On June 26, 2026, the fifth comprehensive revision of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China was promulgated (Presidential Order No. 77) and is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2027. The revision increases the number of provisions in the current law from 73 to 87 and comprehensively renumbers the statutory framework. At the same time, the revision reflects a coherent overall direction in its institutional orientation.
I. Principal Themes of the Revision Viewed as a whole, the revision further strengthens the institutional tools available to state authorities to curb bad-faith registrations, clear unused trademarks, and regulate the trademark registration order, while declining to adopt several proposed mechanisms that would have significantly increased the compliance burden on registrants. Against this background, the revision follows three principal themes. First, regulation of bad-faith registration is moved to the front end of the process, so that abusive applications may be intercepted during examination rather than addressed primarily through post-registration opposition, invalidation, or cancellation proceedings. Second, the use-based clearance mechanism is further reinforced: the competent authority is empowered to clear unused and preemptively registered trademarks on its own initiative, and online use is expressly included within the definition of trademark use. Third, enforcement and procedural rules are optimized and upgraded, including adjustments concerning punitive damages, recognition of well-known trademarks, online use, motion marks, and the shortened opposition period.
Running through these three themes is the consolidation of institutional structures and statutory terminology. The revised text replaces references to the former Trademark Review and Adjudication Board with the “trademark authority under the State Council” and standardizes the description of enforcement bodies as the “departments responsible for trademark enforcement.” The relevant institutional restructuring had already been completed at the administrative level; this revision aligns the statutory terminology and institutional framework with those reforms.
In terms of institutional effect, the adopted provisions generally expand the scope for action by the competent authorities and the courts in trademark governance. By contrast, the proposals that were omitted largely concerned continuing filing obligations imposed on registrants, restrictions on repeat applications, or compulsory transfers of rights, all of which could have increased procedural burdens or institutional costs for right holders. This asymmetry in legislative choices is an important clue to understanding the revision. The principal provisions discussed below can likewise be classified broadly under the three themes identified above.
To enable readers to understand more clearly how these legislative themes are reflected in specific mechanisms, the following sections provide a systematic review of the principal amendments and new provisions by comparing the relevant articles, and further analyze their normative significance and potential practical impact.
II. Amended and New Provisions The table below identifies the more significant institutional changes introduced by the revision. It is followed by a provision-by-provision discussion of the reasons for each amendment, its normative significance, and its practical impact. It should be emphasized that this article does not purport to provide a complete concordance of the provisions. The discussion of the “rationale” reflects the author’s analysis based on the structure of the provisions and their institutional background. Please see our Comparative Table of Principal Amendments and New Provisions in the 2026 Trademark Law, by clicking here.
These changes broadly correspond to the three principal themes of the revision. Articles 19, 54, and 81, together with Articles 65, 67, and 68, primarily reflect the front-loading and full-chain regulation of bad-faith registration. Articles 57, 56, and 49, together with the adjustment to the definition of use in Article 2, primarily embody the use-based clearance mechanism. Articles 38, 50, 77, 63, 64, 36, 73, 14, 18, and 69 reflect the optimization and upgrading of enforcement mechanisms, procedural rules, and the trademark system in the digital commercial environment.
Relocation of the Provisions on Bad-Faith Applications and “Fraudulent or Other Improper Means”: From Articles 4 and 44 to Article 19, with Article 50 Providing the Linkage: The 2019 Trademark Law provided in Article 4 that “bad-faith applications for trademark registration not intended for use” should be rejected. Article 19 of the revised 2026 Law retains this basic rule while adding the qualifying requirement that the application “manifestly exceeds normal production and business needs.” At the same time, the wording in Article 44 of the 2019 Trademark Law concerning registration obtained “by fraudulent or other improper means” has been moved forward into the chapter on conditions for registration, enabling it to serve as a basis for rejection or opposition at the application-examination stage. Because Article 50 also brings registered trademarks that violate Articles 17 through 19 within the scope of invalidation, the ground retains its post-registration invalidity function despite having been moved forward.
This adjustment is significant in two respects. On the one hand, it makes the assessment of warehousing-type applications more focused. On the other hand, it moves the regulation of registrations obtained by improper means forward to the application stage. In practice, the concept of “normal production and business needs” will provide examination authorities with a clearer basis for rejecting large-scale abnormal applications, but the requirement may also operate as a double-edged sword. Legitimate right holders maintaining large defensive trademark portfolios may in future need to demonstrate more fully the reasonable connection between their filing strategies and their actual business operations, brand extensions, or defensive needs. Otherwise, the requirement may be invoked against them by opposing parties in opposition or invalidation proceedings.
Article 54 supplies administrative consequences for the bad-faith application conduct described above. For the enumerated forms of bad-faith filing, including applications filed in violation of Article 19 that cause adverse effects, the departments responsible for trademark enforcement may issue a warning and may impose a fine of up to RMB 100,000. The revision therefore does not treat bad-faith filing merely as a negative ground in registration and validity proceedings, but further incorporates it into the administrative enforcement framework.
Ex Officio Cancellation by the Competent Authority: New Paragraph 3 of Article 57: In addition to cancellation for three consecutive years of non-use upon an application by a third party, Article 57 of the 2026 Trademark Law provides that, where a registered trademark has become the generic name of the goods for which it is approved, or has not been used for three consecutive years without justification, the trademark authority under the State Council may cancel the registered trademark ex officio. Specific measures are to be separately formulated by the China National Intellectual Property Administration.
This new provision may be one of the institutional changes in the revision with the greatest practical impact on trademark clearance. Previously, the removal of unused trademarks from the register depended primarily on market participants filing cancellation applications. Under the revised law, the competent authority is given an institutional tool to intervene on its own initiative, thereby shifting part of the clearance burden from interested parties to the administrative authority.
From a practical perspective, however, the mechanism should not yet be regarded as a substitute for an interested party’s application for cancellation based on three consecutive years of non-use. The provision uses “may” rather than “shall” and is therefore enabling rather than mandatory. The triggering standards, procedural arrangements, methods of evidence collection, and relationship with pending cancellation applications filed by interested parties remain to be specified in detailed measures to be formulated by the China National Intellectual Property Administration. Where a definite commercial timetable or important clearance objective exists, a right holder should continue to prioritize the controllable cancellation procedure rather than await ex officio action by the competent authority.
Misleading Use of a Registered Trademark: New Article 56: Alongside the proactive clearance of unused trademarks, Article 56 establishes graduated administrative measures for the misleading use of registered trademarks. Under the provision, where a registered trademark is used in a manner that misleads the public, the department responsible for trademark enforcement shall order rectification within a prescribed period. Where the amount of illegal business revenue is RMB 50,000 or more, a fine of up to five times that amount may be imposed. Where there is no illegal business revenue or the amount is less than RMB 50,000, a fine of up to RMB 250,000 may be imposed. If rectification is not made within the prescribed period, the trademark authority under the State Council shall cancel the registered trademark.
The 2019 Trademark Law contained no provision precisely corresponding to Article 56. The closest rules concerned unauthorized changes to registered particulars, but those rules are separately retained in paragraph 1 of Article 57 of the 2026 text. The institutional focus of Article 56 is not the regulation of formal changes to registration particulars, but the creation of an administrative response mechanism directed at deceptive or misleading use itself.
