On 26 June 2026, the Standing Committee of the 14th National People's Congress adopted a comprehensive revision of the PRC Trademark Law. It is the first time since the law took effect in 1983 that China has amended the statute by way of a full revision rather than a targeted amendment — in Chinese legislative practice these are two distinct instruments, and the distinction signals a restructured statute rather than a patch. The law grows from 8 chapters and 73 articles to 9 chapters and 87 articles, and it takes effect on 1 January 2027.

For foreign brand owners, the practical question is not what the article numbers are. It is what changes in the way you file, monitor, oppose, and enforce. This article walks through the substantive shifts, then sets out what to do before the commencement date.

The structure changes, and why that matters

The revision adds a new Chapter 2 titled "Conditions for Trademark Registration". Previously the grounds that decide whether a mark can be registered at all were scattered: absolute prohibitions in one place, relative grounds against prior rights in another, distinctiveness and functionality elsewhere. They are now gathered into a single chapter, separating the substantive question ("is this mark registrable?") from the procedural question ("how is the application filed and examined?").

Two smaller but telling edits sit alongside this. The definition of a trademark has been moved up into the General Provisions, and the legislative purpose clause in Article 1 has been reordered. The old text opened with "in order to strengthen trademark administration, protect the exclusive right to use a trademark". The new text opens with "in order to protect the exclusive right to use a registered trademark, strengthen trademark administration, and regulate the registration and use of trademarks". The emphasis moves from administration first to protection first.

None of this changes outcomes by itself. It does change how the law is read, and China's examination and enforcement bodies read purpose clauses. Expect the "protection first" framing to be cited in decisions that previously defaulted to administrative convenience.

Institution names are now generic, not agency-specific

Throughout the statute, "the trademark administration department under the State Council" replaces references to the former Trademark Office and Trademark Review and Adjudication Board, and "the department responsible for trademark enforcement" replaces "the administration for industry and commerce". This is consolidation language, not a transfer of authority. But if you work from templates or internal checklists that name the old bodies, update them. Correspondence addressed to a body that no longer exists under that name creates avoidable delay.

The opposition period shortens to two months

This is the change with the widest day-to-day impact. The opposition window against a published application drops from three months to two — the first adjustment since the current framework was put in place. At the same time, the point at which the exclusive right is acquired moves earlier to match: the right runs from the expiry of the new two-month period rather than from the old three-month one.

For foreign owners the operational consequence is direct. If your monitoring relies on a foreign agent or an internal team reviewing the Trademark Gazette at a monthly cadence, you will lose the window. Two months is roughly sixty calendar days from publication, and an opposition requires instructions, evidence assembly, power of attorney legalisation where applicable, and filing. Move to a weekly or fortnightly review, and pre-agree a fallback so a matter is not held up waiting for a signature. The pragmatic answer is a standing watch instruction with a defined budget, so the agent can file on instruction from a named contact without a fresh internal approval cycle each time.

The one-year quarantine narrows sharply

Under the old rules, a trademark application that was refused, withdrawn, or cancelled was subject to a one-year cooling-off period before a refiled application for the same mark on the same goods could be examined. Owners who cleaned up a citation by cancelling the blocking registration frequently had to wait out the year.

The revision narrows this. The one-year bar now applies only where the registrant itself applied to cancel the registration. Where the registration ended through non-use cancellation, invalidation, or failure to renew, the waiting period no longer applies. For a foreign owner who has just knocked out a dead blocking mark through a three-year non-use cancellation, this converts a twelve-month delay into no delay. It is one of the most welcome changes in the package for practitioners who routinely clear citations.

Cancellation and invalidation procedures get deadlines

The revision tightens the clock on non-use cancellation. Decisions in a cancellation case must now be issued within nine months, extendable by three. It also introduces ex officio cancellation: the authorities may act on their own initiative to cancel a mark for continuous three-year non-use or for having become generic, without waiting for a third party to file.

