Comments on the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China (Revision Draft)
Published 31 December 2025
Sarah Xuan
Since its enactment in 1982, the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China has undergone three major revisions in 1993, 2001, and 2013, respectively, and was further amended in 2019 to form the current effective text. Observing the trajectory of previous revisions, the systemic focus has progressively shifted from “attainment of rights, registration, and basic protection” toward “equal emphasis on procedural efficiency, boundaries of rights, and market order.” In particular, the 2019 amendment explicitly identified applications for registration that are “malicious and not for the purpose of use” as grounds for rejection (Article 4 of the current Law), signaling that legislation has begun to respond to practical issues such as “trademark hoarding and squatting” and “bulk registration” with a stronger governance logic.
The 19th Session of the Standing Committee of the 14th National People’s Congress deliberated on the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China (Revision Draft) (the “Revision Draft”) and released the draft to the public for comments on the solicitation platform on December 27, 2025, with a deadline for comments set for February 9, 2026.
This article will focus on analyzing the key revised contents of the Revision Draft and provide corresponding comments on the “governance-oriented” upgrades of the Draft compared to the current Law.
I. Key Revised Contents of the Revision Draft and Comments (1) Reshaping the Regulatory Framework In its General Provisions, the Draft clarifies that the “trademark management department under the State Council” is responsible for the registration and management of trademarks nationwide. It further distinguishes between local “departments in charge of trademark management” and “departments assuming trademark enforcement functions,” requiring the establishment of information-sharing and work-coordination mechanisms (Draft Article 3). In contrast, the current Law still designates the “Trademark Office of the administrative department for industry and commerce under the State Council” as the authority in charge of registration and management, and provides for the establishment of a Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to handle disputes (Current Law Article 2). The systemic signals of this adjustment are very clear: first, the Draft adopts the more abstract term “trademark management department under the State Council” to replace previous institutional titles, leaving sufficient room for alignment with the allocation of responsibilities following institutional reforms; second, elevating the allocation of enforcement functions and synergy mechanisms to explicit legal requirements is intended to bridge the disconnect in practice between “emphasizing efficiency at the right-attainment end, evidence collection at the enforcement end, and order at the management end.” If supporting regulations and enforcement rules are improved simultaneously in the future, the overall effectiveness of cross-departmental synergy in combating infringement and malicious acts is expected to increase. (2) Prioritizing Value Objectives The Draft specifies that trademark work shall implement the national intellectual property strategy (Draft Article 2) and requires the trademark management department under the State Council to strengthen the construction of informatized and intelligent public service systems, enhance the degree of facilitation, and release trademark information in a timely manner (Draft Article 13). The current Law does not contain direct provisions of equal intensity regarding public services and informatized governance at the levels of legislative purpose and General Provisions (relevant articles in Chapter 1 of the current Law). Although such provisions are “clauses of principle,” their normative significance is not limited to compliance reviews of administrative discretion, information disclosure, and public service provision; they may become interpretive benchmarks for measuring administrative action and inaction, and provide a superior legal basis for more detailed future rules on data governance, intelligent examination, and information disclosure. (3) More Systematic Expression of Trademark “Definition” and “Registrable Signs” The Draft adds a definition of “trademark,” namely, “a sign used to identify and distinguish the source of goods or services,” and clarifies that it includes trademarks for goods and trademarks for services (Draft Article 4). The current Law adopts an enumerative expression for signs that may be registered as trademarks (words, designs, letters, numerals, three-dimensional symbols, combinations of colors, and sounds, etc., and combinations thereof), as reflected in Article 8 of the current Law. The Draft continues to list types of registrable signs in a dedicated chapter on “Conditions for Trademark Registration” and explicitly includes new types such as “dynamic signs” (Draft Article 14).From the perspective of legislative technique, the Draft adopts an approach of definition followed by enumeration, and General Provisions followed by specialized chapters. This is conducive to enhancing consistency in interpretation and leaves more space for addressing new types of signs (such as those presented via new media) in the future. (4) From “Good Faith” Toward “Anti-Abuse” The Draft stipulates that the application for registration and use of trademarks shall follow the principle of honesty and good faith, and further emphasizes that rights shall not be abused to harm national interests, social public interests, or the legitimate rights and interests of others (Draft Article 9). The current Law’s expression on this issue is relatively restrained, merely stating that “the application for registration and use of a trademark shall follow the principle of honesty and good faith” (Current Law Article 7). This change warrants high attention—the Draft elevates “anti-abuse” from a discretionary concept in practice to an explicit norm at the level of General Provisions. In the