Lost in Translation: Why "Eau de Parfum" May Not Be a Trademark Good in China

Articles
IP CHINA
eau de parfume

by Antonio Lovecchio

In the course of handling trademark filings in China, we have observed that the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) generally applies a consistent approach when reviewing non-standard goods descriptions. For international brands planning to enter the Chinese market, an early understanding of these requirements can help avoid unnecessary procedural costs.


 

Taking the perfume industry term “Eau de Parfum” as an example, this expression is widely understood within the fragrance sector and is commonly used to describe a specific concentration category of perfume products.

However, in Chinese trademark practice, internationally recognized industry terminology does not necessarily qualify as an acceptable goods description for filing purposes.

This illustrates a point that foreign applicants often overlook: commercial product descriptions commonly used in international markets do not automatically correspond to the standardized goods terms required under Chinese trademark examination practice.

I. Basic Requirements for Goods Descriptions under the Chinese Trademark System

China adopts the Nice Classification system for goods and services. However, in practice, goods descriptions must also comply with China’s local classification standards and examination rules.

During substantive examination, examiners assess not only whether the correct class has been selected, but also whether the wording of the goods is clear, standardized, and capable of matching the entries set out in the official Classification of Similar Goods and Services. 

This classification, together with relevant examination guidelines, serves as a key reference for determining acceptability.

As a result, even if a term is widely used in industry practice or international trade, it may still be rejected or subject to an official office action if it does not correspond to a recognized goods description under Chinese practice. Applicants are then required to amend or standardize the wording accordingly.

It is also worth noting that, compared with some other jurisdictions, Chinese trademark practice is relatively localized in its implementation. Although the Nice Classification is adopted, China maintains a more granular sub-classification system. In some cases, goods within the same Nice class may be allocated to different subgroups, which means that the choice of wording may affect not only formal compliance but also search results and broader rights positioning.

II. Differences between International Commercial Terminology and Standardized Goods Descriptions

Many multinational companies tend to use a unified set of product descriptions across jurisdictions when building global trademark portfolios. While this approach may be effective in certain countries, it does not always translate directly into Chinese practice, where commercial or marketing terms may not be accepted as filing specifications.

In the case of fragrance products, industry terms used for marketing purposes are generally well understood by consumers and professionals. However, for trademark filing purposes in China, acceptability is determined by whether the term can be mapped to the standardized terminology set out in the local classification system.


 

It should be emphasized that such amendments are typically procedural in nature. They do not affect the registrability of the goods themselves. In most cases, applicants only need to adjust the wording into an acceptable format in order to proceed with the application.

Similar issues are frequently encountered in sectors such as cosmetics, fashion, and luxury goods, where commercially common expressions often need to be translated into standardized classification language during filing.

III. Practical Recommendations for International Applicants Filing in China

As more international brands expand into China, attention to the compliance of goods descriptions has become increasingly important. Addressing this issue early in the filing process can help improve efficiency and reduce the likelihood of office actions.


 

Based on practical experience, we generally recommend the following:

First, avoid directly copying goods descriptions used in foreign filings.
Even where terms have been accepted in other jurisdictions, it is advisable to assess them against Chinese examination practice before filing, as requirements may differ significantly across countries.

Second, confirm in advance whether the goods descriptions align with Chinese classification standards.
This is particularly important for industries such as fragrance, cosmetics, fashion, and luxury goods, where commercial terminology is widely used. A pre-filing review can reduce the risk of formal objections and improve processing efficiency.

Third, for Madrid designations extending to China, conduct a localization review where appropriate.
Goods specifications in international registrations are often drafted based on the practice of the country of origin. For applications with strategic importance in China, a prior adjustment aligned with local requirements can help avoid unnecessary procedural delays.

Conclusion

The issue illustrated by “Eau de Parfum” is not the result of a new policy trend, but rather reflects a long-standing principle in Chinese trademark practice: goods descriptions must conform to local classification standards and examination requirements.

For international brands, obtaining trademark protection in China involves not only selecting the appropriate class, but also ensuring that the wording of goods is acceptable under local practice. Early attention to these issues can reduce procedural obstacles, improve filing efficiency, and support more effective long-term brand protection in the Chinese market.

Given the localized nature of China’s trademark classification and examination practice, applicants are generally advised to seek guidance from experienced Chinese trademark professionals or representatives when developing their filing strategy, so that the specification of goods accurately reflects commercial intent and aligns with broader brand protection objectives.