Close to Final Version? January 2026 Update on Amendment of China’s Trademark Law

Key Differences between the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China (Draft Amendment) and the Draft Amendment for Public Comment

I. Legislative Process Overview

The Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China (Draft Amendment) (the “Draft Amendment”) was submitted by the State Council to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (the “NPC Standing Committee”) for deliberation on 22 December 2025, and was subsequently reviewed in group deliberations on 25 December 2025.

Comprising nine chapters and 84 articles, the Draft Amendment is notably more concise than the earlier Draft Amendment for Public Comment (the “Public Comment Draft”) published on 13 January 2023, which contained 101 articles. The Draft Amendment introduces systematic adjustments to China’s existing trademark regime, focusing in particular on clarifying trademark registration requirements, regulating registration practices, optimizing examination and adjudication procedures, strengthening trademark administration, and enhancing the protection of exclusive trademark rights.

Overall, this round of amendments is intended to address practical issues to streamline trademark practice. The legislative approach prioritises codifying rules that are already relatively mature and operationally feasible, while ensuring alignment with related domestic legislation and international standards. Against this backdrop, the Draft Amendment reflects a number of deliberate policy choices, including narrowing or omitting certain institutional proposals that had attracted considerable attention during the public consultation phase.This newsletter highlights the key changes that are likely to be of particular interest to brand owners and rights holders.

II. Key Differences between the Draft Amendment and the Public Comment Draft

1. Institutional Proposals Not Adopted: Signals of Legislative Restraint

The Public Comment Draft proposed several new substantive provisions that attracted widespread attention, including:

• a dedicated provision imposing comprehensive restrictions on repetitive trademark filings by the same applicant;
• an ex officio mechanism allowing the revocation of preliminary approval and re-examination of trademarks based on absolute grounds after publication;
• a system permitting the transfer, upon request, of maliciously registered trademarks to the rightful owner following invalidation;
• a “declaration of intent to use” mechanism, together with a periodic use declaration requirement obliging trademark owners to submit use statements every five years.

None of these proposals have been retained in the Draft Amendment. Matters previously targeted by these mechanisms will instead continue to be addressed under the existing statutory framework.

From a legislative policy perspective, the omission of these proposals appears to reflect a careful balancing of practical feasibility against more radical institutional redesign. 

The Draft Amendment clearly favours consolidating well-established practices rather than undertaking a fundamental restructuring of the core mechanisms of China’s trademark system at this stage.

2. Opposition Period: Shortened to Two Months

With respect to trademark examination and adjudication procedures, Article 35 of the Draft Amendment provides that:

“Any party may file an opposition with the trademark authority under the State Council against a trademark that has been preliminarily approved and published, within two months from the date of publication.”

This approach is consistent with the Public Comment Draft, and shortens the current three-month opposition period provided under the existing Trademark Law.

Bird & Bird:

This change will significantly compress the time available for brand owners to monitor and assess published marks, conduct internal reviews, and prepare opposition filings. Brand owners should therefore consider revising their trademark monitoring systems and internal decision-making processes on the assumption of a two-month opposition window.

3. Protection of Well-Known Trademarks: Expanded Cross-Class Protection

Article 20(2) of the Draft Amendment removes the distinction between registered and unregistered well-known trademarks when affording cross-class protection:

“Where a trademark applied for registration for dissimilar goods or services is a copy, imitation, or translation of another party’s well-known trademark, and is likely to mislead the public and thereby potentially harm the interests of the well-known trademark holder, it shall be refused registration and its use prohibited.”

While the Draft Amendment does not retain the more detailed dilution- or tarnishment-oriented language found in the Public Comment Draft (such as references to weakening distinctiveness or damaging reputation), it nonetheless represents a meaningful expansion compared to Article 13(3) of the current Trademark Law, which limits cross-class protection to registered well-known trademarks only. If adopted in its current form, this provision could provide a stronger legal basis for cross-class protection of trademarks that are widely recognised in China, even if not yet registered.

Bird & Bird:

(1) For rights holders, the Draft Amendment signals a clear legislative intent to strengthen cross-class protection for well-known trademarks. However, recognition of well-known status remains case-specific and granted on an as-needed basis, with a high evidentiary threshold in practice. Securing trademark registrations in China for core brands at an early stage therefore remains the most reliable way to reduce enforcement costs and improve predictability.

(2) In addressing bad-faith copycat filings, brand owners should enhance monitoring of third-party applications in non-core classes, improve internal response efficiency, and proactively build and maintain evidence dossiers demonstrating brand reputation, to support timely opposition, invalidation, or administrative enforcement actions where necessary.