future, whether in scenarios of malicious enforcement, rights-hijacking negotiations, or the utilization of bulk opposition/invalidation procedures, administrative and judicial organs may be more inclined to use the General Provisions as a “catch-all basis” for value balancing. For rights holders, compliant trademark use and enforcement strategies will place greater emphasis on the overall demonstration of “legitimate purpose—proportional boundary—market order,” rather than relying solely on formal rights. (5) “Refined Standards” for Governing Malicious Registrations The current Law already stipulates that “malicious trademark registration applications not for the purpose of use shall be rejected” (Current Law Article 4). The Draft further refines this: applications not for the purpose of use that “obviously exceed the needs of normal production and business operations” shall not be registered; it also adds that trademark registration shall not be applied for by deception or other improper means (Draft Article 18). From a practical perspective, “obviously exceeding the needs of normal production and business operations” is a dimension of identification with stronger operability: it encourages examination authorities, dispute procedures, and judicial reviews to organize evidence around the applicant’s business scale, industry customs, historical preparations for use, and actual capacity for use. This avoids the uncertainty brought by making value judgments based solely on subjective “malice.” Of course, the potential challenge lies in how to unify the scale of standards and allocate the burden of proof, which may require detailed supporting rules. (6) “Chapterization” of Registration Conditions The Draft establishes “Chapter II: Conditions for Trademark Registration,” centrally arranging rules on types of registrable signs, signs prohibited from use, requirements for distinctiveness, restrictions on special signs, protection of well-known trademarks, squatting by agents/representatives, and protection of prior rights (Draft Articles 14 to 24). In contrast, relevant rules in the current Law are scattered across the General Provisions and chapters on registration applications, examination, and approval (e.g., Articles 8, 10, 11, and 13 of the current Law). Systematization itself does not necessarily change substantive standards, but it significantly affects the path of interpretation: when “registration conditions” are clarified as a set of requirements, the application of “condition clauses” in procedures such as examination, opposition, and invalidation will become more consistent, helping to reduce inconsistent judgments for similar cases caused by procedural differences. (7) Expansion of the Scope of Prohibited Signs Among the signs that shall not be used as trademarks, the Draft adds that signs identical with or similar to the “name, Party flag, Party emblem, or medals of the Communist Party of China” shall not be used (Draft Article 15, Item (1)). Although Article 10 of the current Law places strict restrictions on national names, flags, and emblems, it does not list the aforementioned political symbols in the same manner.This revision reflects the legislative strengthening of public interest and the protection of political symbols. For corporate brand compliance, it also means that in the trademark search and naming stages, relevant prohibited elements must be treated as clearer compliance “red lines.” (8) Structural Adjustment of Well-Known Trademark Protection Rules The current Law adopts different rules for well-known trademark protection on identical/similar versus dissimilar/non-analogous goods, and in the latter case, takes “a well-known trademark already registered in China by another party” as a prerequisite (Current Law Article 13, Paragraphs 2 and 3). The Draft stipulates that: where a trademark applied for registration on dissimilar or non-analogous goods is a reproduction, imitation, or translation of “another party’s well-known trademark,” misleads the public, and may harm the interests of the well-known trademark holder, it shall not be registered and its use shall be prohibited (Draft Article 20). From the literal expression, the Draft no longer explicitly distinguishes “whether it is registered in China” in the protection of dissimilar/non-analogous goods. This may further compress the systemic space for “squatting on well-known trademarks” at the rule level. If this article is ultimately implemented, the focus of arguments for well-known trademark holders claiming cross-class protection may concentrate more on the evidentiary chain of “degree of fame—misleading the public—possibility of harm to interests,” rather than formal requirements. (9) Clarification of Electronic “Written Form” The Draft clarifies that trademark registration applications and other relevant documents shall be submitted in written form, and stipulates that data messages that can tangibly express content and be retrieved at any time via methods such as electronic data interchange “shall be deemed written form” (Draft Article 25). The current Law already allows application documents to be submitted in written form or by way of data message (Current Law Article 22, Paragraph 3). However, the expression in the Draft is closer to the general rule in the field of civil and commercial law that “data message = written form.” Its significance lies in that it not only confirms that “electronic submission is permissible,” but also directly anchors the “legal effect of electronic form” as “written,” clearing superior legal obstacles for the future improvement of rules on procedural documents, service of process, evidence retention, and electronic signatures. (10) Regulation of “Improper Use” and Introduction of Fines The current Law stipulates that where a registrant unilaterally changes the registered trademark, the registrant’s name, address, or other registered matters, the local administrative department for industry and commerce shall order rectification within a time limit; if no rectification is made upon expiration of the time limit, the Trademark Office shall cancel the registered trademark (Current