China’s Supreme People’s Court Issues Interpretations of the 2027 Amendments to the Trademark Law

China’s Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”) has taken an important further step towards implementation of China’s revised Trademark Law, which will come into force on 1 January 2027.

On 14 September 2026, the SPC released for public comment draft judicial interpretations addressing the application of the amended Trademark Law. The drafts are significant because they begin to explain how Chinese courts are expected to apply the new legislation in actual trademark disputes, including disputes that straddle the transition from the current law to the amended law.

The consultation closes on 28 October 2026.

For international trademark owners, the proposals warrant close attention. They provide useful indications of how the Chinese courts may approach bad-faith trademark applications, prior legitimate rights, well-known trademarks, trademark use and, importantly, the question of which version of the Trademark Law will apply to a particular dispute.

1. The transition to the 2027 Trademark Law

Perhaps the most immediately important aspect of the SPC's proposals is the treatment of cases arising during the transition from the current law to the amended law. 

The draft provisions establish different temporal rules depending upon the nature of the dispute and the relevant administrative decision. For civil trademark disputes, the general principle is that disputes arising from legal facts occurring after 1 January 2027 will be governed by the amended Trademark Law. Disputes arising from facts occurring before that date will generally remain subject to the law in force at the relevant time.

There is, however, an important qualification where a legal fact arising before 1 January 2027 continues after the amended law comes into force. In those circumstances, the new Trademark Law may apply to disputes arising from the continuing legal fact.
The draft also contains specific rules for administrative trademark litigation. For example, in an action concerning a rejection review or non-registration review decision, the applicable law will generally be the Trademark Law in force when the relevant review decision was made. For an invalidation dispute, the relevant law will generally be determined by reference to the law in force when the trademark registration was approved. For cancellation proceedings, the applicable law will generally be determined by reference to the law in force when the cancellation application was filed, or when the relevant authority commenced cancellation proceedings on its own initiative.These provisions are likely to become particularly important during 2027 and beyond, when courts will be dealing with substantial numbers of trademark disputes initiated under the current law but decided after the amended law has taken effect.

2. Bad-faith trademark registrations remain a central focus

The revised Trademark Law places considerable emphasis on combating bad-faith trademark registration, and the SPC's draft provisions provide important guidance on how some of the new provisions may operate.

One particularly useful provision concerns the registration of a trademark by a person who has a relationship with a prior user.The draft identifies a number of circumstances that may constitute an “other relationship” for the purposes of the new bad-faith provisions. These include:

•	a family relationship between the applicant and the prior user;•	an employment relationship;•	adjacent business addresses;•	previous negotiations concerning an agency or representative relationship that was never concluded; and•	previous negotiations concerning a contract or business relationship that did not ultimately materialise.
This is potentially significant for foreign companies operating in China.
A foreign brand owner does not necessarily need to have formally appointed a Chinese distributor or agent before evidence of the parties' relationship becomes relevant. Negotiations, employment relationships and other commercial dealings may provide evidence from which bad faith can be inferred.
The draft also provides that, where an agent or representative applies to register the principal's trademark in its own name, the courts may apply the relevant statutory prohibition. Significantly, the proposed provisions extend this principle to circumstances where the parties were merely in the process of negotiating an agency or representation relationship.
3. Prior use and the evidentiary burden
The SPC's draft provisions also provide useful guidance concerning trademarks that have been used in China before another party files an application.
Where a prior user claims that an applicant intentionally pre-empted its trademark, the applicant's knowledge of the prior mark becomes important. The draft provides that where the prior-used mark has acquired a certain degree of influence, and the applicant knew or should have known of it, this may support a presumption that the registration was intentionally made to pre-empt the prior user's trademark.Evidence of the duration and geographical extent of use, sales volume and advertising may be relevant to establishing that the prior mark had acquired the necessary degree of influence.

This reinforces an important practical point for foreign brand owners - Evidence of use in China should be preserved before a dispute arises.

4. Protection of prior legitimate rights is broader

The draft provisions provide a relatively broad interpretation of “prior legitimate rights and interests”.
They expressly contemplate rights and legitimate interests existing before the filing date of the disputed trademark. Importantly, the draft states that if the prior right or interest subsequently ceases to exist before registration of the disputed trademark, that does not necessarily prevent the disputed trademark from being registered.

The provisions specifically address copyright, name rights and trade names.