The normative value of the provision lies in its differentiated treatment of deceptive applications and deceptive use. The former is regulated principally through Articles 19, 50, and 54; the latter is addressed through the graduated sequence under Article 56 of an order to rectify, an administrative fine, and ultimately cancellation of the registered trademark. In policy terms, the provision can also be connected with the ongoing campaigns in recent years to clear so-called “scheming trademarks.” Such trademarks commonly involve the deliberate design of signs, combinations of elements, or modes of use in a manner that causes the public to misunderstand or become confused about the source, quality, or affiliation of goods. The problem arises not only at the application stage but also in actual use. Article 56 provides a direct administrative intervention tool at the use stage, enabling regulators to correct misleading market representations promptly without depending on a third-party challenge.
For enterprises, an order to rectify under Article 56 should not be treated as an ordinary administrative reminder, still less as a manageable fine risk. Because it may ultimately result in cancellation of the registered trademark, an enterprise receiving an enforcement opinion should immediately assess whether its manner of use risks misleading the public and should complete rectification promptly. At the stages of brand design and market communications, enterprises should also avoid presentation strategies that may be characterized as involving “scheming trademarks,” thereby reducing subsequent enforcement risk.
Narrowing of the One-Year Bar on Approval: From Article 50 to Article 49: Article 50 of the 2019 Trademark Law provided that, where a registered trademark had been cancelled, declared invalid, or not renewed upon expiration, no application for registration of a trademark identical with or similar to that trademark would be approved within one year from the date of cancellation, invalidation, or deregistration. The scope of this restriction is substantially narrowed under the 2026 revision. Under Article 49, it applies only where the trademark registrant voluntarily applies to deregister the trademark.
This change has direct practical significance for trademark clearance strategies. Where an applicant removes a prior obstacle through cancellation for non-use or invalidation proceedings, it will no longer need to observe a one-year waiting period before filing again for an identical or similar trademark. This will shorten the overall timeline from removal of the obstacle to refiling and enhance the efficiency value of cancellation and invalidation proceedings in trademark portfolio planning. The change may also be read together with the new ex officio cancellation mechanism in Article 57: the revised law appears more inclined to improve the efficiency of refiling after registrations have been cleared.
Definition of Trademark Use and Express Recognition of Online Use: From Article 48 to Article 2: The 2026 Trademark Law moves the definition of trademark “use” to Article 2 and expressly provides in paragraph 3 that trademark use includes use conducted through the internet and other information networks.
In the digital commercial environment, many brands conduct their principal business activities on e-commerce platforms, social media, official websites, mini-programs, livestreaming channels, or other online settings. Expressly including information-network use within the definition of trademark use helps strengthen the legal status of online-use evidence in defenses to cancellation, infringement determinations, and damages calculations. For enterprises whose principal business models involve online sales, promotion, or platform operations, the provision has considerable evidentiary significance.
Consolidation of Terminology for Trademark Registration and Validity Authorities: Articles 38 and 50.The revised statutory text replaces the separate references to the “Trademark Office” and the “Trademark Review and Adjudication Board” with the “trademark authority under the State Council.” Opposition decisions, invalidation proceedings, and related matters are all handled by that authority. The change primarily consolidates statutory terminology following institutional reform and does not mean that reexamination or adjudication procedures themselves have been abolished.
More precisely, the relevant procedures formerly conducted in the names of different institutions will continue within the framework of a unified competent authority, while the statutory text will no longer use the separate institutional designation “Trademark Review and Adjudication Board.” In practice, the basic avenue for judicial review of trademark registration and validity decisions should in principle continue. A party dissatisfied with the relevant administrative decision may still institute administrative litigation in accordance with law.
The transitional arrangements warrant closer attention. When the Law takes effect on January 1, 2027, questions will arise concerning the transition of cases still pending in the former reexamination, invalidation, or cancellation stages, and whether technical adjustments will be required to the names of procedures, issuing authorities, calculation of time limits, and avenues of relief. These matters remain to be clarified by the Implementing Regulations or special implementation provisions. Before the supporting rules are issued, it should not be presumed that the new institutional terminology will alter the procedural rules applicable to pending cases.
Punitive Damages: From “Bad Faith” to “Intentional” Infringement: Article 77 of the 2026 Trademark Law changes the subjective trigger for punitive damages from “bad faith” under Article 63 of the 2019 Trademark Law to “intent.” The multiplier of one to five times damages and the fallback statutory damages ceiling of RMB 5 million remain fundamentally unchanged.
The significance of this change is that the wording of the subjective element for punitive damages is more closely aligned with the “intent” standard under the Civil Code’s intellectual property punitive damages regime. Compared with “bad faith,” “intent” has a clearer normative position within the civil liability system and makes it easier for a right holder to organize evidence concerning the infringer’s actual or constructive knowledge, prior disputes, administrative actions, notices from the right holder, repeated infringement, and similar facts.
The change should not, however, be understood to mean that punitive damages will necessarily become easier to obtain. Courts must still examine both intentional infringement and serious circumstances. A more cautious assessment is that the revision makes the triggering standard for punitive damages clearer and may broaden the argumentative scope available to right holders when asserting subjective fault.
Article 77 also makes a relatively unobtrusive but important adjustment to the basis for calculating damages. Article 63 of the 2019 Trademark Law adopted a relatively strict sequential hierarchy: the right holder’s actual loss came first; only where actual loss was difficult to determine could the infringer’s profits be used; and only where both were difficult to determine could damages be reasonably determined by reference to a multiple of the trademark royalty. The 2026 text places the right holder’s actual loss and the infringer’s profits at the same first level, providing that damages may be determined according to either actual loss or infringing profits. A multiple of the royalty forms the next level, with statutory damages as the final fallback. This change provides a clearer textual basis for the right holder to elect between the two measures and enables a plaintiff to rely on whichever of loss or profit is easier to prove and carries greater evidentiary weight, without first proving that actual loss is difficult to determine before turning to the infringer’s profits.
Recognition of Well-Known Trademarks: Reorganization and Expansion under Article 63: Article 63 consolidates and restates the mechanism for recognizing well-known trademarks. The key point of the revision is not the addition of new recognition factors, but the reorganization of the recognition procedure and the express extension of well-known trademark recognition to enforcement and litigation in unfair competition cases.
This change is of considerable practical significance. Protection of well-known trademarks has long extended beyond the framework of trademark law. In unfair competition cases, enterprises may also seek protection based on the influence and market reputation of their brands. The express language of Article 63 provides a clearer legal basis for administrative enforcement authorities and courts to recognize well-known trademarks in unfair competition cases.
For brand owners, this means that, when choosing between trademark infringement, unfair competition, or parallel causes of action, they may assess more fully the procedural value and evidentiary strategy associated with well-known status. Particularly where the categories of goods or services are not identical and the conduct takes the form of free-riding, exploitation of goodwill, or confusing market behavior, recognition of a well-known trademark may provide a stronger basis for protection.
Prohibition on Advertising the Designation “Well-Known Trademark”: Continuation under Article 64 with a Minor Adjustment to the Penalty: Article 64 may easily be misread as introducing a new prohibition on using the designation “well-known trademark” in advertising. In fact, the prohibition against using the words “well-known trademark” in advertising, product packaging, or other commercial activities is not new. Paragraph 5 of Article 14 of the 2019 Trademark Law contained the same prohibition, and Article 53 already prescribed a fine of RMB 100,000.