Two implications follow. First, a three-year non-use cancellation becomes a more predictable tool — you can plan a filing around a nine-to-twelve-month decision timeline rather than an open-ended one. Second, a registration you hold defensively but do not use carries more risk than before, because the exposure is no longer only to a competitor who pays to file a cancellation. If you maintain defensive registrations in China, this is the moment to document genuine use or to reconsider whether each one is worth keeping.

Bad-faith filing: from a subjective test to an objective one

The old provision barred applications "not made in good faith". The revision reframes the test objectively: an application is refused where it is not made for the purpose of use and clearly exceeds the applicant's normal production and business needs. The subjective label "malicious" is dropped in favour of a benchmark that examiners can assess from volume, breadth of classes, and the applicant's actual business.

A separate provision now lists three categories of bad-faith filing conduct, and where such conduct causes an adverse impact the authorities may issue a warning and a fine of up to RMB 100,000. Together these give examiners and enforcement bodies a firmer basis for acting against wholesale filers, including filers who target well-known foreign marks in classes unrelated to the owner's home business.

Misleading use of a registered mark now carries a fine and, in the end, revocation

A new provision targets marks used in a way that misleads the public — for example, a registered mark displayed so as to suggest official endorsement or a certification it does not have. The consequences escalate: an order to rectify within a time limit; where illegal turnover exceeds RMB 50,000, a fine of up to five times that turnover; where turnover is below that threshold or absent, a fine of up to RMB 250,000; and, if the mark is not corrected in time, revocation of the registration.

For foreign owners this cuts both ways. It is a new lever against competitors who dress up an ordinary registered mark as an official designation. It is also a compliance obligation: review how your own Chinese registrations are presented on packaging, in advertising, and on e-commerce storefronts. A registration that is valid can still be lost through presentation.

Suspension of examination, and the "may" that is not "shall"

For the first time the statute gathers suspension of examination into a single provision covering opposition examination, refusal review, review of a refusal of registration, and invalidation. Where the outcome of one case depends on the outcome of another, examination may be suspended. The language is "may", not "shall", so suspension remains discretionary rather than an entitlement.

A related change matters for citing prior rights. The reference to prior "rights" has been broadened to prior "legitimate rights and interests", which widens the category of interests that can support an opposition or invalidation beyond strict legal rights. In parallel, the standard for bad-faith pre-emptive filing has shifted from "improper means" to "intent", which is a more direct inquiry into the filer's state of mind.

Well-known marks: confirmation, not recognition, and now available to overseas owners

The revision replaces "recognition" of a well-known mark with "confirmation" of well-known status — a wording change that reflects what the procedure actually does, which is to confirm a factual status rather than to confer a title. Cross-class protection no longer turns on whether the earlier mark is registered. And a new provision addresses confirmation of well-known status for marks that are well known outside China, which is directly relevant to foreign owners who need to stop use of their mark on dissimilar goods in China.

Electronic acts are now squarely within the statute

The revision confirms that use implemented through the internet and other information networks counts as trademark use, and that a data message is treated as a written form. It also confirms that electronic service is effective, building on the practice already in place where a document sent electronically is deemed received after a set period if it is not actually read.

Practical exposure here is real. If your Chinese agent or a local contact is the designated recipient of official documents, a deemed-receipt rule means a notice can be effective even if nobody opened it. Confirm that the address and electronic contact on record are monitored by someone who knows what the correspondence is, and that nothing is routed to a shared mailbox nobody owns.

Enforcement and litigation carry through

The enforcement chapter strengthens the hand of rights holders in ways that matter for foreign brand owners. Administrative and criminal channels now move in both directions, so a case referred one way can come back the other. Electronic data is expressly available as evidence, and authorities may register and preserve evidence in advance. Damages now expressly include reasonable enforcement costs. In non-use defences, the burden is calibrated to the three years before the infringing act. And a provision addresses bad-faith litigation, which gives defendants a basis to push back against abusive suits.

Transitional risks for foreign owners

Most of the above takes effect on 1 January 2027. Between now and then the current law governs, and the implementing regulations will need to be aligned with the new statute — meaning some details will only settle in the months before commencement. Two structural cautions follow.