Law Article 49, Paragraph 1). The Draft adds administrative fines to similar circumstances and incorporates “using a registered trademark in a manner that misleads the public” into the scope of regulation: ordering rectification within a time limit; where no rectification is made upon expiration, a fine of not more than 50,000 yuan shall be imposed; where the circumstances are serious, the trademark management department under the State Council shall cancel the registered trademark (Draft Article 56, Paragraph 1). The practical impact of this modification is that: in the past, addressing non-standard use relied heavily on the “order for rectification—cancellation” path, which lacked sufficient fine instruments, and enforcement deterrence appeared as an “either-or” proposition. The introduction of fines in the Draft allows for “graduated sanctions” at the enforcement level that are more consistent with the principle of proportionality, and strengthens direct governance of misleading use (e.g., modes of use sufficient to cause confusion as to the source). On the corporate side, it is necessary to elevate “compliance in the mode of use” (including consistency of symbols and boundaries of promotional expressions) to the same level of importance as “compliance in registration.” (11) Further Upgrade of the Cancellation Mechanism The current Law adopts a model of “application by any unit or individual—examination and decision by the Trademark Office within a time limit” for cancellations due to becoming a generic name or non-use for three consecutive years (Current Law Article 49, Paragraph 2). The Draft continues the application-for-cancellation mechanism while adding a provision: where a registered trademark becomes a generic name or is not used for three consecutive years without a justifiable reason, the trademark management department under the State Council may cancel the registered trademark (Draft Article 56, Paragraphs 2 and 3). The significance of introducing “ex officio cancellation” is that: when obvious backlogs of stagnant trademarks or long-dormant trademarks cause systemic obstacles to market entry, administrative organs can more proactively “clear the obstacles.” However, this provision may similarly require supporting procedural safeguards to ensure that the standards for ex officio initiation, evidentiary requirements, and paths for remedy are transparent and predictable, so as to balance administrative efficiency with the stability of rights. (12) Strengthening Governance of Collective/Certification Trademarks The current Law primarily defines collective and certification trademarks and leaves specific matters to be stipulated by State Council departments (Current Law Article 3, Paragraphs 2 to 4). The Draft further stipulates penalties for circumstances where the registrant of a collective or certification trademark neglects management, refuses use by members or eligible parties without justifiable reasons, or exercises rights unlawfully resulting in adverse impacts (Draft Article 59). This change elevates a field that has long relied primarily on regulations/rules to direct legal binding. For industry associations and certification organizations, the focus of compliance will shift from “whether it can be registered” to “how to perform management duties continuously and in an auditable manner,” and may change the way fault and liability of the registrant are determined in related disputes. (13) “Penalization” of Trademark Agency Supervision The current Law sets requirements for trademark agencies regarding honesty and good faith, the duty to inform, and the prohibition against accepting certain entrustments (e.g., Current Law Article 19 regarding the prohibition on accepting entrustments that fall under the circumstances of Article 4, etc.). On this basis, the Draft introduces more specific administrative penalty rules, listing fine gradients for acts by agencies such as forging documents during the process, soliciting business through fraud or disparagement, representation with conflicts of interest, and accepting entrustment when knowing or having reason to know that the entrustment falls under prohibited registration circumstances. It also sets warnings and fines for directly responsible personnel (Draft Article 66). From the perspective of industry governance, this means that regulatory means are further moving from “industry self-discipline + behavioral obligations” toward “enforceable administrative sanctions.” For agencies, business risk control, client due diligence, and record-keeping mechanisms will no longer be merely issues of service quality, but rigid requirements directly related to administrative compliance and personnel liability. (14) Refined Connection Between Enforcement and Criminal Justice The current Law stipulates that administrative organs have the power to investigate and handle infringing acts, and those suspected of crimes shall be transferred to judicial organs in a timely manner (Current Law Article 61). The Draft not only retains the requirement of “transferring suspected crimes to public security,” but also further stipulates: for cases where criminal liability need not be pursued according to law or where criminal punishment is exempted but administrative penalties should be imposed, the public security organs, people’s procuratorates, and people’s courts shall promptly transfer the cases to the departments responsible for trademark enforcement for handling according to law; it also clarifies that relevant departments may provide professional support, expert opinions, and assistance in disposing of infringing goods (Draft Article 72). This detailed provision responds to pain points in practice: in cases where criminal, civil, and administrative matters intersect, evidence, appraisal, and disposal often “circulate with interruptions” among different organs. If the Draft is ultimately implemented, it will help improve the certainty and efficiency of infringement governance, while also raising the requirements for corporate compliance responses in the case chain—especially regarding evidence preservation, product flow, and supply chain traceability.