4. Suspension of Examination and Adjudication: From “May Suspend” to “Generally Shall Suspend”

Article 40 of the Draft Amendment provides that:

“In opposition, review of refusal, review of disapproval of registration, and invalidation proceedings, where the determination of a prior right depends on the outcome of a pending case before a people’s court or an administrative proceeding, the trademark authority shall generally suspend the examination or adjudication. Once the grounds for suspension cease to exist, the proceedings shall be promptly resumed.”

This wording replaces the weaker “may suspend” formulation in the Public Comment Draft and also broadens the reference from “prior rights” to the more inclusive concept of “prior interests”.

Bird & Bird:

This change is expected to reduce repeated back-up filings, enhance procedural consistency, reduce the risk of conflicting outcomes in parallel proceedings, and allow greater flexibility in recognising a broader range of protected interests, including unregistered rights.

5. Regulation of Improper Use of Registered Marks: Administrative Liability for “Misleading the Public”

Article 56(1) of the Draft Amendment introduces explicit consequences for improper use of registered trademarks:

“Where a trademark registrant uses its registered trademark in a manner that misleads the public, the trademark enforcement authority shall order correction within a specified period; if the registrant fails to comply, it may be fined up to RMB 50,000; in serious cases, the trademark registration may be revoked by the trademark authority under the State Council.”

Bird & Bird:

This provision directly links post-registration use compliance with administrative penalties and the stability of trademark rights, underscoring the heightened legislative focus on how registered marks are actually used. Industries involving sensitive representations relating to quality, origin, composition, or performance should pay particular attention.

6. Use Requirements: Explicit Ex Officio Cancellation Authority

Articles 56(2) and (3) of the Draft Amendment further clarify that:

“Where a registered trademark has become a generic name for the goods for which it is registered, or has not been used for three consecutive years without legitimate reason, any entity or individual may apply to the trademark authority for its cancellation.”

“In the circumstances described in the preceding paragraph, the trademark authoritymay cancel the registration ex officio.”

Bird & Bird:

These provisions provide a clearer legal basis for administrative authorities to intervene, under specified statutory conditions, in the clearance of trademarks that have become generic or have remained unused, thereby strengthening the system’s ability to address inactive or non-distinctive registrations.

7. Types of Registrable Marks: Explicit Inclusion of “Motion Marks”

Article 14 of the Draft Amendment provides that:

“Any sign capable of distinguishing the goods of a natural person, legal person, or unincorporated organization from those of others—including words, devices, letters, numerals, three-dimensional signs, colour combinations, sounds, and motion marks, as well as combinations thereof—may be registered as a trademark.”

By contrast, the Public Comment Draft used open-ended language such as “sounds or other elements” but did not expressly refer to motion marks.

Bird & Bird:

By explicitly including motion marks, the Draft Amendment provides clearer statutory support for registering animated or dynamically presented identifiers, while avoiding overly broad liberalisation of all non-traditional marks and maintaining manageable examination boundaries.

8. Functionality Exclusion Extended to Non-Traditional Marks

Article 17 of the Draft Amendment expands the functionality doctrine to cover non-traditional marks:

“Where a trademark application is filed for a three-dimensional sign, colour combination, sound, or motion mark, and the sign consists solely of features: (a) inherent to the nature of the goods, (b) necessary to achieve a technical effect, or (c) that confer substantial value to the goods, such sign shall not be registrable.”

The Public Comment Draft confined this exclusion primarily to three-dimensional marks and did not explicitly extend it to colour, sound, or motion marks.

Bird & Bird:

This reflects a balanced legislative approach: while expanding eligibility for non-traditional marks, the Draft Amendment simultaneously reinforces safeguards against monopolisation of functional or technical features through trademark protection.

III. Overall Observations and Preliminary Recommendations

In summary, while the Draft Amendment retains the Public Comment Draft’s core policy orientation-enhancing procedural efficiency, curbing bad-faith filings, and strengthening trademark administration - it also demonstrates a notable degree of restraint in fundamental institutional redesign. Measures such as shortening the opposition period, clarifying suspension rules, and penalising misleading use respond directly to practical issues already evident in practice have been retained, while the more controversial proposals that could impose significant compliance or administrative burdens, or lack sufficient operational maturity, have been removed.

Brand owners are therefore advised to focus on the following:

• Procedural risk (opposition period): reconfigure monitoring and internal decision timelines around a two-month opposition window;
• Filing strategy (non-traditional marks): reassess strategies for motion marks and other non-traditional signs in light of both expanded registrability and clarified functionality limits;

• Post-registration compliance: review how registered marks are actually used-particularly any representations relating to quality, origin, or performance- to mitigate the risk of being deemed misleading to the public.