On 22 December 2025, following a public consultation launched by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) in early 2023, the Draft Amendment to the Trademark Law was submitted to the 19th Session of the Standing Committee of the 14th National People’s Congress (NPC) for deliberation. The draft, consisting of 9 chapters and 84 articles, aims to further regulate trademark registration, optimize authorization and confirmation procedures, strengthen trademark administration, and enhance the protection of exclusive trademark rights.
The Evolution of China’s Trademark Law
China’s current Trademark Law was first enacted in 1982 and came into force in 1983. To adapt to economic transformation and international practice, the Trademark Law has undergone several major amendments, notably in 1993, 2001, 2013, and 2019. These revisions expanded the scope of protection, improved enforcement mechanisms, increased statutory damages, and strengthened deterrence against infringement.
However, with rapid economic development and the surge in trademark filings, new problems have emerged in recent years. These include persistent malicious trademark registrations, a widespread phenomenon of “emphasizing registration over use”, increasingly sophisticated forms of improper trademark use, a high incidence of infringement, and cases of overzealous rights enforcement and malicious litigation. Against this backdrop, a comprehensive revision of the Trademark Law has become necessary to address systemic issues and respond to practical challenges.
Earlier Drafts and Key Concerns Raised During Consultation
During the public consultation process initiated by CNIPA in early 2023, several earlier drafts and policy proposals attracted significant attention and debate among brand owners, practitioners, and industry groups. While there was broad consensus on the need to curb malicious registrations and reinforce the principle of trademark use, certain contemplated mechanisms raised substantial concern.
One of the most debated issues was the possible introduction of a mandatory periodic use-evidence submission system, under which trademark owners would be required to proactively submit evidence of trademark use at fixed intervals—often discussed as every five years - regardless of whether a non-use cancellation action had been filed. This proposal was widely viewed as resembling a US-style trademark maintenance regime, representing a fundamental departure from China’s traditionally complaint-driven enforcement framework.
Many stakeholders expressed concern that such a system could impose a significant administrative and compliance burden, particularly on multinational enterprises with large trademark portfolios and defensive registrations, while offering limited incremental effectiveness in addressing bad-faith filings. There were also concerns that a blanket obligation to submit use evidence could lead to formalistic reviews, increased procedural disputes, and greater legal uncertainty, rather than genuinely promoting substantive trademark use.
Earlier drafts also explored granting trademark authorities broader discretion to reject applications deemed to exceed “reasonable business needs”. Commentators cautioned that without sufficiently clear standards, such discretion could undermine predictability in examination practice and increase uncertainty for legitimate applicants.
The version of the draft now submitted to the NPC Standing Committee appears to moderate these earlier proposals. Notably, it does not adopt a mandatory periodic use declaration or submission mechanism. Instead, it strengthens the principle of use through front-end registration controls (targeting filings without genuine intent to use) and post-registration supervision, while retaining the existing non-use cancellation system as the primary enforcement tool. This evolution suggests a policy choice favoring incremental and targeted reform, balancing regulatory effectiveness with system stability.
Review of the Main Highlights of the Amendment
1. Regulating Trademark Registration Conditions
The draft amendment introduces a dedicated chapter on trademark registration conditions, consolidating and refining rules that were previously scattered across different chapters.
A key change is the explicit clarification that applications not filed for the purpose of use, or those clearly exceeding normal production and business needs, shall not be approved for registration. This provision directly targets large-scale hoarding and speculative registrations, reinforcing the principle that trademarks are tools for commercial use rather than objects of investment or abuse.
In addition, the draft further strengthens the protection of well-known trademarks. It expands the prohibition against the bad-faith registration of well-known trademarks on dissimilar goods or services, extending protection regardless of whether the well-known trademark is registered or unregistered, thereby closing existing loopholes exploited by malicious applicants.
2. Optimizing Trademark Authorization and Confirmation Procedures
To improve procedural efficiency and fairness, the draft amendment emphasizes the use of suspension mechanisms in trademark examination and adjudication.
It clearly provides that where the determination of prior rights in trademark authorization or confirmation procedures depends on the outcome of another pending case, the relevant examination or adjudication should generally be suspended. This rule aims to prevent contradictory decisions, reduce repetitive proceedings, and enhance the overall consistency and predictability of trademark adjudication.
3. Strengthening Trademark Administration and Use Regulation
The draft introduces stricter rules on improper trademark use. Where a registered trademark is used in a misleading manner that deceives the public, the competent trademark enforcement authority may order rectification within a specified time limit. Failure to comply may result in a fine of up to RMB 50,000, and in serious cases, the registered trademark may be revoked by the State Council’s trademark administration department.
Further, the amendment places greater emphasis on the regulation of trademark agencies and practitioners, reinforcing compliance obligations and professional discipline to curb irregular practices in trademark filing and representation.
4. Enhancing Protection of Exclusive Trademark Rights
In terms of enforcement, the draft amendment strengthens measures against trademark infringement, including clearer rules on the transfer of suspected criminal cases and enhanced coordination between administrative and judicial authorities.
