicants engaging in bad-faith filings that cause adverse effects face warnings and fines up to 100,000 RMB. Trademark agencies knowingly accepting such instructions share this liability under Article 67. Treating trademark registration as a cost-free lottery is no longer viable, it is now a sanctionable activity with real financial exposure.
This use-orientation extends to maintenance and enforcement. While the familiar three-year non-use cancellation rule remains, Article 57 empowers the trademark office to cancel idle registrations ex officio. Furthermore, Article 78 adjusts the burden of proof for infringement claims. Registrants must now prove use within three years before the infringement occurred, rather than before the lawsuit was filed. This change prevents evidence manufactured on the eve of litigation from satisfying procedural requirements. Additionally, Article 2 expressly codifies that using a mark via the internet constitutes valid trademark use, providing legal clarity for digital-first businesses.
Enhanced Protection with Calibrated Boundaries
The revised law offers tangible benefits regarding protection for well-known marks. Article 21 removes the requirement that a mark be registered in China to enjoy cross-class protection. Unregistered well-known marks may now block free-riding on dissimilar goods, provided the owner presents sufficient evidence of their mark's reputation. For companies expanding globally, Article 69 introduces an outbound confirmation mechanism. The trademark authority may issue official confirmation that a mark is well-known in China, aiding rights holders in foreign legal proceedings.
Damages calculations have also been recalibrated. Article 77 allows right holders to choose between actual loss and the infringer’s profit as the basis for compensation, rather than following a strict sequence. Punitive damages of one to five times are triggered by "intentional" infringement, aligning the standard with the Civil Code.
Crucially, the legislature has balanced stronger protection with safeguards for fair competition. Article 73 substantially enlarges the fair use provision, explicitly codifying nominative use. Using another’s registered mark merely to indicate the purpose or source of goods is permissible unless it causes confusion. This provides a statutory anchor for repair services, spare parts suppliers, and second-hand dealers, resolving long-standing ambiguities in these sectors.
Procedural Shifts and Administrative Tightening
The most immediate operational impact for practitioners is the reduction of the opposition period from three months to two (Article 36). While a three-month window for supplementing evidence after filing an opposition remains, internal decision chains must accelerate. Watch services will need to adapt to this compressed timeline to prevent third parties from securing registrations.
Trademark agencies face a stricter regulatory regime. New rules impose recordal requirements, duty-of-care obligations, and conflict-of-interest prohibitions. Practitioners now face personal liability and fines up to 200,000 RMB. This regulation extends for the first time to the handling of outbound filings for domestic clients, tightening oversight across the industry.
The Abandoned Proposals: What Was Dropped
A significant portion of the legislative debate was defined by proposals that did not survive. Four aggressive institutions from the 2023 draft were eliminated before the first reading, with one more dropped at the second. Understanding these deletions provides insight into the boundaries of current policy.
The proposed five-year statements of use, modeled after US practice, were abandoned due to concerns over administrative burden and compliance costs for honest businesses policing a massive registry. Similarly, the general ban on re-filing the same mark was removed because crafting comprehensive exceptions proved difficult, and legitimate portfolio consolidation needs were recognized.
Perhaps the most notable loss for rights holders is the compulsory transfer mechanism. The 2023 draft allowed prior right holders to request the transfer of bad-faith registrations to preserve their filing date. Its deletion reflects unfinished work on the interface with invalidation systems. Until such a mechanism returns, parallel filing during invalidation actions remains the practical workaround.
Civil damages for bad-faith filings and public interest litigation by procuratorates were also dropped. The former was seen as stretching tort liability too far, while the latter conflicted with the private-right nature of trademarks. Courts currently address these gaps under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, meaning the statutory route has narrowed even if remedies remain available in practice.
Strategic Implications for Business
Measured against the 2019 law, the 2026 revisions represent a substantial step forward. The result is a set of incremental but powerful innovations: an objective bad-faith standard backed by penalties, cross-class protection for unregistered marks, codified fair use, and first-generation tools for global brand protection.
Filing strategies should be defensible by reference to real business plans, not speculative hoarding. Use evidence must be maintained systematically, particularly for digital platforms where usage patterns are complex. Legal teams must tighten their monitoring capabilities to operate within the shortened two-month opposition window.
The aggressive reforms of the past have been set aside, but the underlying problems remain. As implementing regulations and judicial interpretations follow, the next round of amendments will likely address the remaining gaps. Adaptability and rigorous use-based evidence management are the keys to thriving in China’s evolving trademark environment.