The principal changes are the consolidation of the prohibition and penalty in a single provision, the adjustment of the fixed RMB 100,000 fine to a discretionary maximum of “up to RMB 100,000,” and the standardized description of the enforcement body as the “department responsible for trademark enforcement.” Article 64 is therefore better understood as a consolidation of provisions and a technical adjustment to the penalty rather than a substantive policy shift.
Trademark Agencies: Expansion from Regulation of Agencies to Regulation of Practitioners: The 2019 Trademark Law focused its regulation of trademark agency services primarily on trademark agencies. Following the 2026 revision, Article 65 extends the regulatory scope to trademark agency practitioners. It expressly prohibits them from accepting engagements in their own names or providing trademark agency services concurrently at two or more trademark agencies, and requires them to take responsibility for trademark agency documents they sign. Trademark agencies and practitioners must also file the required records with the China National Intellectual Property Administration in accordance with law.
The penalties are also differentiated. Article 67 primarily addresses trademark agencies, providing for orders to rectify and graduated fines depending on the circumstances. Article 68 addresses trademark agency practitioners, providing for orders to rectify, warnings, and fines ranging from RMB 5,000 to RMB 50,000; in serious circumstances, a fine ranging from RMB 50,000 to RMB 100,000 may be imposed. These penalties apply to conduct such as accepting engagements independently or practicing concurrently at two or more agencies.
This change responds to the need to regulate the role of the trademark agency industry in bad-faith, bulk, and abnormal applications. Agencies have long served as important channels for trademark filing activity. Regulating only the agency without reaching the individual practitioner may allow responsibility to become ineffective or be circumvented. Bringing practitioners within the regulatory framework and imposing individual responsibility and personal fines helps fill a gap in the existing system.
Before the Law takes effect, trademark agencies should focus on reviewing practitioner record-filing, internal practice relationships, risks of concurrent practice, and responsibility for signed documents. In particular, because Article 68 attaches certain liabilities directly to individuals, trademark agency compliance will no longer be solely an institutional management issue but will also form part of each practitioner’s personal professional risk.
Adjustments to Procedure and Scope: Opposition Period, Defenses, and Motion Marks: In addition to the major institutional changes described above, the revision includes several adjustments concerning procedure and the scope of rights.
First, the opposition period is shortened from three months under Article 33 of the 2019 Trademark Law to two months under Article 36 of the 2026 Trademark Law. This will compress the period for making opposition decisions following publication. Enterprises, agencies, and right holders that operate trademark watch services must promptly adjust monitoring frequency, internal reporting schedules, and opposition decision-making processes to avoid missing the shortened window for relief.
Second, Article 73 provides more centralized and express rules governing the defenses of legitimate use and prior use by good-faith business operators. Parties that previously relied principally on scattered statutory provisions or judicial practice should in future invoke Article 73 more expressly and organize evidence around such factors as good faith in use, the scope and continuity of use, and market source-identification relationships.
Third, the range of registrable signs is expanded to include motion marks. Article 14 of the 2026 Trademark Law includes dynamic signs for the first time, while Article 18 correspondingly extends the functionality exclusion to new types of signs. This creates filing opportunities for enterprises using dynamic identifiers, animated brand elements, or signs combining sound and dynamic visual elements. Motion marks must nevertheless satisfy the basic requirements of distinctiveness, non-functionality, and identifiability. Applicants should pay particular attention to consistency among the application documents, the manner in which the sign is represented, and evidence of use.
Bad-Faith Trademark Litigation: New Article 81: Article 81 extends the revision’s anti-bad-faith policy to the litigation stage. Under the provision, where trademark litigation is initiated through malicious collusion, unilateral fabrication of basic facts, or similar means, the people’s court may impose sanctions in accordance with law; where loss is caused, civil liability shall also be borne in accordance with law.
The addition of Article 81 shows that the revised Trademark Law addresses not only bad-faith registration at the application stage, but also the misuse of registered trademarks as litigation tools. In practice, certain parties may use preemptively registered trademarks, fabricated facts, malicious collusion, or repeated litigation to pressure legitimate business operators or obtain improper benefits. Article 81 provides courts with a more direct normative basis for handling such conduct.
For a defendant, where the opposing party shows signs of fabricating facts, engaging in malicious collusion, presenting a false chain of title, fabricating evidence of use, or plainly seeking to profit through litigation, Article 81 may serve as an important basis for defense and countermeasures. For right holders, the provision also underscores the need to verify carefully the basis of rights, the facts of infringement, and the authenticity of evidence before instituting trademark litigation, so as to avoid reverse sanctions arising from an improper litigation strategy.
Foreign-Related Provisions: New Article 69: Article 69 introduces two mechanisms of foreign-related significance, reflecting the linkage of China’s trademark system with cross-border protection of rights and cross-border agency services.
First, paragraph 1 of Article 69 provides that, where it is necessary in overseas trademark registration examination, adjudication, or the handling of a trademark matter to prove that a trademark is well known to the relevant public in China, the trademark authority under the State Council may, upon the party’s request and in accordance with Article 63, confirm the well-known status of the trademark in China. This mechanism makes it possible for Chinese right holders to submit an official confirmation of domestic reputation in overseas proceedings.
It should be emphasized that the legal effect of such a confirmation remains subject to the rules of the jurisdiction in which the overseas authority or court is located. In other words, a domestic confirmation of well-known status issued by the China National Intellectual Property Administration may support the evidence submitted by a right holder in overseas proceedings, but whether it is admitted, how it is assessed, and what effect it is given remain matters for the relevant foreign jurisdiction.
Second, paragraph 2 of Article 69 provides that, where a person uses fraud or other improper means to handle an overseas trademark registration application or other trademark matter for a client in China, thereby harming the client’s interests, the interests of the State or the public, or the lawful rights and interests of another person, the matter shall be handled and penalized in accordance with Article 67. This rule extends liability for unlawful trademark agency conduct to services directed at overseas filings and fills a gap under which the prior trademark agency rules might not have fully covered outbound agency services.
For agencies providing overseas trademark filing services, Article 69 means that, when handling overseas registration, renewal, assignment, opposition, invalidation, or other trademark matters, they remain subject to the agency-compliance rules under China’s Trademark Law. False promises, fraud against clients, concealment of material procedural information, excessive charges, or other improper agency conduct may trigger administrative liability under Article 67.
III. Proposals Not Adopted Several reform proposals that attracted substantial attention in the 2023 draft released for public comment—including compulsory transfer of trademarks, restrictions on repeat applications, and a post-registration periodic statement-of-use system—were ultimately not included in the official 2026 statutory text. The characterization “not adopted” in this article is based on a comparison between the currently published official text of the 2026 Trademark Law and the 2023 consultation draft. The following analysis is not an official explanation by the legislature and does not exclude the possibility that related mechanisms may reappear in another form in future supporting rules or legislative revisions.