At the same time, it addresses the growing concern over malicious trademark litigation. The draft explicitly provides that parties who maliciously initiate trademark lawsuits may be subject to legal penalties and, where losses are caused, bear corresponding civil liability. This provision seeks to strike a better balance between legitimate rights protection and the prevention of abuse of legal procedures.
Next Steps and Legislative Timeline
Following its submission to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress for deliberation, the draft amendment to the Trademark Law will formally enter the legislative review process. As a significant piece of economic legislation, the amendment will typically undergo two to three rounds of deliberation. During this process, the legislative authorities may further revise and refine the draft provisions based on feedback from members of the NPC Standing Committee, relevant administrative authorities, and practical experience.
Based on prior legislative practice, if the review process proceeds smoothly, the amendment to the Trademark Law may be formally adopted within one to two years. It is also expected that the final adopted law will provide for a transitional or grace period, allowing administrative authorities, courts, businesses, and trademark practitioners sufficient time to understand the new rules, adjust internal systems, and complete compliance alignment.
It should be noted that during subsequent rounds of deliberation, certain provisions that remain controversial or involve greater policy flexibility may still be subject to further clarification, amendment, or even re-drafting. Accordingly, relevant stakeholders are advised to closely monitor subsequent draft versions and the development of related implementing measures.
Practical Implications and Compliance Considerations
From a practical perspective, although the draft amendment currently under deliberation does not introduce a mandatory periodic submission of trademark use evidence, it nevertheless sends a clear policy signal that scrutiny of trademark use intent and post-registration use will be strengthened. This trend is likely to manifest progressively across multiple stages, including trademark examination, administrative supervision, and dispute resolution.
Against this backdrop, trademark owners should anticipate a regulatory environment that places greater emphasis on genuine use and reasonable portfolio planning. In particular, compliance requirements and examination standards may continue to tighten with respect to large-scale filings, defensive registrations, and misleading trademark use.
For enterprises with extensive trademark portfolios, it is advisable to conduct early internal reviews and audits of trademark use, carefully reassess existing and future filing strategies, and ensure that core trademarks can be supported by credible and reasonable evidence of use when questioned or challenged. At the same time, close attention should be paid to subsequent drafts released during the legislative process, in order to respond promptly to any further refinements or policy adjustments in the final text.
Comment
Overall, this round of revision signals a clear policy direction toward curbing abuse, promoting genuine use, strengthening governance, and ensuring fair competition. While clearly signaling policy direction, the amendment also avoids abrupt disruptions to the existing trademark system and established rights structures. Once enacted, the amended Trademark Law is expected to play a pivotal role in improving the quality of trademark registrations, reducing disputes, and fostering a healthier and more predictable business environment in China.
The Evolution of China’s Trademark Law
China’s current Trademark Law was first enacted in 1982 and came into force in 1983. To adapt to economic transformation and international practice, the Trademark Law has undergone several major amendments, notably in 1993, 2001, 2013, and 2019. These revisions expanded the scope of protection, improved enforcement mechanisms, increased statutory damages, and strengthened deterrence against infringement.
However, with rapid economic development and the surge in trademark filings, new problems have emerged in recent years. These include persistent malicious trademark registrations, a widespread phenomenon of “emphasizing registration over use”, increasingly sophisticated forms of improper trademark use, a high incidence of infringement, and cases of overzealous rights enforcement and malicious litigation. Against this backdrop, a comprehensive revision of the Trademark Law has become necessary to address systemic issues and respond to practical challenges.
Earlier Drafts and Key Concerns Raised During Consultation
During the public consultation process initiated by CNIPA in early 2023, several earlier drafts and policy proposals attracted significant attention and debate among brand owners, practitioners, and industry groups. While there was broad consensus on the need to curb malicious registrations and reinforce the principle of trademark use, certain contemplated mechanisms raised substantial concern.
One of the most debated issues was the possible introduction of a mandatory periodic use-evidence submission system, under which trademark owners would be required to proactively submit evidence of trademark use at fixed intervals—often discussed as every five years - regardless of whether a non-use cancellation action had been filed. This proposal was widely viewed as resembling a US-style trademark maintenance regime, representing a fundamental departure from China’s traditionally complaint-driven enforcement framework.
Many stakeholders expressed concern that such a system could impose a significant administrative and compliance burden, particularly on multinational enterprises with large trademark portfolios and defensive registrations, while offering limited incremental effectiveness in addressing bad-faith filings. There were also concerns that a blanket obligation to submit use evidence could lead to formalistic reviews, increased procedural disputes, and greater legal uncertainty, rather than genuinely promoting substantive trademark use.
Earlier drafts also explored granting trademark authorities broader discretion to reject applications deemed to exceed “reasonable business needs”. Commentators cautioned that without sufficiently clear standards, such discretion could undermine predictability in examination practice and increase uncertainty for legitimate applicants.