II. Comparison Between the Revision Draft and the Draft Revision of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China (Draft for Comments) Released by the CNIPA on January 13, 2023 It is noteworthy that the Trademark Law (Revision Draft) released after deliberation by the NPC Standing Committee, compared with the Draft Revision of the Trademark Law (Draft for Comments) released by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) on January 13, 2023, exhibits several directional “re-calibrations” in overall expression and systemic choices:First, regarding policy orientation and stylistic arrangement, the 2023 Draft for Comments once included a separate chapter on “Promoting Trademark Use, Services, and Trademark Brand Construction” (Chapter IX, Article 91 et seq.), reflecting a stronger policy declaration of “brand strategy”; whereas the 2025 Draft no longer retains this chapter, returning as a whole to a normative structure centered on right-attainment and governance rules. Second, regarding the competent authorities and legislative technique, the two drafts show significant changes in the expression of “who is responsible for trademark work and how to configure enforcement synergy”: the 2023 Draft for Comments used “intellectual property administrative department under the State Council” as an overarching expression, while the 2025 Draft changes this to “trademark management department under the State Council” and more clearly distinguishes between trademark management and trademark enforcement functions within the same article, emphasizing information-sharing and work-coordination mechanisms. Third, the 2025 Draft splits the conceptual definition of “trademark” from the list of types of registrable signs, centralizing the types of signs in the specialized chapter on “Registration Conditions,” and explicitly writes “dynamic signs” into the enumeration of types, thereby providing a more direct legal benchmark for the examination criteria of non-traditional trademarks. Fourth, regarding the choice of systemic tools to regulate trademark hoarding, the two drafts exhibit a difference in orientation, shifting “from elaborate structural designs toward more enforceable thresholds + penalties”: the 2023 Draft for Comments once set a specific article “prohibiting repetitive registration” (Article 21) with a complex system of exceptions, and also stipulated in Chapter II that, in principle, the same applicant may only register one identical trademark for identical goods or services; the 2025 Draft no longer adopts the expressions of these two rules, turning instead to applications for non-use purposes that “obviously exceed the needs of normal production and business operations” as the entry gate (Article 18), supplemented by administrative penalty clauses for malicious applications causing adverse impacts (Article 53) to strengthen enforceability. Overall, the 2025 Draft does not simply continue the “additive” path of the 2023 Draft for Comments, but has undergone adjustments that are more “rule-oriented, operable, and synergistic” after entering the deliberation process of the NPC Standing Committee.
Conclusion In sum, this Revision Draft, on the one hand, reinforces the orientation of anti-abuse and public interest through General Provisions (Draft Article 9, etc.), and on the other hand, addresses issues such as malicious registration, improper use, clearing of existing stock, agency supervision, and the connection between criminal and administrative justice through more refined constitutive elements and a more complete legal basis for enforcement (Draft Articles 18, 56, 66, 72, etc.). It must be emphasized that the end of the comment solicitation period does not mean the legislative process is complete. According to the general arrangements of the Legislation Law and the Rules of Procedure for the Standing Committee, a bill usually requires “three deliberations” by the meetings of the NPC Standing Committee before being put to a vote; those with relatively consistent opinions may be put to a vote after two deliberations, and in individual cases, a bill may be passed during the current meeting. After a law is passed, it must be promulgated by an order signed by the President of the State and published in the Gazette of the NPC Standing Committee and other media. Therefore, from “public solicitation of comments” to the “finalization and publication of the text,” the process will generally still undergo stages such as the consolidation of opinions and refinement, re-submission (or multiple submissions) to the Standing Committee for deliberation, the formation of a version for voting and its passage, and promulgation by Presidential Order. Consequently, there remains room for change in the final wording of the provisions, supporting rules, and enforcement criteria. For enterprises and practitioners, more valuable work at present includes: establishing internal compliance baselines and evidentiary systems early around key issues such as “needs of normal production and business operations,” “use in a manner that misleads the public,” “initiation standards for ex officio cancellation,” and “evidence of records for the compliance obligations of agencies,” and proposing operable and implementable suggestions during the public comment stage to jointly promote the evolution of the Trademark Law from a “law of right-attainment” further into a “law for the governance of market order.”
