New China Trademark Law Reform: 8 Changes Brand Owners Should Prepare For
The New China Trademark Law takes effect on 1 January 2027. It shortens the opposition period, strengthens rules against bad-faith filings, increases scrutiny of unused marks and changes infringement exposure. Brand owners should review their Chinese trademark portfolios before the law takes effect.
New China Trademark Law: What Brand Owners Should Plan For Before 1 January 2027
A brand owner can spend months preparing for a new launch or expansion into China, only to discover that a distributor, business partner, or unrelated hijacker applied for its name first.
China promulgated a new Trademark Law on 26 June 2026, and it will come into force on 1 January 2027 (we will call it the “New China Trademark Law” below). It is the first comprehensive overhaul of the law in more than a decade and shifts the system from a registration-centric model to a registration-and-use model.
The New China Trademark Law provides stronger tools for dealing with bad-faith filings, hijackers and misleading use. It also includes provisions that make it harder to secure and maintain registrations, introduce a shorter opposition window to challenge conflicting applications, and increase exposure to cancellation and damages for infringement. All these raise the stakes for brand owners looking to expand into China.
What the New China Trademark Law Means for Overseas Brand Owners
Key points to note, plan for and act on before the New China Trademark Law takes effect are set out below.
1. China remains a first-to-file market
China generally allows the party that files first to register a brand, rather than the party that first used the brand elsewhere.
A history of prior overseas sales, or evidence of having created the brand first, will not necessarily give a company ownership of its brand in China. If another party files there first, the legitimate brand owner may face a blocked application, a delayed launch, an expensive dispute, or a forced rebrand for the local market.
The 2026 reforms make it easier to challenge hijacker marks and give the authorities new tools to clear dormant marks. They do not remove the commercial advantage of filing early.
What brand owners should do: if China is in your manufacturing, sales, licensing, investment, or online growth plans in the short to medium term, investigate trademark availability before announcing the brand or approaching local partners.
2. A shorter opposition window
An opposition is a formal challenge filed after a trademark application has been accepted and published, but before it completes registration.
Article 36 of the New China Trademark Law reduces the opposition period from three months to two months from publication. Brand owners will have less time to:
Identify conflicting or concerning applications.
Investigate the applicant and any pattern of suspicious filings, and assess the prospects of success.
Collect evidence of earlier rights or bad faith.
Obtain internal approval to file an opposition.
What brand owners should do:
Set up or update monitoring systems, prioritising core marks and targeting core classes. Focus on material alerts and on minimising alert fatigue.
Set escalation rules so serious alerts reach a decision-maker immediately.
Pre-agree responsibilities and indicative budgets for Chinese oppositions.
Confirm your watch service reflects China's publication process and the shorter local deadline.
3. Applications must match real business needs
Under the current law, "bad faith" applications that are not intended for use should be refused.
Article 19 of the New China Trademark Law provides that applications not intended for use, and which clearly exceed the needs of normal business operations, must not be registered. Article 54 further provides that trademark applicants who contravene Article 19 maliciously may be subject to a fine of RMB 100,000 (about EUR 13,000; USD 15,000).
The “not intended for use” ground is likely to remain a useful ground for tackling hijacker marks through oppositions and invalidations. The focus shifts to a more objective assessment of whether the volume and scope of filings match the applicant's actual business needs. The potential fine should also discourage some hijacking activity.
At the same time, there should be sufficient scope in the wording for legitimate brand owners to apply for and maintain pre-emptive marks. This is particularly so for core brands and core classes. A company preparing for a real launch or defending legitimate interests may have a genuine business need to register its mark before products reach the China market.
What to do: In view of the first-to-file system, there are still advantages in reviewing trademark portfolios and identifying brands to pre-emptively protect.
For every class in an application, ask simple questions: Can we explain why the business reasonably expected to offer these products under this mark? Can we explain why this class is important to us? If the answers are no, the coverage may be too speculative. If the answer to either is yes, preserve records and document the reasons, and consider filing in China.
