A distributor can learn a brand before the overseas owner has made a major China launch. A factory may see the mark while manufacturing products for export. Neither relationship should be treated as permission to register that brand in the local partner's own name.
CNIPA's Trademark Examination and Adjudication Guidelines, 2021 edition, addresses these situations in Part II, Chapters 11–12, printed pages 343–349. This article explains those chapters for overseas businesses, with the legal position checked on 26 October 2026. The guide took effect on 1 January 2022. Its chapter references are to that edition; the 2026 consultation draft is a separate proposed revision.
Two relationship-based grounds, with different facts to prove
Chapter 11 addresses unauthorised registration by an agent or representative. In this context, an agent is not limited to a trademark filing professional: the guide includes distributors who encounter the brand through commercial dealings. Representatives can include people whose corporate position gives them access to the owner's mark.
Chapter 12 addresses other contractual, business or related connections through which the applicant knew of another party's earlier-used, unregistered mark. Its examples of business dealings include sales, commissioned manufacturing, franchise or licensing arrangements, investment, commercial negotiations and advertising work.
For the latter ground, the guide identifies earlier use, the relevant relationship and knowledge, identical or similar goods or services, and identical or similar marks as issues to establish. It does not require proof of the separate “certain influence” threshold merely because that threshold features in another prior-use ground. This distinction does not dispense with proof of use or the other conditions.
Negotiations and a terminated relationship can still matter
The guide does not restrict the agency or representative analysis to the date a contract is formally signed. It discusses registrations made during negotiations after learning the owner's mark, and after a relationship has ended, where the owner's interests may be harmed.
It also addresses collusion where the applicant is not the agent itself. A family or investment connection can be relevant to an inference, depending on the evidence. A connection alone should not be presented as automatic proof that every filing was collusive.
Our practical recommendation: preserve the timeline from first contact, not just the final distribution agreement. Dated quotations, packaging approvals, sample orders, correspondence and termination records may explain who knew which mark and when. Retain the original electronic records as well as readable copies.
Official example: a foreign brand and its export manufacturer
Chapter 12 includes the CHOPPIES example, registration number 12035146, at printed page 349. The guide describes a foreign company arranging, through an intermediary, for a Chinese manufacturer to produce branded washing powder for export to Botswana. The manufacturer knew the foreign company's mark but sought an identical registration for identical or similar goods.
The guide treats the relationship and knowledge as relevant even though the mark's source-identifying function was ultimately directed to the overseas market. Its discussion finds the registration within the specific relationship-based provision applicable to that case.
This is an official example from CNIPA's guide, not a MY CNTM client case. It does not establish that all export manufacturing is trademark use sufficient for every Chinese legal purpose. In particular, it should not be converted into a universal answer to infringement or non-use cancellation questions, which have their own tests.
Check what was actually authorised
Authorisation to sell goods, manufacture packaging or promote a brand is not necessarily authorisation to register the trademark in the partner's own name. Chapter 11 explains that registration authorisation should clearly identify the mark and relevant goods or services. It also discusses subsequent ratification and the effect of a clear authorisation already given.
Our practical recommendation: use agreements that identify the intended trademark owner, who may file, whose name must appear on the application, and how local brand variants are handled. Review old correspondence before asserting that a partner had no permission: a short email or later confirmation may matter. Do not fabricate a refusal of consent after the event.
What to collect when a filing is discovered
Prepare an evidence schedule connecting each allegation to a document:
- The challenged application's number, filing date, goods and current procedural stage.
- Evidence that the mark belonged to, or had been used by, the complaining business before the relevant date.
- The distribution, manufacturing, employment or other relationship and its dates.
- Evidence showing access to the mark, such as signed specifications, artwork deliveries and product orders.
- Any permission, limitation, termination or later ratification concerning registration.
These are our case-preparation recommendations, not an exhaustive official filing checklist. Translate the evidence needed for the Chinese proceeding and assess authenticity requirements separately; see our foreign evidence preparation guide.
Choose the procedural route before negotiating at length
A mark still in preliminary publication and a mark already registered require different procedural assessments. Identify the relevant opposition or invalidation route, standing, applicable time limit and evidence before allowing commercial negotiations to consume the available time. The correct ground depends on the facts; proof of a distributor relationship should not simply be replaced with a generic allegation of bad faith.
Our squatting remedies guide explains the routes, while the deadline guide distinguishes proceedings. Neither a complaint to a consultation platform nor a demand letter should be assumed to constitute a formal challenge.
Official sources
- CNIPA's publication of the 2021 Guidelines, Announcement 462, with the official PDF attachment: Part II, Chapters 11–12, printed pp. 343–349, particularly the CHOPPIES example on p. 349.
- Trademark Law, 2019 amendment, Article 15, for the statutory background of the 2021 guide.
- Our analysis of the 2026 guidelines consultation draft and transition draft: proposed changes and transitional matters must be checked separately from the existing guide.
Frequently asked questions
Does agent here mean only a trademark attorney or filing agency?
No. The guide's relationship-based analysis includes commercial distributors; the relevant facts and authority need to be established.
Does the CHOPPIES example guarantee that my export manufacturing evidence wins every trademark case?
No. It illustrates a specific relationship-based registration challenge. Infringement, non-use cancellation and other grounds require their own analysis.
Is permission to distribute necessarily permission to own the trademark registration?
No. Review the actual registration authority and evidence, including any clear consent or subsequent ratification, rather than treating sales permission as conclusive.