Compulsory Transfer: The compulsory transfer mechanism in the consultation draft was generally understood to mean that, in specified cases of trademark squatting, the owner of a prior right could request that the preemptively registered trademark be transferred directly to it, rather than merely seeking cancellation or a declaration of invalidity. The mechanism was ultimately not adopted in the official legislation. The 2026 Trademark Law retains only the ordinary rule on voluntary assignment, namely the transfer of registered trademarks under Article 46.
The attraction of compulsory transfer lies in efficiency. For an owner of a prior right facing trademark squatting, direct acquisition of the squatted trademark would plainly be more convenient than first invalidating it and then filing a new application, and would avoid the risk that a third party might file first after invalidation. The mechanism, however, creates certain doctrinal tensions. Invalidation rests on the logic that a right that should not have been registered is void ab initio, whereas compulsory transfer proceeds from recognition of the registration’s proprietary value and transfers it to another person. This may raise complex questions concerning the chain of title, the basis of registration, responsibility for quality, qualification of the user, and whether the result indirectly recognizes the product of a bad-faith registration.
The final text shows that the legislature did not select this more innovative form of relief. The practical consequence is that trademark clearance strategies remain fundamentally unchanged. The owner of a prior right must still first remove the obstructing trademark through opposition, invalidation, or cancellation proceedings and then file its own application. Current law provides no statutory shortcut for directly acquiring a squatted trademark and cannot guarantee that the prior right holder will necessarily obtain priority over other applicants after invalidation or cancellation.
Restrictions on Repeat Applications: The consultation draft proposed establishing a basic principle prohibiting duplicate registration. Paragraph 2 of Article 14 provided that, unless otherwise stipulated, the same applicant should register only one identical trademark for the same goods or services. Article 21 further provided that a trademark applied for registration should not be identical to an earlier trademark that the applicant had filed or registered for the same goods, or that had been published as deregistered, cancelled, or declared invalid within one year before the filing date, while establishing several exceptions for legitimate repeat or renewed applications. The mechanism was intended to curb the use of repeated or rolling applications to circumvent cancellation for three consecutive years of non-use and similar rules. The official 2026 text does not retain these special restrictions on repeat applications, instead addressing such issues under the general registration conditions and bad-faith application rules in Articles 19, 20, and 24.
The failure to adopt the restriction may relate to the difficulty of defining its boundaries. In practice, repeat applications may be abusively intended to evade non-use rules and prolong the lifecycle of unused trademarks, but they may also serve legitimate purposes such as defensive brand protection, updates to specifications of goods and services, classification adjustments, iterations of a sign, or international filing arrangements. A mechanical prohibition on repeat applications for the same trademark could unduly interfere with ordinary trademark portfolio management by good-faith right holders.
The absence of a specific repeat-application restriction does not mean that repeat applications are wholly unconstrained. The bad-faith application rule in Article 19, concerning applications “not intended for use” that “manifestly exceed normal production and business needs,” may still cover some warehousing-type repeat filings. Enterprises retain room for defensive repeat applications, but must assess them together with the stricter standard for examining bad-faith applications. Holders of large trademark portfolios, in particular, should be able to explain the commercial rationale and genuine defensive need for repeat filings.
Periodic Statements of Use: The periodic statement-of-use mechanism was the reform proposal in the consultation draft with the broadest potential impact. It was generally understood to require trademark registrants to make an affirmative statement or confirmation of trademark use at specified intervals, with failure to comply potentially resulting in deregistration or other adverse consequences. Its institutional objective was to clear “zombie registrations” and increase the extent to which entries on the register reflected genuine use.
The mechanism was not included in the official 2026 text, possibly because its compliance costs would have been too high. China has an enormous number of trademark registrations, and imposing a periodic statement-of-use obligation on all registered trademarks would create a substantial burden simultaneously for right holders, agencies, and the competent authorities. The existing cancellation system based on three consecutive years of non-use already permits the removal of unused trademarks to some extent, while the revision adds an ex officio cancellation mechanism that gives administrative authorities a proactive clearance tool. Against this background, the legislature appears not to have chosen to address unused trademarks by imposing a universal obligation on registrants.
In practice, this means that enterprises’ trademark portfolio management will not, for the time being, be subject to a new periodic affirmative reporting obligation. This does not, however, diminish the importance of managing evidence of use. On the contrary, with the introduction of ex officio cancellation and the express inclusion of online use within the definition of trademark use, enterprises should establish systematic and continuous mechanisms for retaining evidence of use. In this revision, the legislature appears to have chosen enforcement levers that may be exercised proactively by the State rather than broadly increasing periodic compliance burdens on registrants, which is consistent with the legislative orientation summarized in Part I of this article.
IV. Outlook and Transitional Issues For trademark practice planning, the supporting rules that remain uncertain are as important as the statutory text already promulgated. First, corresponding revisions to the Implementing Regulations have not yet been completed. Many operational details may not be set out in the Law itself, but may instead be specified in the Implementing Regulations, departmental rules, or examination and adjudication guidelines. Second, the specific measures authorized by Article 57 for ex officio cancellation will determine the mechanism’s actual scope of application, frequency of initiation, and procedural intensity. Third, an initial group of infringement cases will show how courts interpret the normative significance of replacing “bad faith” with “intent” in the punitive damages provision, particularly how they distinguish and relate intentional infringement to serious circumstances.
The transitional treatment of pending cases is the most immediate unresolved issue. At present, no rule specifies how the old and new laws will apply to opposition, invalidation, or cancellation proceedings still in progress before the 2026 Trademark Law takes effect, nor has it been clarified how cases in the former trademark review and adjudication stage will be incorporated into the consolidated trademark authority under the State Council. Such transitional matters ordinarily require resolution through transitional provisions in the Implementing Regulations or special implementation rules. Before supporting rules are issued, it should not be presumed that new institutional terminology, new procedural periods, or new substantive thresholds will apply directly to pending cases. Procedural acts completed before the effective date should, in principle, continue to be analyzed under the framework of the 2019 Trademark Law.
Before the Law formally takes effect on January 1, 2027, enterprises and agencies may undertake several low-risk preparatory measures. First, opposition monitoring and internal decision-making mechanisms should be adjusted to a two-month window to accommodate the accelerated timetable following publication. Second, trademark agencies and practitioners should verify record-filing, practice relationships, and concurrent-practice risks under Articles 65 and 68. Third, trademark-use evidence files should be improved, particularly records of online use, in preparation for both privately initiated cancellation applications and ex officio cancellation for three consecutive years of non-use. Fourth, in light of the stricter bad-faith application standard reflected in Article 19, large defensive trademark portfolios should be reviewed for filings that may be regarded as “manifestly exceeding normal production and business needs,” and explanatory materials should be prepared for defensive arrangements supported by commercial justification.
Overall, the revision does not substantially increase the universal burdens on registrants through mechanisms such as periodic statements of use, compulsory transfer, or restrictions on repeat applications. Instead, it focuses on equipping state authorities with institutional tools for front-end interception, proactive clearance, stronger enforcement, and regulation of litigation. For trademark owners, future trademark management will depend more heavily on genuine use, evidentiary discipline, and the reasonableness of portfolio composition. For trademark agencies, business compliance will extend from institutional liability to practitioner liability. For market competitors, the institutional space for bad-faith applications, misleading use, and bad-faith litigation will be further narrowed. The 2026 revision of the Trademark Law thus reflects an institutional shift centered on governance of the registration order, grounded in genuine use, and supported by coordinated administrative and judicial tools.