The safest approach is to connect each application to a credible business plan or need. Useful records include:
Approved launch plans and product road maps.
Board or management decisions.
Market research and localisation work.
Distributor, supplier, or manufacturing discussions.
Packaging designs and product development records.
Budgets for Chinese market entry.
4. Stronger action against bad-faith filings
The New China Trademark Law tightens the framework against malicious applications from several directions:
Article 19 also prohibits applications filed by deception or other improper means.
Article 24 prohibits applications which damage the "existing prior lawful interests" of others. This prohibition is expanded from the current wording of "existing prior rights". Article 24 also prohibits the “intentional” squatting of a mark another party has already used and that has a certain influence, lowering the bar from the current law which prohibits squatting through “improper means”.
Article 54 introduces official warnings and fines of up to RMB 100,000 (about EUR 13,000; USD 15,000) where malicious filings cause an adverse influence.
Article 81 allows courts to penalise parties who bring trademark lawsuits through malicious collusion or fabricated facts. Such parties may also be subject to civil liability.
Articles 65–68 introduce new obligations and penalties for trademark agents and trademark practitioners.
Stronger bad-faith rules do not replace a full clearance search and risk assessment. Clearing hijacked registrations and managing infringement risks are still the surest route to market.
What to check before launching:
Identical and similar marks in core and relevant classes.
Your brand name and likely Chinese versions.
Company and trading names.
Relevant domains, marketplace accounts, and social media handles.
The commercial question is not simply whether one hijacker can be defeated. It is whether the business will have a defensible path to registration, use, and enforcement after that obstacle is removed.
5. Related examinations can be suspended — but only at the authority's discretion
A Chinese trademark application can be blocked by an earlier registration even when the applicant is already challenging that registration.
Article 41 of the New China Trademark Law expressly allows China National Intellectual Property Administration (“CNIPA”) examiners to suspend oppositions, reviews, or invalidations where the outcome depends on a related court or administrative action.
This puts existing CNIPA practice on a clearer statutory footing and is aimed at reducing unnecessary refusals and repeat filings. It will not remove the need for active case management.
What brand owners should do:
Identify and map applications and opposition, cancellation and invalidation actions that need to be filed.
Plan and file applications and actions at appropriate times.
Continue monitoring every deadline while the case is suspended.
Maintain backup filing options where a launch cannot wait for a lengthy dispute or where suspension may be refused.
6. Broad filing strategies are harder to justify
The combined effect of the new intent-to-use rule (Article 19) and the CNIPA's new ex officio power to cancel marks that have not been used for three consecutive years (Article 57) points in one direction: closer examination of whether a portfolio has a legitimate commercial basis, both at the filing stage and after registration.
Large defensive portfolios, particularly those covering many classes with limited or no use, are likely to attract greater attention.
This makes brand selection more important, and reinforces the case for concentrating resources on maintaining registrations for brands that will actually be used. A weak or unavailable name can create delays just when the business wants to move quickly.
Overseas brand owners should use a two-part naming strategy for China:
Check whether the international name works in China. Review pronunciation, meaning, local connotations, distinctiveness, and earlier trademark rights.
Select and protect a Chinese name. If customers, distributors, or media are likely to create a Chinese nickname, choose the preferred version before the market chooses one for you.
China also uses a detailed subclassification system. Two products placed in the same class may fall into different subclasses and may not be treated as similar. A class heading that looks broad on paper may therefore leave commercially important gaps.
Before filing, ask:
Which brand will likely be used by the company and local partners?
Are there earlier marks that could block use or registration?
Which Chinese name will customers actually use?
Which classes and subclasses match the commercial plan?
7. Organised use evidence matters more — and digital evidence now counts
Article 2 expressly confirms that trademark use includes use via the internet. Online use — on e-commerce platforms, online advertising, and social media posts — can support genuine use and defend non-use cancellation actions.
Article 57 empowers CNIPA to cancel, on its own initiative, marks that have not been used for three consecutive years or have become generic — supplementing the existing three-year non-use cancellation available to any party.
