China’s trademark protection system is undergoing profound transformation. Following years of preparatory work initiated by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) in 2018, 2026 is expected to be the year in which the fifth comprehensive revision of China’s Trademark Law enters into force — the first since the partial amendment of 2019. The path has been far from straightforward. The 2023 CNIPA draft contained radical proposals such as a prohibition on repetitive filings, a mandatory five-year declaration of intent to use, and the compulsory transfer of maliciously registered trademarks to their rightful owners — none of which were retained. The 2025 draft, submitted to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on 22 December, completed its public consultation phase on 10 February 2026 and comprises 84 articles across 9 chapters. Its entry into force is expected during 2026. The following outlines some of the most significant highlights of the reform. As regards procedural changes, the opposition period is shortened from three to two months from the date of preliminary approval and publication (Art. 35). The aim is to accelerate the registration process and deter opportunistic oppositions, but the change requires trademark owners to react more swiftly, with more structured monitoring systems calibrated to this tighter window. The suspension of examination shifts from discretionary to mandatory (Art. 40): CNIPA will be required to suspend examination of an application whenever its outcome depends on a pending proceeding — for example, a non-use cancellation action filed against a conflicting prior mark. The provision also broadens the reference from “prior rights” to the more inclusive “prior interests”, with potential relevance for unregistered rights. This is an important defensive tool, though it could also be exploited as a delaying tactic by bad-faith parties. With respect to fighting bad-faith registrations, the reform intervenes on two levels. Article 18 explicitly clarifies that a filing made without intent to use, or exceeding normal business needs, constitutes bad faith, and that this criterion applies at every stage of proceedings — preliminary examination, opposition, and invalidation — making it easier to challenge such filings throughout the entire procedural chain. Companies should therefore prepare documentation supporting their intent to use in anticipation of potential proceedings. Specific administrative sanctions for bad-faith filings are also introduced, applicable regardless of whether the mark has actually been used, with warnings and fines of up to RMB 100,000 (Art. 53). This represents a concrete deterrent that shifts the economic balance against so-called trademark squatters. Regarding non-traditional marks, the reform explicitly includes dynamic marks among registrable signs, extending protection to animated logos and digital branding, in line with international standards (Art. 14). This opening is however balanced by Art. 17, which extends the principle of non-registrability of functional signs — previously applicable only to three-dimensional marks — to all non-traditional marks including colour combinations, sounds, and motion marks: signs consisting exclusively of features inherent to the nature of the goods, necessary to achieve a technical result, or that give substantial value to the goods, shall not be registrable. As regards well-known marks, cross-class protection is extended to unregistered well-known trademarks: an application for dissimilar goods or services that constitutes a copy, imitation, or translation of another party’s well-known trademark and is likely to mislead the public must be refused. The same provision now also allows recognition of well-known status in unfair competition proceedings (Art. 20). It should however be noted that the evidentiary threshold for recognition of well-known status remains high: proactive trademark registration therefore remains the most reliable tool for reducing enforcement costs and ensuring greater legal certainty. With respect to trademark use, the reform introduces ex officio cancellation by CNIPA of marks that have become generic or have not been used for three consecutive years without legitimate reason. Trademark owners registered in China must therefore ensure genuine use of their marks and retain relevant evidence. The misleading use of a registered trademark — for example through false indications of product quality or origin — is also sanctioned, with fines of up to RMB 50,000 and possible revocation in the most serious cases (Art. 56). Regarding damages, trademark owners are given the option to choose the most favourable calculation method between their own losses and the infringer’s profits, with the possibility of also recovering reasonable enforcement expenses (Art. 74). An explicit framework for vexatious litigation is also introduced: parties initiating bad-faith actions that cause harm to the opposing party will be subject to civil liability for the resulting losses (Art. 78). Overall, the reform confirms the direction CNIPA has been pursuing in recent years: reducing abuses, strengthening enforcement, and making the system more efficient, without overhauling its fundamental architecture. For Italian companies operating or intending to operate in China, this is a legislative development that deserves close attention: the new provisions offer more effective tools for protecting their trademarks, but at the same time require a more reactive approach and an increasingly strategic management of their trademark portfolio. It will be the administrative and judicial practice that ultimately defines the reform’s effective scope of application.
2026 - Morri Rossetti
