By Xiaoxue Xiang
Chinese trademark enforcement authorities have recently sent a clear message to the industry: trademark agencies are no longer “neutral intermediaries” free from responsibility. Agencies that participate in bad-faith trademark filings not only face regulatory penalties but also long-term reputational damage.
In late December 2025, the Xuhui District Market Supervision Bureau in Shanghai imposed administrative penalties on a local trademark agency for representing a client in filing trademark applications identical to the name of Olympic table tennis champion Wang Chuqin. The penalty was publicly disclosed through the National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity System, reflecting regulators’ increasingly strict stance toward improper agency conduct.
Case Overview
The agency assisted a client in filing two trademark applications for “楚钦 (Chu Qin)” in November 2024, covering food-related goods in Classes 29 and 30.
In January 2025, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) rejected the applications, finding that the marks were identical to the name of a well-known Olympic champion and could produce adverse social effects, in violation of the Trademark Law.
Following further investigation, local authorities determined that the agency had engaged in bad-faith representation and violated multiple regulations, including:
Article 13 of the Provisions on Regulating Trademark Application and Registration Practices
Article 68(1)(3) of the PRC Trademark Law
Article 28(2) of the PRC Administrative Penalty Law
As a result, the agency received a formal warning and a fine of RMB 10,000. The decision was publicly announced on December 29, 2025.
Significance: Trademark Agencies Are No Longer “Liability-Free Intermediaries”
For years, some agencies attempted to minimize responsibility by claiming they merely followed client instructions. This position is becoming increasingly untenable.
Chinese regulators now treat trademark agencies as professional service providers subject to heightened duties of care, including:
Assessing whether applications reflect genuine and legitimate commercial intent
Identifying obvious legal risks, such as the use of public figures’ names or socially sensitive signs
Refusing representation where bad faith or illegality is known or should reasonably be known
This regulatory approach has been reinforced in recent policy documents and is reflected in draft amendments to the Trademark Law.
Use of Public Figures’ Names: A High-Risk Legal Zone
In Chinese trademark practice, registering public figures’ names without authorization involves significant risks:
Likely to mislead consumers into believing there is endorsement or affiliation
May be deemed harmful to public interest or market order
Often regarded as evidence of bad faith where legitimate use intent is lacking
Importantly, liability does not rest solely with the applicant. Agencies that knowingly or negligently assist such filings may also face administrative penalties, regardless of the modest fees involved.
Low Profit, High Cost: An Imbalanced Risk–Reward Equation
Public records indicate that the agency earned only limited service fees from this case. However, the consequences far exceeded any short-term gains:
Fines exceeding actual profits
Permanent negative records in the corporate credit system
Long-term damage to reputation, client trust, and regulatory standing
As China’s trademark agency sector shifts toward greater professionalism and transparency, compliance history has become a core competitive asset alongside technical expertise.
Regulatory Trend: From Volume to Compliance and Ethics
This case reflects broader developments in China’s trademark governance:
Intensified enforcement against bad-faith filings
Expanded accountability for intermediaries
Greater emphasis on professional ethics and market integrity
Recent nationwide self-inspection requirements for agencies further demonstrate this regulatory direction.
Implications for Stakeholders
For Trademark Agencies
Compliance is no longer optional. Establishing internal risk review mechanisms and rejecting high-risk mandates are essential professional obligations.
For Brand Owners and Applicants
Engaging an agency does not transfer legal risk. Applicants remain responsible for the legality of filings and should understand that agencies may decline risky instructions.
For Foreign Companies
The case confirms that China’s trademark enforcement now covers the entire filing chain. Agencies, as key intermediaries, are fully subject to regulatory scrutiny.
Conclusion
China’s trademark agency industry is rapidly evolving toward a model centered on professional responsibility and regulatory compliance. Attempts to profit from public figures, trending topics, or regulatory gray zones will inevitably result in legal and reputational consequences far outweighing short-term gains.
In today’s increasingly stringent enforcement environment, adherence to compliance standards is the only sustainable path forward.