I. Key Revised Contents of the Revision Draft and Comments (1) Reshaping the Regulatory Framework In its General Provisions, the Draft clarifies that the “trademark management department under the State Council” is responsible for the registration and management of trademarks nationwide. It further distinguishes between local “departments in charge of trademark management” and “departments assuming trademark enforcement functions,” requiring the establishment of information-sharing and work-coordination mechanisms (Draft Article 3). In contrast, the current Law still designates the “Trademark Office of the administrative department for industry and commerce under the State Council” as the authority in charge of registration and management, and provides for the establishment of a Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to handle disputes (Current Law Article 2). The systemic signals of this adjustment are very clear: first, the Draft adopts the more abstract term “trademark management department under the State Council” to replace previous institutional titles, leaving sufficient room for alignment with the allocation of responsibilities following institutional reforms; second, elevating the allocation of enforcement functions and synergy mechanisms to explicit legal requirements is intended to bridge the disconnect in practice between “emphasizing efficiency at the right-attainment end, evidence collection at the enforcement end, and order at the management end.” If supporting regulations and enforcement rules are improved simultaneously in the future, the overall effectiveness of cross-departmental synergy in combating infringement and malicious acts is expected to increase. (2) Prioritizing Value Objectives The Draft specifies that trademark work shall implement the national intellectual property strategy (Draft Article 2) and requires the trademark management department under the State Council to strengthen the construction of informatized and intelligent public service systems, enhance the degree of facilitation, and release trademark information in a timely manner (Draft Article 13). The current Law does not contain direct provisions of equal intensity regarding public services and informatized governance at the levels of legislative purpose and General Provisions (relevant articles in Chapter 1 of the current Law). Although such provisions are “clauses of principle,” their normative significance is not limited to compliance reviews of administrative discretion, information disclosure, and public service provision; they may become interpretive benchmarks for measuring administrative action and inaction, and provide a superior legal basis for more detailed future rules on data governance, intelligent examination, and information disclosure. (3) More Systematic Expression of Trademark “Definition” and “Registrable Signs” The Draft adds a definition of “trademark,” namely, “a sign used to identify and distinguish the source of goods or services,” and clarifies that it includes trademarks for goods and trademarks for services (Draft Article 4). The current Law adopts an enumerative expression for signs that may be registered as trademarks (words, designs, letters, numerals, three-dimensional symbols, combinations of colors, and sounds, etc., and combinations thereof), as reflected in Article 8 of the current Law. The Draft continues to list types of registrable signs in a dedicated chapter on “Conditions for Trademark Registration” and explicitly includes new types such as “dynamic signs” (Draft Article 14).From the perspective of legislative technique, the Draft adopts an approach of definition followed by enumeration, and General Provisions followed by specialized chapters. This is conducive to enhancing consistency in interpretation and leaves more space for addressing new types of signs (such as those presented via new media) in the future. (4) From “Good Faith” Toward “Anti-Abuse” The Draft stipulates that the application for registration and use of trademarks shall follow the principle of honesty and good faith, and further emphasizes that rights shall not be abused to harm national interests, social public interests, or the legitimate rights and interests of others (Draft Article 9). The current Law’s expression on this issue is relatively restrained, merely stating that “the application for registration and use of a trademark shall follow the principle of honesty and good faith” (Current Law Article 7). This change warrants high attention—the Draft elevates “anti-abuse” from a discretionary concept in practice to an explicit norm at the level of General Provisions. In the future, whether in scenarios of malicious enforcement, rights-hijacking negotiations, or the utilization of bulk opposition/invalidation procedures, administrative and judicial organs may be more inclined to use the General Provisions as a “catch-all basis” for value balancing. For rights holders, compliant trademark use and enforcement strategies will place greater emphasis on the overall demonstration of “legitimate purpose—proportional boundary—market order,” rather than relying solely on formal rights. (5) “Refined Standards” for Governing Malicious Registrations The current Law already stipulates that “malicious trademark registration applications not for the purpose of use shall be rejected” (Current Law Article 4). The Draft further refines this: applications not for the purpose of use that “obviously exceed the needs of normal production and business operations” shall not be registered; it also adds that trademark registration shall not be applied for by deception or other improper means (Draft