For example, where a trademark incorporates material protected by copyright, design drafts, originals, contracts concerning the acquisition of rights and copyright registration certificates existing before the trademark application may serve as preliminary evidence of copyright ownership.

The draft also recognises that a sufficiently well-known trade name, including an abbreviation of a company name that has established a stable association with the company, may constitute a prior legitimate right where use of the later trademark is likely to cause confusion.For foreign companies, this may provide an important alternative basis for challenging a problematic Chinese trademark where a conventional prior-trademark claim is unavailable.
5. Well-known trademarks: greater emphasis on dilution and reputation
The proposed judicial interpretation contains significant amendments concerning well-known trademarks.For a well-known trademark, the SPC proposes expressly considering whether use of a disputed mark:

•	weakens the distinctiveness of the well-known trademark;•	damages its market reputation; or•	improperly exploits its market reputation.
The proposed provisions also identify factors relevant to determining whether use of a similar mark creates the necessary association with the well-known trademark. These include the distinctiveness and reputation of the protected mark, similarity between the marks, the relevant goods, the degree of overlap between the relevant public and their level of attention, and other circumstances concerning use of similar marks by market participants.
This provides greater judicial guidance on the circumstances in which the protection afforded to a well-known trademark may extend beyond conventional source confusion.
6. Foreign-language trademarks
The draft provisions contain a particularly useful clarification for international trademark owners.
Where the disputed trademark is a foreign-language mark, the court is to assess distinctiveness by reference to the common understanding of the relevant public in China.
The inherent meaning of the foreign-language term may be relevant. However, if the relevant Chinese public has limited awareness of that meaning and is nevertheless able to identify the commercial source of the goods through the mark, the mark may be considered distinctive.This is a practical recognition of the reality that a word may have a highly descriptive or ordinary meaning in its language of origin while functioning as an inherently distinctive trademark in China.
7. Trademark use remains critical
The draft provisions also provide useful clarification concerning what constitutes use of a registered trademark.
Use by the trademark owner, authorised use by another party and other use that is consistent with the owner's intentions may constitute trademark use.
The draft further recognises that a trademark may still have been used where the form actually used differs slightly from the registered representation, provided that the distinctive features of the registered trademark remain unchanged.
By contrast, merely transferring or licensing a trademark, publishing registration information or asserting ownership of the registered trademark without actual use will not constitute trademark use.
The draft also recognises circumstances in which a trademark owner has a genuine intention to use the mark and has taken necessary preparatory steps but has not yet commenced actual use because of objective circumstances. Such circumstances may constitute a legitimate reason for non-use.
This will be particularly relevant to cancellation and non-use disputes involving international brands.
8. Generic terms and descriptive marks
The proposed judicial interpretation also provides greater detail regarding generic and descriptive marks.A legally recognised or customary product name may be treated as a generic name. The courts may consider the common understanding of the relevant public, professional reference works, dictionaries and the particular circumstances of the relevant market.Importantly, where a product name has become established as a generic term in a particular geographical market because of historical, cultural or other local circumstances, the court may take those circumstances into account.
For descriptive marks, the draft maintains an important distinction between a mark that merely describes the characteristics of the goods and a mark containing descriptive elements that nevertheless retains overall distinctiveness.
The assessment is therefore directed at the trademark as a whole, rather than necessarily at individual components.
What should trademark owners do now?
The SPC's draft rules provide another reason for international brand owners to review their Chinese trademark portfolios before the end of 2026.
In particular, brand owners should consider:
1. Reviewing vulnerable registrations

Identify important marks that may face challenges under the new provisions, particularly where the underlying registration circumstances may raise bad-faith or prior-right issues.
2. Reviewing Chinese trademark use
Ensure that evidence of genuine use is being retained and organised, particularly for important registrations approaching a potential non-use cancellation period.
3. Preserving evidence of prior rights
Copyright ownership, trade names, company-name abbreviations, product development materials and other evidence should be preserved in a form capable of being used in Chinese proceedings.
4. Reviewing distributor and agent relationships
Foreign companies should consider whether current or former Chinese distributors, employees, agents or prospective business partners have filed trademarks that could create future problems.
5. Auditing bad-faith filings
The expanded treatment of relationships and prior use makes it worthwhile to search Chinese trademark records for applications filed by distributors, employees, former partners and other parties connected with the business.
6. Considering pending disputes carefully
Where an opposition, invalidation, cancellation or administrative appeal is pending, the likely timing of the relevant decision may have consequences for which version of the Trademark Law applies.
Matthew Murphy
MMLC