CHANG TSI
Insights
On 26 June 2026, China adopted a comprehensively revised Trademark Law, effective 1 January 2027 — the first full revision since the law was enacted in 1983. The more ambitious ideas floated in the 2023 draft were dropped; the final law keeps the existing framework and makes targeted changes in four areas that matter to global brands: bad-faith filings, use, enforcement, and cross-border protection. Article 1 now puts protection of registered rights ahead of administration.
The through-line is simple — register in order to use. With nearly 50 million valid marks on the register, much of it unused, the revision rewards genuine use and raises the cost of hoarding. Here is what changes, and what to do about it before 2027.
Article 19 drops the subjective "bad faith" test and asks instead whether a filing is "not for the purpose of use and clearly exceeds normal business needs" — a shift from intent to whether the scale of filing matches real business need. Article 54 backs it with a fine of up to RMB 100,000 (about USD 14,000). Legitimate defensive filings should be easier to defend; large or bulk portfolios are safer with a documented business rationale.
"Misleading use" of a registered mark becomes a standalone violation with steep penalties — up to five times illegal turnover, or RMB 250,000 (about USD 36,000), and cancellation if it is not fixed (Article 56) — aimed at the "scheming" (xinji) marks used to suggest a feature or quality the product does not have. The authority can also cancel unused or generic marks on its own initiative (Article 57), and the definition of use now expressly covers online use (Article 2). The practical point: how a mark is used, not just whether it is registered, is now a compliance question — keep use consistent with the registration and retain evidence routinely.
Cross-class protection no longer requires the mark to be registered in China, and it now protects the holder rather than the registrant (Article 21). The law also reframes well-known "recognition" as "confirmation" (Article 63) — a factual finding for the specific case rather than a title — and makes that confirmation available in unfair-competition cases, not only trademark matters. And where a company must prove its mark is well known in China for a proceeding abroad, the authority can now confirm that status on request (Article 69) — official Chinese backing for outbound enforcement against squatters.
Reasonable enforcement costs — attorney, notarization, investigation — are now recoverable by law rather than left to each court's discretion (Article 77). Authorities can examine electronic data and preserve evidence on the spot (Article 76), and cases can move both ways between administrative and criminal channels (Article 75).
Other changes worth noting: dynamic (motion) marks are now registrable, the opposition window is cut from three months to two, prohibited signs are reorganized and expanded, the one-year block on re-application now applies only to voluntary cancellation, and bad-faith litigation is defined and made actionable.
The months before the law takes effect are the time to get ahead of it — revisiting defensive and bulk filings against the new standard, filing newly registrable subject matter such as dynamic marks early, aligning actual use with registrations and keeping use evidence current, and building overseas well-known confirmation into global brand planning.
We will work through all of this — and what it means for your portfolio — in an upcoming webinar. If you would like the invitation, or want to talk through how the revision affects your brands, feel free to reach out.