Article 18). From a practical perspective, “obviously exceeding the needs of normal production and business operations” is a dimension of identification with stronger operability: it encourages examination authorities, dispute procedures, and judicial reviews to organize evidence around the applicant’s business scale, industry customs, historical preparations for use, and actual capacity for use. This avoids the uncertainty brought by making value judgments based solely on subjective “malice.” Of course, the potential challenge lies in how to unify the scale of standards and allocate the burden of proof, which may require detailed supporting rules. (6) “Chapterization” of Registration Conditions The Draft establishes “Chapter II: Conditions for Trademark Registration,” centrally arranging rules on types of registrable signs, signs prohibited from use, requirements for distinctiveness, restrictions on special signs, protection of well-known trademarks, squatting by agents/representatives, and protection of prior rights (Draft Articles 14 to 24). In contrast, relevant rules in the current Law are scattered across the General Provisions and chapters on registration applications, examination, and approval (e.g., Articles 8, 10, 11, and 13 of the current Law). Systematization itself does not necessarily change substantive standards, but it significantly affects the path of interpretation: when “registration conditions” are clarified as a set of requirements, the application of “condition clauses” in procedures such as examination, opposition, and invalidation will become more consistent, helping to reduce inconsistent judgments for similar cases caused by procedural differences. (7) Expansion of the Scope of Prohibited Signs Among the signs that shall not be used as trademarks, the Draft adds that signs identical with or similar to the “name, Party flag, Party emblem, or medals of the Communist Party of China” shall not be used (Draft Article 15, Item (1)). Although Article 10 of the current Law places strict restrictions on national names, flags, and emblems, it does not list the aforementioned political symbols in the same manner.This revision reflects the legislative strengthening of public interest and the protection of political symbols. For corporate brand compliance, it also means that in the trademark search and naming stages, relevant prohibited elements must be treated as clearer compliance “red lines.” (8) Structural Adjustment of Well-Known Trademark Protection Rules The current Law adopts different rules for well-known trademark protection on identical/similar versus dissimilar/non-analogous goods, and in the latter case, takes “a well-known trademark already registered in China by another party” as a prerequisite (Current Law Article 13, Paragraphs 2 and 3). The Draft stipulates that: where a trademark applied for registration on dissimilar or non-analogous goods is a reproduction, imitation, or translation of “another party’s well-known trademark,” misleads the public, and may harm the interests of the well-known trademark holder, it shall not be registered and its use shall be prohibited (Draft Article 20). From the literal expression, the Draft no longer explicitly distinguishes “whether it is registered in China” in the protection of dissimilar/non-analogous goods. This may further compress the systemic space for “squatting on well-known trademarks” at the rule level. If this article is ultimately implemented, the focus of arguments for well-known trademark holders claiming cross-class protection may concentrate more on the evidentiary chain of “degree of fame—misleading the public—possibility of harm to interests,” rather than formal requirements. (9) Clarification of Electronic “Written Form” The Draft clarifies that trademark registration applications and other relevant documents shall be submitted in written form, and stipulates that data messages that can tangibly express content and be retrieved at any time via methods such as electronic data interchange “shall be deemed written form” (Draft Article 25). The current Law already allows application documents to be submitted in written form or by way of data message (Current Law Article 22, Paragraph 3). However, the expression in the Draft is closer to the general rule in the field of civil and commercial law that “data message = written form.” Its significance lies in that it not only confirms that “electronic submission is permissible,” but also directly anchors the “legal effect of electronic form” as “written,” clearing superior legal obstacles for the future improvement of rules on procedural documents, service of process, evidence retention, and electronic signatures. (10) Regulation of “Improper Use” and Introduction of Fines The current Law stipulates that where a registrant unilaterally changes the registered trademark, the registrant’s name, address, or other registered matters, the local administrative department for industry and commerce shall order rectification within a time limit; if no rectification is made upon expiration of the time limit, the Trademark Office shall cancel the registered trademark (Current Law Article 49, Paragraph 1). The Draft adds administrative fines to similar circumstances and incorporates “using a registered trademark in a manner that misleads the public” into the scope of regulation: ordering rectification within a time limit; where no rectification is made upon expiration, a fine of not more than 50,000 yuan shall be imposed; where the circumstances are serious, the trademark management department under the State Council shall cancel the registered trademark (Draft Article 56, Paragraph 