I. Principal Themes of the Revision Viewed as a whole, the revision further strengthens the institutional tools available to state authorities to curb bad-faith registrations, clear unused trademarks, and regulate the trademark registration order, while declining to adopt several proposed mechanisms that would have significantly increased the compliance burden on registrants. Against this background, the revision follows three principal themes. First, regulation of bad-faith registration is moved to the front end of the process, so that abusive applications may be intercepted during examination rather than addressed primarily through post-registration opposition, invalidation, or cancellation proceedings. Second, the use-based clearance mechanism is further reinforced: the competent authority is empowered to clear unused and preemptively registered trademarks on its own initiative, and online use is expressly included within the definition of trademark use. Third, enforcement and procedural rules are optimized and upgraded, including adjustments concerning punitive damages, recognition of well-known trademarks, online use, motion marks, and the shortened opposition period.
Running through these three themes is the consolidation of institutional structures and statutory terminology. The revised text replaces references to the former Trademark Review and Adjudication Board with the “trademark authority under the State Council” and standardizes the description of enforcement bodies as the “departments responsible for trademark enforcement.” The relevant institutional restructuring had already been completed at the administrative level; this revision aligns the statutory terminology and institutional framework with those reforms.
In terms of institutional effect, the adopted provisions generally expand the scope for action by the competent authorities and the courts in trademark governance. By contrast, the proposals that were omitted largely concerned continuing filing obligations imposed on registrants, restrictions on repeat applications, or compulsory transfers of rights, all of which could have increased procedural burdens or institutional costs for right holders. This asymmetry in legislative choices is an important clue to understanding the revision. The principal provisions discussed below can likewise be classified broadly under the three themes identified above.
To enable readers to understand more clearly how these legislative themes are reflected in specific mechanisms, the following sections provide a systematic review of the principal amendments and new provisions by comparing the relevant articles, and further analyze their normative significance and potential practical impact.
II. Amended and New Provisions The table below identifies the more significant institutional changes introduced by the revision. It is followed by a provision-by-provision discussion of the reasons for each amendment, its normative significance, and its practical impact. It should be emphasized that this article does not purport to provide a complete concordance of the provisions. The discussion of the “rationale” reflects the author’s analysis based on the structure of the provisions and their institutional background. Please see our Comparative Table of Principal Amendments and New Provisions in the 2026 Trademark Law, by clicking here.
These changes broadly correspond to the three principal themes of the revision. Articles 19, 54, and 81, together with Articles 65, 67, and 68, primarily reflect the front-loading and full-chain regulation of bad-faith registration. Articles 57, 56, and 49, together with the adjustment to the definition of use in Article 2, primarily embody the use-based clearance mechanism. Articles 38, 50, 77, 63, 64, 36, 73, 14, 18, and 69 reflect the optimization and upgrading of enforcement mechanisms, procedural rules, and the trademark system in the digital commercial environment.
Relocation of the Provisions on Bad-Faith Applications and “Fraudulent or Other Improper Means”: From Articles 4 and 44 to Article 19, with Article 50 Providing the Linkage: The 2019 Trademark Law provided in Article 4 that “bad-faith applications for trademark registration not intended for use” should be rejected. Article 19 of the revised 2026 Law retains this basic rule while adding the qualifying requirement that the application “manifestly exceeds normal production and business needs.” At the same time, the wording in Article 44 of the 2019 Trademark Law concerning registration obtained “by fraudulent or other improper means” has been moved forward into the chapter on conditions for registration, enabling it to serve as a basis for rejection or opposition at the application-examination stage. Because Article 50 also brings registered trademarks that violate Articles 17 through 19 within the scope of invalidation, the ground retains its post-registration invalidity function despite having been moved forward.
This adjustment is significant in two respects. On the one hand, it makes the assessment of warehousing-type applications more focused. On the other hand, it moves the regulation of registrations obtained by improper means forward to the application stage. In practice, the concept of “normal production and business needs” will provide examination authorities with a clearer basis for rejecting large-scale abnormal applications, but the requirement may also operate as a double-edged sword. Legitimate right holders maintaining large defensive trademark portfolios may in future need to demonstrate more fully the reasonable connection between their filing strategies and their actual business operations, brand extensions, or defensive needs. Otherwise, the requirement may be invoked against them by opposing parties in opposition or invalidation proceedings.
Article 54 supplies administrative consequences for the bad-faith application conduct described above. For the enumerated forms of bad-faith filing, including applications filed in violation of Article 19 that cause adverse effects, the departments responsible for trademark enforcement may issue a warning and may impose a fine of up to RMB 100,000. The revision therefore does not treat bad-faith filing merely as a negative ground in registration and validity proceedings, but further incorporates it into the administrative enforcement framework.
Ex Officio Cancellation by the Competent Authority: New Paragraph 3 of Article 57: In addition to cancellation for three consecutive years of non-use upon an application by a third party, Article 57 of the 2026 Trademark Law provides that, where a registered trademark has become the generic name of the goods for which it is approved, or has not been used for three consecutive years without justification, the trademark authority under the State Council may cancel the registered trademark ex officio. Specific measures are to be separately formulated by the China National Intellectual Property Administration.
This new provision may be one of the institutional changes in the revision with the greatest practical impact on trademark clearance. Previously, the removal of unused trademarks from the register depended primarily on market participants filing cancellation applications. Under the revised law, the competent authority is given an institutional tool to intervene on its own initiative, thereby shifting part of the clearance burden from interested parties to the administrative authority.
From a practical perspective, however, the mechanism should not yet be regarded as a substitute for an interested party’s application for cancellation based on three consecutive years of non-use. The provision uses “may” rather than “shall” and is therefore enabling rather than mandatory. The triggering standards, procedural arrangements, methods of evidence collection, and relationship with pending cancellation applications filed by interested parties remain to be specified in detailed measures to be formulated by the China National Intellectual Property Administration. Where a definite commercial timetable or important clearance objective exists, a right holder should continue to prioritize the controllable cancellation procedure rather than await ex officio action by the competent authority.
Misleading Use of a Registered Trademark: New Article 56: Alongside the proactive clearance of unused trademarks, Article 56 establishes graduated administrative measures for the misleading use of registered trademarks. Under the provision, where a registered trademark is used in a manner that misleads the public, the department responsible for trademark enforcement shall order rectification within a prescribed period. Where the amount of illegal business revenue is RMB 50,000 or more, a fine of up to five times that amount may be imposed. Where there is no illegal business revenue or the amount is less than RMB 50,000, a fine of up to RMB 250,000 may be imposed. If rectification is not made within the prescribed period, the trademark authority under the State Council shall cancel the registered trademark.
The 2019 Trademark Law contained no provision precisely corresponding to Article 56. The closest rules concerned unauthorized changes to registered particulars, but those rules are separately retained in paragraph 1 of Article 57 of the 2026 text. The institutional focus of Article 56 is not the regulation of formal changes to registration particulars, but the creation of an administrative response mechanism directed at deceptive or misleading use itself.
