China's 2026 administrative protection programme expressly targets misleading combinations of registered trademarks, product names, advertising and packaging. Registration is not a licence to make a product appear to have qualities it does not possess.

What “xinji trademarks” means here

The Chinese expression 心机商标 is used in official enforcement communications for trademark wordplay that misleads buyers about matters such as origin, ingredients, manufacturing methods or quality. In this article, we use “deceptive trademark use” as a practical English description, not the name of a separate statutory trademark category.

A product claim and a source identifier can overlap in the way consumers read a label. A business cannot settle that problem merely by saying that the prominent phrase is its trademark. The whole presentation and the actual product need to be assessed.

The national programme and local action

CNIPA issued its 2026 Intellectual Property Administrative Protection Work Programme on 31 March 2026 and published it on 8 April. Its trademark-use work includes misleading combinations of marks with product names, advertising language and packaging, with attention to food and medicines, children's toys and household appliances. The programme calls for reporting mechanisms and coordination with market regulators.

A concrete local implementation is Chongqing's joint market-regulation and IP enforcement action, announced on 2 September 2026 and scheduled through the end of 2027. Deceptive trademark conduct is among its enforcement priorities, alongside infringement and bad-faith trademark activity. It covers online commerce as well as key physical markets.

These dates describe the cited programmes. They should not be presented as one nationwide campaign with a single shared end date, nor do their announcements establish that every suspected label has already received a final penalty.

Deceptive use and bad-faith filing are different issues

Hanzhong's August 2026 enforcement notice distinguishes deceptive unregistered marks, deceptive use of registered marks, continued use of problem marks after invalidation or cancellation, and falsely presenting a mark as registered. It also directs the public to the China Trademark Office's reporting channel.

Bad-faith appropriation of another business's brand is a different concern, although conduct can overlap. A source-confusion complaint and a complaint about misleading product characteristics should each explain the facts and legal grounds that support it. An unusual or memorable name alone does not establish deception.

A practical packaging review before launch

Our recommendation is to assess the Chinese label as a customer would see it, together with the product name and prominent images. Check whether language suggesting ingredients, place of origin, quantity, health benefits or production methods is accurate and adequately supported. The examples here are review questions, not findings against a named company.

Keep substantiation for material claims, approved label versions and instructions to distributors. Review livestream scripts and online product titles too; a restrained label can be undermined by a misleading sales presentation. Escalate uncertain claims for product-specific advice rather than relying only on the trademark certificate.

If reporting suspected conduct, preserve the label, listing, date, seller details and evidence explaining the misleading impression. A report is a lead for investigation, not a finding of infringement or an automatic invalidation decision. Obtain specific procedural advice if you also need a registration challenge or have received an official notice.

Why this belongs alongside brand-protection cases

The LAFITE and Michelin decisions illustrate protection of established international brands. The deceptive-use programme addresses another part of a functioning trademark market: accurate information and fair competition for consumers and businesses.

See also our bad-faith applications guide and prior-rights guide. These programmes are administrative measures; they do not themselves amend the Trademark Law or replace the legal requirements applicable to a particular case.

Official sources

Public sources checked on 25 October 2026. This article explains official programmes and our practical recommendations; it does not assert that MY CNTM participated in these enforcement actions.