1). The practical impact of this modification is that: in the past, addressing non-standard use relied heavily on the “order for rectification—cancellation” path, which lacked sufficient fine instruments, and enforcement deterrence appeared as an “either-or” proposition. The introduction of fines in the Draft allows for “graduated sanctions” at the enforcement level that are more consistent with the principle of proportionality, and strengthens direct governance of misleading use (e.g., modes of use sufficient to cause confusion as to the source). On the corporate side, it is necessary to elevate “compliance in the mode of use” (including consistency of symbols and boundaries of promotional expressions) to the same level of importance as “compliance in registration.” (11) Further Upgrade of the Cancellation Mechanism The current Law adopts a model of “application by any unit or individual—examination and decision by the Trademark Office within a time limit” for cancellations due to becoming a generic name or non-use for three consecutive years (Current Law Article 49, Paragraph 2). The Draft continues the application-for-cancellation mechanism while adding a provision: where a registered trademark becomes a generic name or is not used for three consecutive years without a justifiable reason, the trademark management department under the State Council may cancel the registered trademark (Draft Article 56, Paragraphs 2 and 3). The significance of introducing “ex officio cancellation” is that: when obvious backlogs of stagnant trademarks or long-dormant trademarks cause systemic obstacles to market entry, administrative organs can more proactively “clear the obstacles.” However, this provision may similarly require supporting procedural safeguards to ensure that the standards for ex officio initiation, evidentiary requirements, and paths for remedy are transparent and predictable, so as to balance administrative efficiency with the stability of rights. (12) Strengthening Governance of Collective/Certification Trademarks The current Law primarily defines collective and certification trademarks and leaves specific matters to be stipulated by State Council departments (Current Law Article 3, Paragraphs 2 to 4). The Draft further stipulates penalties for circumstances where the registrant of a collective or certification trademark neglects management, refuses use by members or eligible parties without justifiable reasons, or exercises rights unlawfully resulting in adverse impacts (Draft Article 59). This change elevates a field that has long relied primarily on regulations/rules to direct legal binding. For industry associations and certification organizations, the focus of compliance will shift from “whether it can be registered” to “how to perform management duties continuously and in an auditable manner,” and may change the way fault and liability of the registrant are determined in related disputes. (13) “Penalization” of Trademark Agency Supervision The current Law sets requirements for trademark agencies regarding honesty and good faith, the duty to inform, and the prohibition against accepting certain entrustments (e.g., Current Law Article 19 regarding the prohibition on accepting entrustments that fall under the circumstances of Article 4, etc.). On this basis, the Draft introduces more specific administrative penalty rules, listing fine gradients for acts by agencies such as forging documents during the process, soliciting business through fraud or disparagement, representation with conflicts of interest, and accepting entrustment when knowing or having reason to know that the entrustment falls under prohibited registration circumstances. It also sets warnings and fines for directly responsible personnel (Draft Article 66). From the perspective of industry governance, this means that regulatory means are further moving from “industry self-discipline + behavioral obligations” toward “enforceable administrative sanctions.” For agencies, business risk control, client due diligence, and record-keeping mechanisms will no longer be merely issues of service quality, but rigid requirements directly related to administrative compliance and personnel liability. (14) Refined Connection Between Enforcement and Criminal Justice The current Law stipulates that administrative organs have the power to investigate and handle infringing acts, and those suspected of crimes shall be transferred to judicial organs in a timely manner (Current Law Article 61). The Draft not only retains the requirement of “transferring suspected crimes to public security,” but also further stipulates: for cases where criminal liability need not be pursued according to law or where criminal punishment is exempted but administrative penalties should be imposed, the public security organs, people’s procuratorates, and people’s courts shall promptly transfer the cases to the departments responsible for trademark enforcement for handling according to law; it also clarifies that relevant departments may provide professional support, expert opinions, and assistance in disposing of infringing goods (Draft Article 72). This detailed provision responds to pain points in practice: in cases where criminal, civil, and administrative matters intersect, evidence, appraisal, and disposal often “circulate with interruptions” among different organs. If the Draft is ultimately implemented, it will help improve the certainty and efficiency of infringement governance, while also raising the requirements for corporate compliance responses in the case chain—especially regarding evidence preservation, product flow, and supply chain traceability.
