China’s 2027 Trademark Law: Some Preliminary Comments

Articles
IP CHINA
observations

By Fredrick Xie

China has adopted the newly revised Trademark Law, which will take effect on 1 January 2027. This is the first comprehensive revision of the law since it came into force in 1983, so naturally there will be many summaries of the new provisions. I do not intend to repeat every change here. What interests me more is what the new law tells us about the direction of China’s trademark practice.

My initial impression is that the new law is trying to deal with a very practical contradiction. 

On the one hand, China still needs a strong registration-based trademark system. Registration gives certainty, makes enforcement possible, and remains the starting point for most trademark disputes. 

On the other hand, after many years of high-volume filings, the system has accumulated a large number of trademarks that do not really represent brands or business activities. Some are unused. Some are filed only for resale. Some are filed to block others. Some are later used to file complaints, send threats, or start litigation. 

The new law seems to be saying that registration still matters, but registration should not be completely separated from real business, real use and good faith.

A shorter opposition window

One of the most practical changes is the shortening of the opposition period from three months to two months.

This may look like a procedural detail, but for foreign brand owners it is quite important. Many companies already move slowly when deciding whether to oppose a Chinese trademark application. A watch notice goes to local counsel, then to regional legal, then to headquarters, sometimes to the business team, then back to legal, and only after that a decision is made. 

Under a two-month opposition period, this workflow may simply be too slow. Trademark watching will remain important, but the internal response mechanism will become equally important. A good watch report has little value if the instruction arrives after the deadline.

Use becomes more central

Another change I find meaningful is that the definition of trademark use is moved to the beginning of the law, and online use is expressly included. 

In practice, this reflects what we already see every day. 

 

Many trademark disputes in China no longer start from a physical store or a factory. They start from a Taobao link, a Douyin livestream, a Xiaohongshu post, a Pinduoduo store, a short video, or a platform complaint. 

Online materials are not supporting evidence anymore; in many cases they are the main evidence. For brand owners, this means that screenshots, notarized purchases, livestreaming records, platform sales data, advertising materials and social media posts should be managed as part of the trademark evidence system.

It is too late to start collecting use evidence only when a non-use cancellation or litigation begins.

Dynamic marks

The new law also expressly includes dynamic marks as registrable signs. I would not overstate this point, because for most companies the immediate battlefield will still be ordinary words, logos and online infringement. 

But it does show that the law is trying to catch up with the way brands are presented in digital markets. Consumers do not only recognize brands through static logos anymore. They also recognize moving images, app interfaces, short videos and other forms of digital presentation.

Bad-faith filing

Bad-faith filing is another central issue. The current law already provides that bad-faith applications not intended for use should be rejected. 

The new law develops this further by targeting applications filed without intent to use and clearly exceeding normal business needs. I think this wording is important because it does not simply attack large portfolios. 

 

Many legitimate brand owners need broad filings, including Chinese marks, transliterations, sub-brands, defensive coverage and adjacent classes. 

The real question is whether the filing strategy can be explained by business logic. A large portfolio may be reasonable. A random portfolio with no commercial explanation will become more difficult to defend.

Penalty against Bad-Faith Filings

Article 54 is particularly interesting from an enforcement perspective. It means that certain bad-faith filing acts, if they cause adverse impact, may lead to administrative penalties. This gives brand owners a possible additional route: apart from opposition or invalidation, they may consider filing a complaint or report against the applicant in suitable cases. 

I would not present this as an automatic solution. The authority will still need to see a clear case, and “adverse impact” will not be easy to prove in every ordinary dispute. But in pattern cases — repeated copying, mass filings, targeting multiple brands, filing without business justification, using applications to threaten others or disrupt business — Article 54 may become a useful pressure tool.

The civil liability question is more delicate. The new Trademark Law does not seem to create a standalone damages claim simply because someone filed a bad-faith trademark application. If the conduct remains only a filing act, the main remedies are still opposition, invalidation and administrative complaint.

However, where the filing is part of a broader unfair competitive scheme, the Anti-Unfair Competition Law may become relevant. For example, if the applicant copies a competitor’s brand, hoards marks for resale, sends threats to distributors, files platform complaints, or uses the registration to interfere with another party’s business, the issue is no longer only the order of trademark registration: It may become unfair competition, abuse of rights or violation of good faith. 

