A trademark published for opposition in December 2026 and one published in January 2027 could have different opposition periods under CNIPA's proposed transition arrangements—even if both applications were filed in the same year. For that question, the proposed dividing event is publication, not filing.

Status as of 26 October 2026: consultation draft. CNIPA published the draft measures on 28 September 2026 and invited comments before 12 November 2026. Article 10 proposes that the measures take effect on 1 January 2027. The consultation deadline is not an effective date, and the proposed measures must not be presented as a final transition instrument.

This article explains the ten-article draft Measures for Handling Relevant Business in Implementing the Revised Trademark Law. The English title and explanations here are our translations and commentary; the official Chinese text is the source. For the separate proposed examination standards, see our 2026 draft examination guidelines analysis.

Three dates serve different purposes

Decision date. Draft Article 2 uses the date CNIPA makes an administrative decision or ruling to address a range of pending applications. It also creates separate treatments for invalidation and cancellation matters.

Publication date. Draft Article 4 uses the preliminary approval publication date to determine the opposition-period calculation. For international registrations, it specifies the WIPO publication date.

Registration approval date. For invalidation of a trademark approved before 1 January 2027, Article 2 refers substantive questions to the law in force when that trademark was approved for registration.

These are different tests. A filing date alone cannot resolve every transition question. Nor does a general decision-date provision override a more specific provision on how an opposition period is calculated.

Pending applications: the proposed general rule and its exceptions

Draft Article 2 addresses applications filed before 1 January 2027 for registration, opposition, refusal review, review of a decision not to register, changes, assignment, renewal, cancellation at the owner's request and licence recordal, among other listed matters. Where CNIPA makes its decision or ruling on or after that date, the draft says the revised Trademark Law applies.

The article then makes two distinctions:

  • Invalidation of earlier registrations. For trademarks approved for registration before 1 January 2027, procedural questions in invalidation and invalidation review decisions made on or after that date would follow the revised law. Substantive questions would follow the law in force when the trademark was approved for registration.
  • Earlier revocation applications. For revocation and revocation review applications filed before 1 January 2027 but decided on or after that date, procedural questions would follow the revised law, while substantive questions would follow the pre-revision law.

“Cancellation” in English can describe several different Chinese procedures. Here, revocation refers to 撤销, while cancellation at the owner's request refers to 注销. They should not be combined into a single rule merely because an English translation uses the same word.

The draft therefore does not support either blanket statement that every old filing remains governed by old law or that every aspect of every pending dispute switches to new law.

Opposition periods: publication is the proposed dividing event

Article 4 provides that applications published for preliminary approval before 1 January 2027 would have their opposition periods calculated under Article 33 of the pre-revision law. Those published on or after 1 January 2027 would follow Article 36 of the revised law. Read with those statutory provisions, that is the transition between the three-month and two-month periods.

For international registrations, the draft expressly uses whether WIPO's publication date falls before, or on or after, 1 January 2027. It does not substitute the date an owner receives an agent's email or happens to discover the registration.

For illustration, under the proposal:

  • A domestic application published for preliminary approval on 31 December 2026 would use the old-law calculation, even though its opposition window continues into 2027.
  • A domestic application published on 1 January 2027 would use the revised-law calculation, even if the application itself was filed earlier.

These examples identify the proposed legal regime; they do not calculate a final filing deadline. In a live matter, check the official publication, the applicable period-calculation rules and final transition arrangements. For international registrations, the starting point and calculation also require the applicable Madrid-related rules. See our guide to opposition, cancellation and invalidation response deadlines.

Motion marks: materials and a possible 15-day evidence request

Draft Article 3 proposes a route from 1 January 2027 for applications based on motion signs. It requires a declaration, an explanation of use, an appropriate specimen and a description consistent with that specimen. It specifies one MP4 video file no larger than 20 MB and three to nine clear JPEG frames showing the changes.

The same provision warns that moving images may be understood as advertising or product demonstrations rather than as identifiers of commercial origin. It says registration will often require distinctiveness acquired through long-term or extensive use.

CNIPA could request evidence of acquired distinctiveness under the revised law. The draft gives the applicant 15 days from receipt of that notice to submit it. This is a specific proposed evidence-response period, not a general deadline for all trademark corrections or reviews. Applicants should preserve dated evidence showing how the motion functions as a mark, rather than assume a technically compliant video will establish distinctiveness.

The separate draft examination guidelines contain more detailed proposed technical specifications. Requirements from that document should not be attributed to Article 3 where its wording is less detailed.

Existing registrations: use and revocation still matter

Article 7 addresses trademarks registered before 1 January 2027. For misleading use covered by revised Article 56 that continues on or after that date, it proposes applying the revised law. That continuation condition matters; the provision should not be summarised as automatically applying a new consequence to every completed historical act.

The article also proposes a route for CNIPA to revoke earlier registrations for unjustified continuous non-use for three years or for becoming generic names for their designated goods. Under the described route, qualifying local trademark administration departments investigate, report through the administrative hierarchy, and CNIPA notifies the registrant to submit evidence where it considers the conditions met before making a decision.

This is not automatic cancellation on a registration's third anniversary. It also should not be described as a procedure available only when a private competitor files an application. Owners should keep a retrievable record of genuine use of the relevant mark and goods. Our non-use cancellation guide explains evidence issues separately.

Other provisions: owner cancellation and well-known marks

Article 5 directs owner requests to cancel an entire registration or registration for some designated goods, made from 1 January 2027, to revised Article 48. Article 6 directs decisions or rulings made on or after that date to revised Article 49. The two provisions should be read with the statutory text, not reduced to a general promise that a removed mark immediately ceases to be an obstacle.

Article 8 addresses requests to confirm a mark's well-known status and the channels for referring certain requests to CNIPA. It includes a proposed route involving overseas registration examination or trademark proceedings. That is a particular confirmation process; it is not a statement that foreign recognition automatically proves well-known status in China or that confirmation guarantees an overseas outcome.

The bilingual revised Trademark Law provides a separate statutory reference for these article numbers.

The existing Implementing Regulations do not simply disappear

Article 9 proposes continuing to use the existing Trademark Law Implementing Regulations until revised regulations take effect, except where their provisions conflict with the revised law. Where both address the same matter, the revised law prevails. Existing regulatory explanations of matters still provided for in the revised law would continue to be treated as explanations of those matters.

It also addresses continued use of regulatory procedures for listed trademark business and applies a corresponding principle to the existing examination guidelines. This draft is not a replacement edition of the Implementing Regulations, and it does not establish a publication date for one. See our bilingual 2014 Implementing Regulations.

For an active portfolio, record the filing, publication, registration approval and decision dates separately; identify the precise procedure; and recheck the final transition instrument before calculating a deadline or selecting a substantive legal test. These are our practical recommendations based on the draft, rather than additional requirements imposed by it.

Official sources

Frequently asked questions

Are these transition measures final?

No. This article discusses a consultation draft as of 26 October 2026. Its proposed commencement is 1 January 2027, but the final text and implementation arrangements must be checked separately.

Does filing in 2026 guarantee a three-month opposition period?

No. Draft Article 4 uses the preliminary approval publication date, rather than the filing date, to select the applicable calculation. For international registrations it specifies the WIPO publication date.

Would every issue in an old registration's invalidation follow the new law?

No. Draft Article 2 distinguishes procedure from substance. For the earlier registrations it addresses, substantive questions would follow the law in force when the mark was approved for registration.

Does this document replace the 2014 Implementing Regulations?

No. Draft Article 9 proposes continued application of the existing regulations, subject to the revised law and its conflict rules, until revised regulations take effect.