II. Comparison Between the Revision Draft and the Draft Revision of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China (Draft for Comments) Released by the CNIPA on January 13, 2023 It is noteworthy that the Trademark Law (Revision Draft) released after deliberation by the NPC Standing Committee, compared with the Draft Revision of the Trademark Law (Draft for Comments) released by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) on January 13, 2023, exhibits several directional “re-calibrations” in overall expression and systemic choices:First, regarding policy orientation and stylistic arrangement, the 2023 Draft for Comments once included a separate chapter on “Promoting Trademark Use, Services, and Trademark Brand Construction” (Chapter IX, Article 91 et seq.), reflecting a stronger policy declaration of “brand strategy”; whereas the 2025 Draft no longer retains this chapter, returning as a whole to a normative structure centered on right-attainment and governance rules. Second, regarding the competent authorities and legislative technique, the two drafts show significant changes in the expression of “who is responsible for trademark work and how to configure enforcement synergy”: the 2023 Draft for Comments used “intellectual property administrative department under the State Council” as an overarching expression, while the 2025 Draft changes this to “trademark management department under the State Council” and more clearly distinguishes between trademark management and trademark enforcement functions within the same article, emphasizing information-sharing and work-coordination mechanisms. Third, the 2025 Draft splits the conceptual definition of “trademark” from the list of types of registrable signs, centralizing the types of signs in the specialized chapter on “Registration Conditions,” and explicitly writes “dynamic signs” into the enumeration of types, thereby providing a more direct legal benchmark for the examination criteria of non-traditional trademarks. Fourth, regarding the choice of systemic tools to regulate trademark hoarding, the two drafts exhibit a difference in orientation, shifting “from elaborate structural designs toward more enforceable thresholds + penalties”: the 2023 Draft for Comments once set a specific article “prohibiting repetitive registration” (Article 21) with a complex system of exceptions, and also stipulated in Chapter II that, in principle, the same applicant may only register one identical trademark for identical goods or services; the 2025 Draft no longer adopts the expressions of these two rules, turning instead to applications for non-use purposes that “obviously exceed the needs of normal production and business operations” as the entry gate (Article 18), supplemented by administrative penalty clauses for malicious applications causing adverse impacts (Article 53) to strengthen enforceability. Overall, the 2025 Draft does not simply continue the “additive” path of the 2023 Draft for Comments, but has undergone adjustments that are more “rule-oriented, operable, and synergistic” after entering the deliberation process of the NPC Standing Committee.
Conclusion In sum, this Revision Draft, on the one hand, reinforces the orientation of anti-abuse and public interest through General Provisions (Draft Article 9, etc.), and on the other hand, addresses issues such as malicious registration, improper use, clearing of existing stock, agency supervision, and the connection between criminal and administrative justice through more refined constitutive elements and a more complete legal basis for enforcement (Draft Articles 18, 56, 66, 72, etc.). It must be emphasized that the end of the comment solicitation period does not mean the legislative process is complete. According to the general arrangements of the Legislation Law and the Rules of Procedure for the Standing Committee, a bill usually requires “three deliberations” by the meetings of the NPC Standing Committee before being put to a vote; those with relatively consistent opinions may be put to a vote after two deliberations, and in individual cases, a bill may be passed during the current meeting. After a law is passed, it must be promulgated by an order signed by the President of the State and published in the Gazette of the NPC Standing Committee and other media. Therefore, from “public solicitation of comments” to the “finalization and publication of the text,” the process will generally still undergo stages such as the consolidation of opinions and refinement, re-submission (or multiple submissions) to the Standing Committee for deliberation, the formation of a version for voting and its passage, and promulgation by Presidential Order. Consequently, there remains room for change in the final wording of the provisions, supporting rules, and enforcement criteria. For enterprises and practitioners, more valuable work at present includes: establishing internal compliance baselines and evidentiary systems early around key issues such as “needs of normal production and business operations,” “use in a manner that misleads the public,” “initiation standards for ex officio cancellation,” and “evidence of records for the compliance obligations of agencies,” and proposing operable and implementable suggestions during the public comment stage to jointly promote the evolution of the Trademark Law from a “law of right-attainment” further into a “law for the governance of market order.”