The version of the draft now submitted to the NPC Standing Committee appears to moderate these earlier proposals. Notably, it does not adopt a mandatory periodic use declaration or submission mechanism. Instead, it strengthens the principle of use through front-end registration controls (targeting filings without genuine intent to use) and post-registration supervision, while retaining the existing non-use cancellation system as the primary enforcement tool. This evolution suggests a policy choice favoring incremental and targeted reform, balancing regulatory effectiveness with system stability.
Review of the Main Highlights of the Amendment
1. Regulating Trademark Registration Conditions
The draft amendment introduces a dedicated chapter on trademark registration conditions, consolidating and refining rules that were previously scattered across different chapters.
A key change is the explicit clarification that applications not filed for the purpose of use, or those clearly exceeding normal production and business needs, shall not be approved for registration. This provision directly targets large-scale hoarding and speculative registrations, reinforcing the principle that trademarks are tools for commercial use rather than objects of investment or abuse.
In addition, the draft further strengthens the protection of well-known trademarks. It expands the prohibition against the bad-faith registration of well-known trademarks on dissimilar goods or services, extending protection regardless of whether the well-known trademark is registered or unregistered, thereby closing existing loopholes exploited by malicious applicants.
2. Optimizing Trademark Authorization and Confirmation Procedures
To improve procedural efficiency and fairness, the draft amendment emphasizes the use of suspension mechanisms in trademark examination and adjudication.
It clearly provides that where the determination of prior rights in trademark authorization or confirmation procedures depends on the outcome of another pending case, the relevant examination or adjudication should generally be suspended. This rule aims to prevent contradictory decisions, reduce repetitive proceedings, and enhance the overall consistency and predictability of trademark adjudication.
3. Strengthening Trademark Administration and Use Regulation
The draft introduces stricter rules on improper trademark use. Where a registered trademark is used in a misleading manner that deceives the public, the competent trademark enforcement authority may order rectification within a specified time limit. Failure to comply may result in a fine of up to RMB 50,000, and in serious cases, the registered trademark may be revoked by the State Council’s trademark administration department.
Further, the amendment places greater emphasis on the regulation of trademark agencies and practitioners, reinforcing compliance obligations and professional discipline to curb irregular practices in trademark filing and representation.
4. Enhancing Protection of Exclusive Trademark Rights
In terms of enforcement, the draft amendment strengthens measures against trademark infringement, including clearer rules on the transfer of suspected criminal cases and enhanced coordination between administrative and judicial authorities.
At the same time, it addresses the growing concern over malicious trademark litigation. The draft explicitly provides that parties who maliciously initiate trademark lawsuits may be subject to legal penalties and, where losses are caused, bear corresponding civil liability. This provision seeks to strike a better balance between legitimate rights protection and the prevention of abuse of legal procedures.
Next Steps and Legislative Timeline
Following its submission to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress for deliberation, the draft amendment to the Trademark Law will formally enter the legislative review process. As a significant piece of economic legislation, the amendment will typically undergo two to three rounds of deliberation. During this process, the legislative authorities may further revise and refine the draft provisions based on feedback from members of the NPC Standing Committee, relevant administrative authorities, and practical experience.
Based on prior legislative practice, if the review process proceeds smoothly, the amendment to the Trademark Law may be formally adopted within one to two years. It is also expected that the final adopted law will provide for a transitional or grace period, allowing administrative authorities, courts, businesses, and trademark practitioners sufficient time to understand the new rules, adjust internal systems, and complete compliance alignment.
It should be noted that during subsequent rounds of deliberation, certain provisions that remain controversial or involve greater policy flexibility may still be subject to further clarification, amendment, or even re-drafting. Accordingly, relevant stakeholders are advised to closely monitor subsequent draft versions and the development of related implementing measures.
Practical Implications and Compliance Considerations
From a practical perspective, although the draft amendment currently under deliberation does not introduce a mandatory periodic submission of trademark use evidence, it nevertheless sends a clear policy signal that scrutiny of trademark use intent and post-registration use will be strengthened. This trend is likely to manifest progressively across multiple stages, including trademark examination, administrative supervision, and dispute resolution.
Against this backdrop, trademark owners should anticipate a regulatory environment that places greater emphasis on genuine use and reasonable portfolio planning. In particular, compliance requirements and examination standards may continue to tighten with respect to large-scale filings, defensive registrations, and misleading trademark use.
For enterprises with extensive trademark portfolios, it is advisable to conduct early internal reviews and audits of trademark use, carefully reassess existing and future filing strategies, and ensure that core trademarks can be supported by credible and reasonable evidence of use when questioned or challenged. At the same time, close attention should be paid to subsequent drafts released during the legislative process, in order to respond promptly to any further refinements or policy adjustments in the final text.
Comment
Overall, this round of revision signals a clear policy direction toward curbing abuse, promoting genuine use, strengthening governance, and ensuring fair competition. While clearly signaling policy direction, the amendment also avoids abrupt disruptions to the existing trademark system and established rights structures. Once enacted, the amended Trademark Law is expected to play a pivotal role in improving the quality of trademark registrations, reducing disputes, and fostering a healthier and more predictable business environment in China.