The normative value of the provision lies in its differentiated treatment of deceptive applications and deceptive use. The former is regulated principally through Articles 19, 50, and 54; the latter is addressed through the graduated sequence under Article 56 of an order to rectify, an administrative fine, and ultimately cancellation of the registered trademark. In policy terms, the provision can also be connected with the ongoing campaigns in recent years to clear so-called “scheming trademarks.” Such trademarks commonly involve the deliberate design of signs, combinations of elements, or modes of use in a manner that causes the public to misunderstand or become confused about the source, quality, or affiliation of goods. The problem arises not only at the application stage but also in actual use. Article 56 provides a direct administrative intervention tool at the use stage, enabling regulators to correct misleading market representations promptly without depending on a third-party challenge.
For enterprises, an order to rectify under Article 56 should not be treated as an ordinary administrative reminder, still less as a manageable fine risk. Because it may ultimately result in cancellation of the registered trademark, an enterprise receiving an enforcement opinion should immediately assess whether its manner of use risks misleading the public and should complete rectification promptly. At the stages of brand design and market communications, enterprises should also avoid presentation strategies that may be characterized as involving “scheming trademarks,” thereby reducing subsequent enforcement risk.
Narrowing of the One-Year Bar on Approval: From Article 50 to Article 49: Article 50 of the 2019 Trademark Law provided that, where a registered trademark had been cancelled, declared invalid, or not renewed upon expiration, no application for registration of a trademark identical with or similar to that trademark would be approved within one year from the date of cancellation, invalidation, or deregistration. The scope of this restriction is substantially narrowed under the 2026 revision. Under Article 49, it applies only where the trademark registrant voluntarily applies to deregister the trademark.
This change has direct practical significance for trademark clearance strategies. Where an applicant removes a prior obstacle through cancellation for non-use or invalidation proceedings, it will no longer need to observe a one-year waiting period before filing again for an identical or similar trademark. This will shorten the overall timeline from removal of the obstacle to refiling and enhance the efficiency value of cancellation and invalidation proceedings in trademark portfolio planning. The change may also be read together with the new ex officio cancellation mechanism in Article 57: the revised law appears more inclined to improve the efficiency of refiling after registrations have been cleared.
Definition of Trademark Use and Express Recognition of Online Use: From Article 48 to Article 2: The 2026 Trademark Law moves the definition of trademark “use” to Article 2 and expressly provides in paragraph 3 that trademark use includes use conducted through the internet and other information networks.
In the digital commercial environment, many brands conduct their principal business activities on e-commerce platforms, social media, official websites, mini-programs, livestreaming channels, or other online settings. Expressly including information-network use within the definition of trademark use helps strengthen the legal status of online-use evidence in defenses to cancellation, infringement determinations, and damages calculations. For enterprises whose principal business models involve online sales, promotion, or platform operations, the provision has considerable evidentiary significance.
Consolidation of Terminology for Trademark Registration and Validity Authorities: Articles 38 and 50.The revised statutory text replaces the separate references to the “Trademark Office” and the “Trademark Review and Adjudication Board” with the “trademark authority under the State Council.” Opposition decisions, invalidation proceedings, and related matters are all handled by that authority. The change primarily consolidates statutory terminology following institutional reform and does not mean that reexamination or adjudication procedures themselves have been abolished.
More precisely, the relevant procedures formerly conducted in the names of different institutions will continue within the framework of a unified competent authority, while the statutory text will no longer use the separate institutional designation “Trademark Review and Adjudication Board.” In practice, the basic avenue for judicial review of trademark registration and validity decisions should in principle continue. A party dissatisfied with the relevant administrative decision may still institute administrative litigation in accordance with law.
The transitional arrangements warrant closer attention. When the Law takes effect on January 1, 2027, questions will arise concerning the transition of cases still pending in the former reexamination, invalidation, or cancellation stages, and whether technical adjustments will be required to the names of procedures, issuing authorities, calculation of time limits, and avenues of relief. These matters remain to be clarified by the Implementing Regulations or special implementation provisions. Before the supporting rules are issued, it should not be presumed that the new institutional terminology will alter the procedural rules applicable to pending cases.
Punitive Damages: From “Bad Faith” to “Intentional” Infringement: Article 77 of the 2026 Trademark Law changes the subjective trigger for punitive damages from “bad faith” under Article 63 of the 2019 Trademark Law to “intent.” The multiplier of one to five times damages and the fallback statutory damages ceiling of RMB 5 million remain fundamentally unchanged.
The significance of this change is that the wording of the subjective element for punitive damages is more closely aligned with the “intent” standard under the Civil Code’s intellectual property punitive damages regime. Compared with “bad faith,” “intent” has a clearer normative position within the civil liability system and makes it easier for a right holder to organize evidence concerning the infringer’s actual or constructive knowledge, prior disputes, administrative actions, notices from the right holder, repeated infringement, and similar facts.
The change should not, however, be understood to mean that punitive damages will necessarily become easier to obtain. Courts must still examine both intentional infringement and serious circumstances. A more cautious assessment is that the revision makes the triggering standard for punitive damages clearer and may broaden the argumentative scope available to right holders when asserting subjective fault.
Article 77 also makes a relatively unobtrusive but important adjustment to the basis for calculating damages. Article 63 of the 2019 Trademark Law adopted a relatively strict sequential hierarchy: the right holder’s actual loss came first; only where actual loss was difficult to determine could the infringer’s profits be used; and only where both were difficult to determine could damages be reasonably determined by reference to a multiple of the trademark royalty. The 2026 text places the right holder’s actual loss and the infringer’s profits at the same first level, providing that damages may be determined according to either actual loss or infringing profits. A multiple of the royalty forms the next level, with statutory damages as the final fallback. This change provides a clearer textual basis for the right holder to elect between the two measures and enables a plaintiff to rely on whichever of loss or profit is easier to prove and carries greater evidentiary weight, without first proving that actual loss is difficult to determine before turning to the infringer’s profits.
Recognition of Well-Known Trademarks: Reorganization and Expansion under Article 63: Article 63 consolidates and restates the mechanism for recognizing well-known trademarks. The key point of the revision is not the addition of new recognition factors, but the reorganization of the recognition procedure and the express extension of well-known trademark recognition to enforcement and litigation in unfair competition cases.
This change is of considerable practical significance. Protection of well-known trademarks has long extended beyond the framework of trademark law. In unfair competition cases, enterprises may also seek protection based on the influence and market reputation of their brands. The express language of Article 63 provides a clearer legal basis for administrative enforcement authorities and courts to recognize well-known trademarks in unfair competition cases.
For brand owners, this means that, when choosing between trademark infringement, unfair competition, or parallel causes of action, they may assess more fully the procedural value and evidentiary strategy associated with well-known status. Particularly where the categories of goods or services are not identical and the conduct takes the form of free-riding, exploitation of goodwill, or confusing market behavior, recognition of a well-known trademark may provide a stronger basis for protection.
Prohibition on Advertising the Designation “Well-Known Trademark”: Continuation under Article 64 with a Minor Adjustment to the Penalty: Article 64 may easily be misread as introducing a new prohibition on using the designation “well-known trademark” in advertising. In fact, the prohibition against using the words “well-known trademark” in advertising, product packaging, or other commercial activities is not new. Paragraph 5 of Article 14 of the 2019 Trademark Law contained the same prohibition, and Article 53 already prescribed a fine of RMB 100,000.
