How to Avoid Misleading Trademarks in China: Legal Boundaries Between Branding and Marketing Claims

17 Jun 2026

By Xiaoxue Xiang

In today’s highly competitive consumer market, many companies attempt to communicate product advantages quickly and efficiently by incorporating selling points directly into their trademarks. Terms such as “pure,” “natural,” “healthy,” “rich in fruit,” or “contains collagen” may be attractive from a marketing perspective, but under China’s trademark law system, they carry significant legal risks.

Where a trademark includes statements about a product’s quality, composition, origin, or performance that may mislead the public, it may be refused during examination by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA).

Even if successfully registered, such a mark may later be invalidated. For both domestic and international businesses operating in China, understanding the boundary between a trademark as a source identifier and advertising as a promotional tool has become a critical aspect of brand compliance.

Under Article 10(1)(7) of the PRC Trademark Law, signs that are deceptive and likely to mislead the public regarding the quality, characteristics, or origin of goods or services are prohibited from registration and use. This provision forms the core legal basis for regulating misleading trademarks in China.

The Legislative Logic Behind Prohibiting Deceptive Trademarks

The prohibition of deceptive trademarks reflects the fundamental principles of good faith and fair competition in market transactions.

A trademark’s primary function is to identify the source of goods or services, enabling consumers to distinguish between different market players. It is not intended to guarantee that a product possesses certain ingredients, qualities, or functions.

When a trademark suggests characteristics that go beyond reality, consumers may make purchasing decisions based on incorrect assumptions. This not only harms consumer interests but also distorts competition by disadvantaging businesses that describe their products accurately.

This approach is also consistent with international practice. Both the Paris Convention and the TRIPS Agreement require member states to refuse or invalidate misleading or deceptive trademarks.

Legal Criteria for Determining “Deceptiveness”

In practice, not all descriptive or suggestive trademarks are considered deceptive. A sign will generally be deemed deceptive only if two cumulative conditions are met.

First, the sign itself must contain false, exaggerated, or potentially misleading content. The focus is on the objective message conveyed by the mark, not the applicant’s subjective intent. Even without an intention to deceive, a mark may still be problematic if it is capable of misleading the public.

Second, the content must be sufficient to cause misunderstanding among the relevant public. This refers to ordinary consumers of the goods or services, rather than industry experts. Importantly, actual confusion does not need to be proven; a likelihood of misunderstanding is sufficient.

In essence, the key question is how an average consumer would interpret the mark. If consumers are unlikely to take the wording as a factual claim about the product, the mark is less likely to be considered deceptive.

High-Risk Categories of Potentially Misleading Content

CNIPA practice and court decisions show that certain types of content are particularly prone to being considered deceptive.

References to ingredients or raw materials are among the most common risks. For example, using terms like “collagen,” “honey,” or “spring water” where the product does not necessarily contain those elements can lead to refusal.

Quantitative claims such as “100% fresh” or “8 grapes” create specific expectations about composition or content. If these are not strictly accurate, the mark is likely to be rejected.

Geographical references may also mislead consumers by suggesting a particular origin associated with quality or reputation. Using terms like “West Lake Longjing” or “Maotai Town” without genuine origin can raise both trademark and geographical indication issues.

Technical performance claims, such as “fully automatic” or “5G,” can also be problematic if they do not reflect actual product features.

Particularly sensitive are references to medical or health effects. Terms like “anti-inflammatory,” “lowers blood sugar,” or “boosts immunity” are generally unacceptable for non-medical goods and may also violate advertising laws.

Finally, absolute or superior quality claims such as “premium,” “top-grade,” or “all-natural” carry risk unless they can be consistently substantiated across all goods covered by the registration.

A crucial point in Chinese practice is that examiners assess the full scope of potential use. Because trademarks are valid for ten years and can be licensed, it is not sufficient that the applicant’s current products meet the description. The mark must be non-misleading in all foreseeable uses.

Why Truthful Claims May Still Be Problematic

Applicants often argue that their products genuinely possess the characteristics described in the trademark. However, this argument is usually insufficient.

Trademark rights are exclusive and apply across all approved goods. Consumers cannot be expected to verify whether each product actually meets the claimed characteristics. Therefore, regulators focus on the inherent risk of the sign itself rather than the applicant’s current practices.

Only in limited circumstances may courts accept such arguments: for example, where the described characteristic is objectively inherent to all goods covered by the registration. However, such cases are rare and highly fact-specific.

Suggestive vs. Deceptive Trademarks

A key distinction in practice is between suggestive and deceptive marks.

Suggestive trademarks evoke desirable qualities without making verifiable factual claims. Words like “fresh,” “smooth,” “pure,” or “comfort” are generally perceived as conveying brand image rather than specific product attributes. Many well-known brands rely on this approach.

By contrast, marks that contain concrete, testable statements (such as “freshly squeezed juice”) are far more likely to be considered deceptive if the claim is not strictly accurate.

Consumer Perception as the Core Criterion

The determination of deceptiveness ultimately hinges on how the relevant public perceives the mark. Authorities consider factors such as general consumer knowledge, industry practices, everyday experience, and the relationship between the sign and the goods.

The same term may be acceptable in one context but misleading in another. For example, a term like “nano” may not mislead consumers when used for clothing, but could be problematic for cosmetics or coatings where such technology is expected.

Chinese courts increasingly apply a holistic assessment, evaluating the overall meaning of the mark rather than isolating individual elements. A composite mark may be perceived as a brand name rather than a literal description.

Ongoing Risks After Registration

Even after registration, risks remain. Deceptive trademarks fall under absolute grounds for invalidation and are not subject to the usual five-year limitation period. Any party may challenge such marks at any time.

This is particularly relevant for businesses expanding their product lines. A mark that is acceptable for one category may become misleading when used for others.

Moreover, the use of misleading trademarks may also trigger liability under the Advertising Law and Anti-Unfair Competition Law, leading to administrative penalties or civil claims.

Practical Compliance Guidance

For businesses developing brands in China, a cautious approach is essential. The safest strategy is to avoid incorporating specific, verifiable claims into trademarks, particularly those relating to composition, origin, technical features, or health effects.

Trademarks should remain distinctive and function primarily as source identifiers. Detailed product claims are better reserved for packaging, labeling, and advertising, where they can be properly substantiated.

Using suggestive or imaginative expressions is generally a more effective and lower-risk approach. At the same time, risk assessment should always be conducted in relation to the specific goods or services involved.

From a practical standpoint, reviewing the mark from the perspective of an average consumer is critical. If the wording is likely to create a concrete expectation about the product, it may need to be reconsidered.

Finally, conducting clearance searches and obtaining professional advice before filing can help identify both relative and absolute grounds for refusal, reducing the risk of costly disputes.

Conclusion

As brand competition intensifies, businesses often seek to stand out through creative naming strategies. However, trademark law sets clear boundaries on how far marketing language can go.

A trademark should not promise more than the product can deliver. When brand expression shifts from suggestive association to factual assertion, it risks crossing into deception.

The most sustainable approach is to allow trademarks to serve their core function: building brand identity and goodwill, while leaving specific product claims to advertising and proper disclosure. Only by aligning branding strategies with legal requirements can trademarks truly function as valuable and durable business assets.