Regulatory Updates | 2026-07-10 08:00:00 | 8 min read

China Trademark Law Revision 2026: Key Changes for International Brands

China adopted a revised Trademark Law on June 26, 2026. The new law will take effect on January 1, 2027 and introduces important changes concerning trademark use, bad-faith filings, dynamic marks and opposition procedures.

Source: Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China (2026 Revision); CNIPA, Summary of Key Revisions to the Trademark Law.


Introduction

China’s revised Trademark Law was adopted on June 26, 2026 and will take effect on January 1, 2027.

The revised law contains 87 articles across nine chapters and represents the first comprehensive revision of China’s Trademark Law in more than forty years.

International brand owners should review their Chinese trademark filing, use and monitoring strategies before the new law takes effect. 

1. Greater Emphasis on Genuine Use

The revised law defines trademark use as commercial use for identifying and distinguishing the source of goods or services. It also confirms that trademark use may take place through the Internet and other information networks.

A trademark application may be refused where the applicant has no intention to use the mark and the number of applications clearly exceeds its normal production or business needs.

Applications filed through deception or other improper means are also prohibited.

These provisions strengthen the legal basis for addressing speculative registrations and large-scale bad-faith filings. 

2. Dynamic Marks

The revised law expressly includes dynamic or motion marks among the signs that may be registered as trademarks.

Potentially registrable signs now include:

  • Words;

  • Devices;

  • Letters and numbers;

  • Three-dimensional signs;

  • Colour combinations;

  • Sounds;

  • Dynamic signs; and

  • Combinations of these elements.

The sign must still be capable of distinguishing the source of goods or services.

International companies using animated logos or motion-based branding may therefore consider whether additional Chinese trademark protection is appropriate. 

3. Protection of Well-Known Marks

The revised law strengthens protection against applications that copy, imitate or translate another party’s well-known trademark.

For identical or similar goods, protection may apply where the later mark is likely to cause confusion.

For dissimilar goods, protection may also be available where the later mark is likely to mislead the public and damage the interests of the well-known trademark owner.

Well-known status continues to be determined according to the circumstances of the individual case and should not be treated as a separate registration or honorary title.

4. Penalties for Bad-Faith Applications

Certain bad-faith trademark applications causing an adverse impact may result in a warning and a fine of up to RMB 100,000.

Relevant conduct may include:

  • Filing without an intention to use and clearly exceeding normal business needs;

  • Filing through deception or other improper means; and

  • Intentionally filing applications that infringe specified prior rights.

The revised law therefore increases the potential consequences for professional trademark squatters and other applicants engaging in abusive filing practices.

5. Shorter Opposition Period

The opposition period for a preliminarily approved trademark will be reduced from three months to two months.

CNIPA’s statutory period for issuing an opposition decision remains twelve months from the end of the publication period. A six-month extension may be available in special circumstances.

The shorter opposition period means that brand owners will need faster trademark monitoring and internal decision-making procedures.

Practical Implications for International Brands

International brand owners should:

  • File important English and Chinese marks at an early stage;

  • Monitor newly published trademark applications regularly;

  • Preserve evidence of genuine commercial use in China;

  • Review large defensive trademark portfolios;

  • Consider protection for dynamic brand elements; and

  • Document copying, previous business relationships and other evidence of bad faith.

Strategic Recommendations

Brand owners should consider the following actions before January 1, 2027:

  1. Review existing Chinese trademark portfolios.

  2. Identify registrations that may lack a genuine use plan.

  3. Strengthen monitoring in view of the shorter opposition period.

  4. Preserve dated invoices, contracts, advertisements, packaging and online sales records.

  5. Review animated logos and other non-traditional brand elements.

  6. Establish faster internal procedures for deciding whether to oppose problematic applications.

For assistance with Chinese trademark filing, monitoring, opposition or enforcement, contact the Reehor IP team.

Need help navigating China regulatory changes?

Our team assists international brand owners and foreign counsel with Chinese trademark filing, portfolio management and enforcement.

Schedule a Consultation
CNIPA Guidelines on AI-Related Inventions: What Foreign Applicants Need to Know No

Related Insights

Expert Articles

Design Around While the Product Can Still Change—Why Timing Matters

The same “change the structure” move is a design choice before lock and closer to rework after freeze. Design-around value depends on legal clearance and engineering fit—and on when you start, because timing drives executability. Treating patent risk as a design constraint on the review table is far cheaper than late remediation.

Read More
Expert Articles

Filing a U.S. Provisional Before a Trade Show—Are You Really Covered?

Filing a U.S. provisional before a trade show does not, by itself, lock in a safe filing date. Chinese priority and the U.S. provisional both follow “file first, complete within twelve months,” but the bar sits on same subject matter versus adequate disclosure; inventions completed in China still need confidentiality examination before a first U.S. provisional. How much of the date you keep depends on how much you wrote that day.

Read More
Expert Articles

Hundreds of Competitor Patents—Which Ones Should R&D Actually Read?

A searcher hands R&D a list of three hundred competitor patents—and nobody reads it. The bottleneck is rarely access to data; it is a list with no hierarchy, relationships, direction, or conclusions, so R&D cannot use it to decide. What they need first is whether the path is open, where to be careful, what is worth learning from, and where to design around or build their own position. First-pass screening and layering should happen before delivery—turning a dump into a map that supports decisions.

Read More
Expert Articles

Before R&D Starts, Is a Patent Search About Risk—or Opportunity?

Many companies run a search before a project kicks off, hear “no clear risk,” then hit a patent that needs attention halfway through development. The gap is often not whether a search was done, but how narrow the question was: only “are there obstacles,” not which routes exist, who is filing on them, where the field is crowded, and where space may remain. A pre-R&D search can check risk—and also draw a technology map that actually helps later development.

Read More