The express recognition of online and digital evidence of use is particularly helpful for overseas brand owners defending non-use cancellations, where a physical footprint in China may be limited. Chinese marketplace listings, cross-border e-commerce activity, dated social media content, and digital advertising can all contribute to the evidence base. However, an isolated screenshot rarely proves genuine commercial activity on its own. Evidence is stronger when it is dated, continuous, connected to the registered mark, linked to the relevant goods or services, and directed at customers in China.
Much of this evidence sits with local business partners rather than the head office. Overseas brand owners should work with their Chinese distributors, licensees, agents, and platform partners to collate use records on an ongoing basis. Contractual obligations to preserve and provide use evidence are worth building into new distribution and licence agreements, and revisiting in existing ones.
Records worth retaining include:
Dated Chinese marketplace listings and cross-border e-commerce transactions.
Archived website pages and social media posts directed at Chinese customers.
App-store pages and download information.
Digital advertising reports and campaign invoices.
Customer orders, invoices, payment records, and shipping documents.
Distributor and licence agreements.
Packaging, labels, catalogues, and product photographs.
Records showing how a local partner used the trademark with permission.
Companies should preserve records continuously — through their local partners as well as internally — rather than trying to recreate them after a non-use challenge or an ex officio cancellation notice arrives.
8. Increased infringement liability
Brand owners should be aware of a quieter but commercially important shift in how damages are calculated in infringement cases.
Article 77 of the New China Trademark Law re-orders the damages calculation methods. Under the current law, courts are directed to consider the registrant’s actual losses first and only turn to the infringer's profits if this cannot be ascertained. The new Article 77 places actual losses and infringer profits on an equal footing.
This cuts both ways for overseas brand owners:
Where you are the trademark registrant and there is genuine infringement, recovery should become easier as you no longer have to demonstrate actual losses but could also rely on the infringer's profits.
Where a hijacker holds a Chinese registration for your brand, the same rule now applies against you. If the hijacker sues you or a distributor for using "your" own brand, “actual losses” of a hijacker who is only squatting a mark could be minimal. However, under the New China Trademark Law, you could now be exposed to paying the profits you made from using your brand as damages.
The practical implications reinforce the earlier practical steps:
Clear the ground before you enter.
Remove hijacker marks early.
Plan filings around real business intentions and needs.
What overseas brand owners should do before 1 January 2027
Audit Chinese registrations, pending applications, classes, subclasses, owner names, and renewal details.
Clear and protect your brand name and the preferred Chinese-language name.
Introduce or upgrade monitoring for hijacker applications, reflecting the shorter two-month opposition window.
Shorten internal approval routes for urgent oppositions.
Record the business reason and intended goods or services for each new filing, including defensive filings.
Create an evidence-retention policy covering websites, marketplaces, apps, distributors, licensees, and suppliers — and build use-evidence obligations into partner contracts.
Reassess infringement-risk exposure in light of the recalibrated damages regime, including any brands that a third party has already registered in China.
Prioritise core marks and realistic commercial coverage over speculative filing volume.
Early filing still costs less than recovering a hijacked brand
The 2026 reform brings meaningful new tools against malicious applications, misleading use, and dormant registrations. But it does not change the central commercial lesson — prevention matters more, not less.
A brand owner that files early, on a considered basis, usually has more options than one trying to recover its name shortly before launch. Clearance, filing, monitoring, use, and evidence management should form part of the market-entry plan — not a legal clean-up exercise after manufacturing, marketing, or distribution commitments have been made.
Businesses planning to manufacture, sell, license, raise funds, or build an audience in China should investigate and protect their brands before commercial momentum makes a naming change costly.
Disclaimer
This article provides general information and does not constitute legal advice. It reflects the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China as promulgated on 26 June 2026, which comes into force on 1 January 2027. Implementing regulations, examination guidelines and practice, and judicial interpretations are expected to develop over time.
If your company is preparing to enter or expand in China, Abrande can help review trademark availability and advise on feasibility, Chinese-language naming, filing coverage, monitoring, and portfolio priorities.