The principal changes are the consolidation of the prohibition and penalty in a single provision, the adjustment of the fixed RMB 100,000 fine to a discretionary maximum of “up to RMB 100,000,” and the standardized description of the enforcement body as the “department responsible for trademark enforcement.” Article 64 is therefore better understood as a consolidation of provisions and a technical adjustment to the penalty rather than a substantive policy shift.
Trademark Agencies: Expansion from Regulation of Agencies to Regulation of Practitioners: The 2019 Trademark Law focused its regulation of trademark agency services primarily on trademark agencies. Following the 2026 revision, Article 65 extends the regulatory scope to trademark agency practitioners. It expressly prohibits them from accepting engagements in their own names or providing trademark agency services concurrently at two or more trademark agencies, and requires them to take responsibility for trademark agency documents they sign. Trademark agencies and practitioners must also file the required records with the China National Intellectual Property Administration in accordance with law.
The penalties are also differentiated. Article 67 primarily addresses trademark agencies, providing for orders to rectify and graduated fines depending on the circumstances. Article 68 addresses trademark agency practitioners, providing for orders to rectify, warnings, and fines ranging from RMB 5,000 to RMB 50,000; in serious circumstances, a fine ranging from RMB 50,000 to RMB 100,000 may be imposed. These penalties apply to conduct such as accepting engagements independently or practicing concurrently at two or more agencies.
This change responds to the need to regulate the role of the trademark agency industry in bad-faith, bulk, and abnormal applications. Agencies have long served as important channels for trademark filing activity. Regulating only the agency without reaching the individual practitioner may allow responsibility to become ineffective or be circumvented. Bringing practitioners within the regulatory framework and imposing individual responsibility and personal fines helps fill a gap in the existing system.
Before the Law takes effect, trademark agencies should focus on reviewing practitioner record-filing, internal practice relationships, risks of concurrent practice, and responsibility for signed documents. In particular, because Article 68 attaches certain liabilities directly to individuals, trademark agency compliance will no longer be solely an institutional management issue but will also form part of each practitioner’s personal professional risk.
Adjustments to Procedure and Scope: Opposition Period, Defenses, and Motion Marks: In addition to the major institutional changes described above, the revision includes several adjustments concerning procedure and the scope of rights.
First, the opposition period is shortened from three months under Article 33 of the 2019 Trademark Law to two months under Article 36 of the 2026 Trademark Law. This will compress the period for making opposition decisions following publication. Enterprises, agencies, and right holders that operate trademark watch services must promptly adjust monitoring frequency, internal reporting schedules, and opposition decision-making processes to avoid missing the shortened window for relief.
Second, Article 73 provides more centralized and express rules governing the defenses of legitimate use and prior use by good-faith business operators. Parties that previously relied principally on scattered statutory provisions or judicial practice should in future invoke Article 73 more expressly and organize evidence around such factors as good faith in use, the scope and continuity of use, and market source-identification relationships.
Third, the range of registrable signs is expanded to include motion marks. Article 14 of the 2026 Trademark Law includes dynamic signs for the first time, while Article 18 correspondingly extends the functionality exclusion to new types of signs. This creates filing opportunities for enterprises using dynamic identifiers, animated brand elements, or signs combining sound and dynamic visual elements. Motion marks must nevertheless satisfy the basic requirements of distinctiveness, non-functionality, and identifiability. Applicants should pay particular attention to consistency among the application documents, the manner in which the sign is represented, and evidence of use.
Bad-Faith Trademark Litigation: New Article 81: Article 81 extends the revision’s anti-bad-faith policy to the litigation stage. Under the provision, where trademark litigation is initiated through malicious collusion, unilateral fabrication of basic facts, or similar means, the people’s court may impose sanctions in accordance with law; where loss is caused, civil liability shall also be borne in accordance with law.
The addition of Article 81 shows that the revised Trademark Law addresses not only bad-faith registration at the application stage, but also the misuse of registered trademarks as litigation tools. In practice, certain parties may use preemptively registered trademarks, fabricated facts, malicious collusion, or repeated litigation to pressure legitimate business operators or obtain improper benefits. Article 81 provides courts with a more direct normative basis for handling such conduct.
For a defendant, where the opposing party shows signs of fabricating facts, engaging in malicious collusion, presenting a false chain of title, fabricating evidence of use, or plainly seeking to profit through litigation, Article 81 may serve as an important basis for defense and countermeasures. For right holders, the provision also underscores the need to verify carefully the basis of rights, the facts of infringement, and the authenticity of evidence before instituting trademark litigation, so as to avoid reverse sanctions arising from an improper litigation strategy.
Foreign-Related Provisions: New Article 69: Article 69 introduces two mechanisms of foreign-related significance, reflecting the linkage of China’s trademark system with cross-border protection of rights and cross-border agency services.
First, paragraph 1 of Article 69 provides that, where it is necessary in overseas trademark registration examination, adjudication, or the handling of a trademark matter to prove that a trademark is well known to the relevant public in China, the trademark authority under the State Council may, upon the party’s request and in accordance with Article 63, confirm the well-known status of the trademark in China. This mechanism makes it possible for Chinese right holders to submit an official confirmation of domestic reputation in overseas proceedings.
It should be emphasized that the legal effect of such a confirmation remains subject to the rules of the jurisdiction in which the overseas authority or court is located. In other words, a domestic confirmation of well-known status issued by the China National Intellectual Property Administration may support the evidence submitted by a right holder in overseas proceedings, but whether it is admitted, how it is assessed, and what effect it is given remain matters for the relevant foreign jurisdiction.
Second, paragraph 2 of Article 69 provides that, where a person uses fraud or other improper means to handle an overseas trademark registration application or other trademark matter for a client in China, thereby harming the client’s interests, the interests of the State or the public, or the lawful rights and interests of another person, the matter shall be handled and penalized in accordance with Article 67. This rule extends liability for unlawful trademark agency conduct to services directed at overseas filings and fills a gap under which the prior trademark agency rules might not have fully covered outbound agency services.
For agencies providing overseas trademark filing services, Article 69 means that, when handling overseas registration, renewal, assignment, opposition, invalidation, or other trademark matters, they remain subject to the agency-compliance rules under China’s Trademark Law. False promises, fraud against clients, concealment of material procedural information, excessive charges, or other improper agency conduct may trigger administrative liability under Article 67.
III. Proposals Not Adopted Several reform proposals that attracted substantial attention in the 2023 draft released for public comment—including compulsory transfer of trademarks, restrictions on repeat applications, and a post-registration periodic statement-of-use system—were ultimately not included in the official 2026 statutory text. The characterization “not adopted” in this article is based on a comparison between the currently published official text of the 2026 Trademark Law and the 2023 consultation draft. The following analysis is not an official explanation by the legislature and does not exclude the possibility that related mechanisms may reappear in another form in future supporting rules or legislative revisions.
Compulsory Transfer: The compulsory transfer mechanism in the consultation draft was generally understood to mean that, in specified cases of trademark squatting, the owner of a prior right could request that the preemptively registered trademark be transferred directly to it, rather than merely seeking cancellation or a declaration of invalidity. The mechanism was ultimately not adopted in the official legislation. The 2026 Trademark Law retains only the ordinary rule on voluntary assignment, namely the transfer of registered trademarks under Article 46.
