CNIPA's proposed examination guidelines would require an applicant for a motion mark to supply a video, matching still frames and a written description. They also address misleading signs, trademark stockpiling and an agent's responsibility to check documents and deliver notices promptly. These are practical changes worth preparing for, but the consultation document is not itself an operative filing instruction.

Status as of 26 October 2026: consultation draft. CNIPA published the notice on 28 September 2026 and invited comments before 12 November 2026. The notice explains that the revision supports implementation of the revised Trademark Law. The consultation deadline is not an effective date for the guidelines. Final wording and implementation arrangements must be checked separately.

This article examines the official 144-page modification comparison table. Page references below are the page numbers printed in that attachment. The table shows retained wording, deletions and additions; reading extracted text without its revision marks can produce incorrect deadlines or article numbers.

What is proposed, and what should a business do now?

Motion marks. The draft: detailed filing materials and substantive examination provisions. Practical preparation: preserve an identifiable animation, its key frames and a clear description; confirm final filing specifications before submission.

Agent diligence. The draft: a dedicated chapter on document checking, timely filing and communication. Practical preparation: agree who checks identity documents, receives official notices and monitors deadlines.

Bad-faith applications. The draft: further treatment of applications without a use purpose and clearly beyond normal business needs. Practical preparation: keep records explaining actual or planned business activity and the purpose of the filing portfolio.

Misleading signs. The draft: express treatment of misleading combinations of sign elements and goods or services names. Practical preparation: assess the commercial impression of the complete presentation, not just the isolated brand word.

Opposition. The draft: replacement of the three-month wording with two months. Practical preparation: review monitoring arrangements, while checking the applicable law and transition rules for each deadline.

Cancellation and suspension. The draft: additional procedures concerning misleading use and the suspension and resumption of proceedings. Practical preparation: identify the legal route, evidence and status of related proceedings before choosing a response.

The practical preparation suggestions above are our recommendations. They are not additional requirements stated by CNIPA.

Motion marks: the proposed materials must tell the same story

Pages 2–3 propose the following materials for an application declared to be a motion mark:

  • One MP4 video, no longer than 10 seconds, no larger than 20 MB and with resolution of at least 720P.
  • At least one complete cycle of the motion, without an audio track or unrelated watermarks or advertising.
  • Three to nine JPEG still frames, in chronological order, covering the starting state, key intermediate changes and final state. The draft specifies at least 300 dpi for these frames.
  • A written description explaining the motion, including its relevant states and changes.

The still frames must correspond to the video. A description of one animation accompanied by frames from a different version would not provide a coherent representation of the proposed mark. The draft also contains substantive provisions on motion marks, including distinctiveness and similarity, at pages 84–100.

For an overseas owner, the useful preparation is to retain the original animation and identify exactly which sequence is intended to function as a source identifier. These draft specifications do not establish that an application can be filed under them today, or that an animation will qualify for registration merely because its file format is correct.

Agent diligence: checking materials and passing on notices

Pages 17–18 add a dedicated chapter on the diligence obligations of trademark agencies. Its examples include failures to check qualification documents or evidence that result in false materials being submitted, materially defective filing materials, unjustified filing delays causing loss of rights, and failures to communicate progress or deliver legal documents in time for a client to act.

This is a proposed dedicated treatment of the topic, not a claim that agents previously had no duties. The chapter itself cites both the Trademark Law and the trademark agency supervision rules.

Clients can translate this into concrete working arrangements: identify the legal applicant before filing; reconcile the application with the supporting document; specify where notices will be sent; and record the date, action required and response deadline when a notice arrives. See our guide to selecting a China trademark agent.

Stockpiling: a portfolio needs a commercial explanation

The draft's treatment of applications without a use purpose considers normal production and business needs, the applicant's industry and capacity, filing volume and spread, the signs involved, actual use and other relevant conduct. The discussion at pages 18 onward retains the distinction between disruption of the registration order and injury only to a particular party's private interests.

A large portfolio is therefore not usefully assessed by a single numerical threshold. Conversely, describing every filing as defensive does not establish that every application is justified. Our practical recommendation is to keep contemporaneous records of planned products, expansion, licensing or other relevant commercial reasons rather than construct an explanation only after a challenge.

Our bad-faith application guide discusses the existing framework. The draft should be read alongside the applicable law, rather than used to replace its tests before implementation.

Misleading combinations: examine the sign with the goods

Page 63 adds a provision addressing elements such as words, numerals or letters that, when combined with the names of particular goods or services, can mislead the public about characteristics such as ingredients, composition, quality or content.

The practical issue is the impression created in context. A business should review the proposed sign with the designated goods and the way it is intended to appear in trade. Registration analysis and misleading use are related questions, but they are not interchangeable procedures.

Pages 140–141 separately address procedures for revoking registrations in cases involving misleading use or unauthorised changes to registered particulars, including examination of enforcement materials and available challenges to a revocation decision. This should not be described as every misleading-use complaint automatically cancelling a registration. See also our article on China's deceptive trademark use campaign.

Opposition and related proceedings: do not calculate deadlines from the draft alone

Page 9 changes the opposition-period wording from three months to two months. That is an important planning signal for owners relying on monitoring and overseas instructions. It is not a reason to apply a two-month period indiscriminately to every notice or publication today.

The consultation draft, the enacted revised law and the rules determining which law applies to a particular matter are distinct. For a live case, confirm the publication or service event, applicable provisions, transition arrangements and official case information. Our bilingual revised Trademark Law is a separate reference; the consultation does not amend that statutory text.

Pages 141–144 also introduce a chapter on suspension and resumption of examination and adjudication. It distinguishes circumstances in which proceedings should be suspended or resumed from those in which they may be. The existence of another dispute is not, by itself, a reliable promise that a case will be suspended. Nor should a party assume that seeking suspension excuses a filing deadline.

Does this change the Chinese name of a foreign applicant?

We did not identify an amendment on Latin abbreviations in a foreign applicant's Chinese name in this modification comparison table. That finding is limited: a comparison table is not the complete guidelines, and the absence of a change does not remove an existing requirement.

Our anonymised applicant-name correction case relies on a separate published CNIPA reply. Businesses should continue to distinguish the authentic foreign legal name, the Chinese applicant-name field and a separately chosen Chinese brand name. This consultation does not establish an exemption for a mixed-script applicant name.

Proposed transition arrangements for pending matters

A separate CNIPA consultation draft addresses which rules would apply across 1 January 2027. It distinguishes decision dates, preliminary approval publication dates (WIPO publication for international registrations), and earlier registration approval dates. See our analysis of the draft transition measures for the proposed opposition-period cutoff and the separate treatments of procedure and substance. These arrangements remain proposals; they should not be presented as final transition rules.

Official sources

Frequently asked questions

Are the proposed guidelines already in force?

No. The document discussed here is a consultation draft. The notice invites comments before 12 November 2026; that deadline is not an effective date. Check the final publication and implementation arrangements before treating proposed specifications as operative instructions.

Can I use the proposed video specifications to file a motion mark now?

The draft specifications alone do not establish current filing availability. They can inform preparation, but the applicable legal framework, final requirements and filing arrangements must be confirmed before submission.

Does the draft mean every current opposition deadline is two months?

No. The comparison table proposes two-month wording. A live deadline must be determined under the applicable law and transition arrangements, using the relevant publication and official case information.

Does the comparison table remove the requirement concerning Latin abbreviations in a Chinese applicant name?

We identified no such amendment in the comparison table. Absence from that table is not an exemption from an existing requirement; our applicant-name article addresses the separate published CNIPA reply.