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.

The shorter period leaves less time for instructions, evidence, translations and filing. Agree a suitable watch cadence and a clear escalation route. A monthly watch is not automatically certain to miss every case, but delays consume a larger part of a two-month period. An ordinary opposition power of attorney should not be described as automatically requiring legalisation.

The one-year quarantine narrows sharply

Under the 2019 law, Article 50 did not impose a one-year bar on refused or withdrawn applications. It applied to an existing registered mark that was revoked, declared invalid, or not renewed. There was an important exception in CNIPA examination practice: a mark revoked for three-year non-use was not cited under Article 50, so that route already avoided the one-year bar.

From 1 January 2027, revised Article 49 narrows the one-year rule to cases in which the registrant itself applies to cancel its registration. For one year after the cancellation announcement, CNIPA will not approve another person's identical or similar mark for the same or similar goods. From that date, the statutory bar will no longer apply after invalidation or expiry without renewal; the three-year non-use exception already exists under current examination practice. Other grounds can still prevent registration.

Non-use cancellation: an existing deadline and a new power

The nine-month decision period, extendable by three months, already exists in current Article 49; it is not newly introduced by the revision. Revised Article 57 preserves that timetable and also provides for cancellation by the authority on its own initiative for genericness or three-year non-use without legitimate reason.

The new point is the express ex officio cancellation power, not a promise that a previously open-ended process will now finish within nine months. Excluded periods, procedural steps and any review can still affect elapsed time. Retain genuine use evidence for registrations that support the business.

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: assess the statutory conditions

Revised Articles 21 and 63 address protection and confirmation of well-known status. The revised cross-class provision no longer expressly requires the earlier well-known mark to be registered. However, the published text does not create a general rule that overseas fame alone establishes well-known protection in China. Recognition by the relevant public and the facts and necessity of the particular case remain central.

Electronic acts are now squarely within the statute

The revised law expressly includes internet use and recognises qualifying data messages as written form. Electronic service is already addressed by the Implementing Regulations. Its effective date depends on the service rules and record, not simply whether a human opened the message.

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.

The adopted revised article numbers are fixed, not provisional. What may require further checking is which version and transitional provision applies to a particular filing or proceeding. State the version, effective date and subject as well as the article number.

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. A three-year non-use cancellation already avoids the Article 50 bar under current examination practice. From 1 January 2027, the one-year bar will no longer apply after invalidation or expiry without renewal; it will continue to apply when the registrant itself applies to cancel the registration.
  • 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 and when you apply. Under current examination practice, a mark revoked for three-year non-use is already excluded from the Article 50 bar. From 1 January 2027, revised Article 49 will retain a one-year bar when the registrant itself applies to cancel its registration, but the bar will no longer apply after invalidation or expiry without renewal. Other grounds may still prevent registration.

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?

Revised Articles 21 and 63 address well-known protection and confirmation. The cross-class provision no longer expressly limits protection to a registered earlier mark. Do not equate this with automatic protection based on foreign reputation alone; the relevant public, evidence and case-specific conditions still need assessment.

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

Official references