The attraction of compulsory transfer lies in efficiency. For an owner of a prior right facing trademark squatting, direct acquisition of the squatted trademark would plainly be more convenient than first invalidating it and then filing a new application, and would avoid the risk that a third party might file first after invalidation. The mechanism, however, creates certain doctrinal tensions. Invalidation rests on the logic that a right that should not have been registered is void ab initio, whereas compulsory transfer proceeds from recognition of the registration’s proprietary value and transfers it to another person. This may raise complex questions concerning the chain of title, the basis of registration, responsibility for quality, qualification of the user, and whether the result indirectly recognizes the product of a bad-faith registration.
The final text shows that the legislature did not select this more innovative form of relief. The practical consequence is that trademark clearance strategies remain fundamentally unchanged. The owner of a prior right must still first remove the obstructing trademark through opposition, invalidation, or cancellation proceedings and then file its own application. Current law provides no statutory shortcut for directly acquiring a squatted trademark and cannot guarantee that the prior right holder will necessarily obtain priority over other applicants after invalidation or cancellation.
Restrictions on Repeat Applications: The consultation draft proposed establishing a basic principle prohibiting duplicate registration. Paragraph 2 of Article 14 provided that, unless otherwise stipulated, the same applicant should register only one identical trademark for the same goods or services. Article 21 further provided that a trademark applied for registration should not be identical to an earlier trademark that the applicant had filed or registered for the same goods, or that had been published as deregistered, cancelled, or declared invalid within one year before the filing date, while establishing several exceptions for legitimate repeat or renewed applications. The mechanism was intended to curb the use of repeated or rolling applications to circumvent cancellation for three consecutive years of non-use and similar rules. The official 2026 text does not retain these special restrictions on repeat applications, instead addressing such issues under the general registration conditions and bad-faith application rules in Articles 19, 20, and 24.
The failure to adopt the restriction may relate to the difficulty of defining its boundaries. In practice, repeat applications may be abusively intended to evade non-use rules and prolong the lifecycle of unused trademarks, but they may also serve legitimate purposes such as defensive brand protection, updates to specifications of goods and services, classification adjustments, iterations of a sign, or international filing arrangements. A mechanical prohibition on repeat applications for the same trademark could unduly interfere with ordinary trademark portfolio management by good-faith right holders.
The absence of a specific repeat-application restriction does not mean that repeat applications are wholly unconstrained. The bad-faith application rule in Article 19, concerning applications “not intended for use” that “manifestly exceed normal production and business needs,” may still cover some warehousing-type repeat filings. Enterprises retain room for defensive repeat applications, but must assess them together with the stricter standard for examining bad-faith applications. Holders of large trademark portfolios, in particular, should be able to explain the commercial rationale and genuine defensive need for repeat filings.
Periodic Statements of Use: The periodic statement-of-use mechanism was the reform proposal in the consultation draft with the broadest potential impact. It was generally understood to require trademark registrants to make an affirmative statement or confirmation of trademark use at specified intervals, with failure to comply potentially resulting in deregistration or other adverse consequences. Its institutional objective was to clear “zombie registrations” and increase the extent to which entries on the register reflected genuine use.
The mechanism was not included in the official 2026 text, possibly because its compliance costs would have been too high. China has an enormous number of trademark registrations, and imposing a periodic statement-of-use obligation on all registered trademarks would create a substantial burden simultaneously for right holders, agencies, and the competent authorities. The existing cancellation system based on three consecutive years of non-use already permits the removal of unused trademarks to some extent, while the revision adds an ex officio cancellation mechanism that gives administrative authorities a proactive clearance tool. Against this background, the legislature appears not to have chosen to address unused trademarks by imposing a universal obligation on registrants.
In practice, this means that enterprises’ trademark portfolio management will not, for the time being, be subject to a new periodic affirmative reporting obligation. This does not, however, diminish the importance of managing evidence of use. On the contrary, with the introduction of ex officio cancellation and the express inclusion of online use within the definition of trademark use, enterprises should establish systematic and continuous mechanisms for retaining evidence of use. In this revision, the legislature appears to have chosen enforcement levers that may be exercised proactively by the State rather than broadly increasing periodic compliance burdens on registrants, which is consistent with the legislative orientation summarized in Part I of this article.
IV. Outlook and Transitional Issues For trademark practice planning, the supporting rules that remain uncertain are as important as the statutory text already promulgated. First, corresponding revisions to the Implementing Regulations have not yet been completed. Many operational details may not be set out in the Law itself, but may instead be specified in the Implementing Regulations, departmental rules, or examination and adjudication guidelines. Second, the specific measures authorized by Article 57 for ex officio cancellation will determine the mechanism’s actual scope of application, frequency of initiation, and procedural intensity. Third, an initial group of infringement cases will show how courts interpret the normative significance of replacing “bad faith” with “intent” in the punitive damages provision, particularly how they distinguish and relate intentional infringement to serious circumstances.
The transitional treatment of pending cases is the most immediate unresolved issue. At present, no rule specifies how the old and new laws will apply to opposition, invalidation, or cancellation proceedings still in progress before the 2026 Trademark Law takes effect, nor has it been clarified how cases in the former trademark review and adjudication stage will be incorporated into the consolidated trademark authority under the State Council. Such transitional matters ordinarily require resolution through transitional provisions in the Implementing Regulations or special implementation rules. Before supporting rules are issued, it should not be presumed that new institutional terminology, new procedural periods, or new substantive thresholds will apply directly to pending cases. Procedural acts completed before the effective date should, in principle, continue to be analyzed under the framework of the 2019 Trademark Law.
Before the Law formally takes effect on January 1, 2027, enterprises and agencies may undertake several low-risk preparatory measures. First, opposition monitoring and internal decision-making mechanisms should be adjusted to a two-month window to accommodate the accelerated timetable following publication. Second, trademark agencies and practitioners should verify record-filing, practice relationships, and concurrent-practice risks under Articles 65 and 68. Third, trademark-use evidence files should be improved, particularly records of online use, in preparation for both privately initiated cancellation applications and ex officio cancellation for three consecutive years of non-use. Fourth, in light of the stricter bad-faith application standard reflected in Article 19, large defensive trademark portfolios should be reviewed for filings that may be regarded as “manifestly exceeding normal production and business needs,” and explanatory materials should be prepared for defensive arrangements supported by commercial justification.
Overall, the revision does not substantially increase the universal burdens on registrants through mechanisms such as periodic statements of use, compulsory transfer, or restrictions on repeat applications. Instead, it focuses on equipping state authorities with institutional tools for front-end interception, proactive clearance, stronger enforcement, and regulation of litigation. For trademark owners, future trademark management will depend more heavily on genuine use, evidentiary discipline, and the reasonableness of portfolio composition. For trademark agencies, business compliance will extend from institutional liability to practitioner liability. For market competitors, the institutional space for bad-faith applications, misleading use, and bad-faith litigation will be further narrowed. The 2026 revision of the Trademark Law thus reflects an institutional shift centered on governance of the registration order, grounded in genuine use, and supported by coordinated administrative and judicial tools.