In that sense, bad-faith filing may be punished under the Trademark Law, but compensation will usually need a broader theory, especially under the AUCL, when the filing turns into market disruption or abusive enforcement.

Misleading use of registered marks

The new law also pays more attention to misleading use of registered trademarks. This is a useful reminder that a registration does not give the owner unlimited freedom to use the mark in any manner. 

In practice, this may matter in licensing, OEM manufacturing, distributor advertising, origin claims, co-branding, product descriptions and online store operations.

A registered mark can still be used in a way that misleads the public. For brand owners, this creates both compliance risk and enforcement opportunity. They need to review their own use, but they may also have a new tool against competitors who rely on formally registered marks while using them in a manipulative or misleading way.

Unused marks

The treatment of unused marks is also worth watching. 

The three-year non-use cancellation system remains, but the new law also allows the trademark authority to revoke unused registered marks under certain circumstances.

I do not think this means every unused defensive mark will immediately be removed. But the signal is clear enough: unused marks are becoming less comfortable. If a mark is important, the owner should use it properly and keep evidence. If it is not used, the owner should at least understand why it is still needed and whether that reason is defensible.

Article 69 and overseas squatting

Article 69 is another interesting provision, especially for cross-border work. It allows a party, in foreign trademark examination, review or trademark-related proceedings, to request the Chinese trademark authority to confirm that a mark is well known among the relevant public in China.

This should not be described as a “global famous trademark certificate”. It confirms reputation in China, and foreign authorities are not automatically bound by it. Still, it may become a useful official evidentiary tool in overseas opposition, invalidation, cancellation or litigation proceedings, especially where a Chinese brand or a China-facing brand is fighting overseas squatting.

Enforcement tools

On enforcement, the new law strengthens administrative tools and coordination between administrative and criminal enforcement. For lawyers who actually handle raids, investigations and administrative complaints, this is more important than abstract doctrine. 

In many cases, the difficult part is not explaining infringement in theory, but collecting evidence, preserving electronic data, coordinating with enforcement authorities, and deciding whether the matter should stay administrative or move toward criminal enforcement.

The new law appears to give more support to this practical side of enforcement.

Malicious litigation

At the same time, the law also addresses malicious trademark litigation. This is consistent with the broader direction. 

China wants stronger trademark protection, but it also wants to reduce the use of trademarks as tools for extortion, obstruction or speculative litigation. For genuine brand owners, this should not be a problem, but it does mean that enforcement strategy needs to be cleaner. 

Before filing complaints or lawsuits, the rights holder should check whether the mark is actually used, whether the registration is stable, whether the evidence is strong, and whether the claim is proportionate.

Strong enforcement is useful. Weak enforcement based on unused or questionable marks is becoming easier to attack.

Trademark agencies

Finally, the regulation of trademark agencies should not be ignored. Many bad-faith filings are not created by applicants alone. They are also facilitated by a market where some agencies have treated filing volume as the main business model. 

The new law increases responsibility for agencies and practitioners, including obligations relating to good faith, conflicts, filing risks and improper applications.

This is important because cleaning up the trademark system requires pressure not only on applicants, but also on the filing supply chain.

What brand owners should do

For brand owners, I would take several practical steps before the new law takes effect. 

  • Review the portfolio and identify marks that are important, unused, defensive, outdated or difficult to justify. 

  • Organize use evidence before disputes arise. 

  • Make filing strategies more connected to actual business logic. 

  • Speed up trademark watching and opposition decisions. 

  • Review actual trademark use in packaging, online stores, livestreaming, distributor materials, license arrangements and origin claims. 

  • Also reassess enforcement strategy, especially where the mark has use or stability problems.

Overall, I do not read the new law as a simple expansion of trademark owner power. It is more balanced, and in some ways more demanding. It gives genuine brand owners more tools, especially against bad-faith filings, misleading use and online infringement. 

But it also expects trademark owners to file with a reason, use with honesty, keep evidence, and enforce with discipline.

That is probably the most important practical message of the 2027 law.