First, treat article numbers as provisional. A mark examined under the old statute and a mark examined under the new one may be governed by different numbering even where the substantive rule is unchanged. In instructions to Chinese counsel, describe the rule rather than relying on an article number alone.

Second, front-load anything time-sensitive. An opposition that would be safely filed in month three under the current three-month window is not safely filed in month three after commencement. If a publication is live now and the two-month window could bite, file early rather than assume the old window applies.

A pre-2027 checklist

  • Audit your watch service. Move from monthly to weekly or fortnightly gazette review, and pre-authorise your Chinese agent to lodge oppositions up to an agreed value without a fresh signature cycle.
  • Re-examine defensive registrations. With ex officio cancellation available for continuous non-use, keep evidence of use for each mark you intend to hold, or let the weak ones go.
  • Sequence your clean-up filings. Where a blocking mark can be removed by non-use cancellation or invalidation, the one-year quarantine no longer applies after commencement. Where it can only be removed by the registrant's own cancellation, plan around the continuing one-year bar.
  • Refresh templates. Update any documents that name the Trademark Office, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board, or the administration for industry and commerce.
  • Review presentation of your own marks. Bring packaging, advertising, and storefront use into line so that no registration is exposed to a misleading-use challenge.
  • Confirm your service address. Make sure the recorded Chinese address and electronic contact for your registrations is actively monitored, given deemed-receipt rules.
  • Check the regulations when published. The implementing rules and examination guidelines will carry the operational detail. Build a review of them into your calendar for late 2026.

Frequently asked questions

When does China's revised Trademark Law take effect?

It was adopted on 26 June 2026 and takes effect on 1 January 2027. Until then the current law, together with the existing implementing regulations, governs all filings and proceedings.

Is this the same as the previous amendments to the Trademark Law?

No. Earlier changes were targeted "amendments" that altered specific provisions. This is the first full "revision" since the law took effect in 1983, and it restructures the statute — 8 chapters and 73 articles become 9 chapters and 87 articles, with a new chapter on the conditions for registration.

How much shorter is the opposition period?

It shortens from three months to two months from publication of the application. The point at which the exclusive right is acquired moves earlier to match, running from the expiry of the new two-month period.

Does the one-year waiting period still apply after I cancel a blocking mark?

It depends how the blocking mark was removed. If the registrant itself applied to cancel it, the one-year bar still applies to a refiled application for the same mark on the same goods. If removal came through non-use cancellation, invalidation, or failure to renew, the bar no longer applies.

Can my Chinese registration be cancelled if I do not use it?

Yes, and the risk has increased. The revision introduces ex officio cancellation, allowing the authorities to cancel a mark for continuous three-year non-use or for having become generic without a third-party petition. Decisions in non-use cancellation cases must be issued within nine months, extendable by three.

What happens if I use a registered mark in a misleading way?

You may be ordered to rectify within a time limit, and fined up to five times turnover where turnover exceeds RMB 50,000, or up to RMB 250,000 where it does not. If the mark is not corrected in time, the registration can be revoked.

Are well-known marks treated differently under the revision?

Two things change. The procedure is now described as "confirmation" of well-known status rather than "recognition", and a new provision addresses confirmation for marks that are well known outside China — useful to foreign owners seeking cross-class protection. Cross-class protection also no longer depends on whether the earlier mark is registered.

Do I need to do anything before 1 January 2027?

Yes. The main items are moving your watch service to a faster cadence, reviewing defensive registrations for evidence of use, sequencing any clean-up filings around the narrowed quarantine rule, refreshing templates that name the old agencies, and confirming that the service address on your registrations is monitored.

This article is general information about a change in Chinese trademark law and is not legal advice. If you have filings or enforcement matters that will straddle the 1 January 2027 commencement date, have your Chinese counsel confirm how the new rules apply to your specific case.

Official sources

Related reading

Last reviewed: 30 September 2026