Comprehensive Analysis of the 2026 Revision of the PRC Trademark Law

Introduction: Why This Revision Matters

On June 26, 2026, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress adopted the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China (2026 Revision). This is the fifth modification since the Law first took effect in 1983, and the first time it has been elevated from a mere “amendment” (xiuzheng) to a full “revision” (xiuding)—expanding the statute from 8 chapters and 73 articles to 9 chapters and 87 articles. The change in nomenclature is not merely formal; it reflects a wholesale restructuring of the legislative approach.

The central thrust of this revision is to make protection easier to obtain for those who genuinely use their brands, while making trademark hoarding, bad-faith squatting, malicious litigation, and agency misconduct far harder to carry out. With a six-month transition period remaining before the revised Law enters into force on January 1, 2027, enterprises should seize this window to audit their trademark portfolios and reassess their agency relationships.

This article focuses on the seven areas of the revision with the most direct impact on enterprises, quoting the original statutory text for each so as to help you grasp both the essence of the amendments and the corresponding course of action.

I. Determining Bad Faith: From Subjective Intent to an Objective Standard

The Pre-Revision Predicament

The 2019 amendment already expressly provided that “bad-faith trademark applications filed without an intent to use shall be refused.” In practice, however, examiners at the Trademark Office found it difficult to adduce direct proof of “subjective bad faith,” allowing large volumes of hoarding applications to slip through. Bulk filings, hoarding through shell companies, and opportunistic squatting on trending topics produced a backlog that proved difficult to clear for years.

The 2026 Breakthrough: Codifying an Objective Test

Article 19. An application to register a trademark that is filed without an intent to use and that manifestly exceeds the needs of normal production and business operations shall be refused. No application for trademark registration shall be made by fraud or other improper means.

“Manifestly exceeds the needs of normal production and business operations” is the central new language introduced by this revision. Examining authorities may now refuse an application directly on the basis of objective facts—filing volume, the breadth of classes covered, and the applicant’s actual business scale—without becoming mired in proving subjective intent. This change opens a far more workable avenue for administrative examination.

Administrative Penalties Strengthened in Tandem: Dual Liability for Applicants and Agencies

Article 54. Where an applicant for trademark registration engages in any of the following bad-faith filing acts and causes adverse effects, the department responsible for trademark enforcement shall issue a warning and may concurrently impose a fine of up to RMB 100,000: (1) applying to register as a trademark a sign that the applicant knows to contravene Article 15 or Article 16, paragraph 1, of this Law; (2) applying to register a trademark in violation of Article 19 of this Law; (3) intentionally applying to register a trademark in violation of Article 21, 22, or 24 of this Law.

Article 67 (excerpt). (4) Where an agency knows or should know that the trademark its client seeks to register falls within the circumstances set out in Articles 15 through 24 of this Law, yet still accepts the engagement … where the circumstances are serious, the trademark administration department under the State Council may decide to suspend acceptance of its trademark agency business.

The consequences of a bad-faith application are no longer limited to refusal. The applicant may now face a fine of up to RMB 100,000, and an agency that accepts an engagement while aware of its client’s bad-faith filing may, where the circumstances are serious, be barred from handling agency business.

II. Cross-Class Protection for Well-Known Trademarks: Removing the “Must Already Be Registered in China” Prerequisite

Under the current Law, cross-class protection for a well-known trademark requires that the mark already be registered in China before it can be invoked against bad-faith squatting on unrelated goods. For foreign brands that have not established registrations in China in time, this threshold has been a significant gap.

Clarification in the 2026 Revision: Unregistered Well-Known Marks Also Qualify

Article 21 (excerpt). Where a trademark for which registration is sought on goods that are not identical or similar constitutes a reproduction, imitation, or translation of another party’s well-known trademark, misleads the public, and is liable to harm the interests of the well-known trademark holder, the registration shall be refused and use of the mark prohibited.

The revision removes the existing “already registered in China” prerequisite. This means that, so long as a mark has attained well-known status, it may be invoked against bad-faith applications on goods that are neither identical nor similar, regardless of whether it has yet secured formal registration in China.

A Dual-Track Recognition Framework: Distinct Administrative and Judicial Roles

Article 63 (excerpt). In the course of trademark examination and adjudication …, where a party asserts its rights in accordance with the law, the trademark administration department under the State Council may, as required for the handling of the case, make a determination as to the trademark’s well-known status. In the course of trying a trademark civil case …, a People’s Court designated by the Supreme People’s Court may, as required for the trial of the case, make a determination as to the trademark’s well-known status.

The amended Law again underscores that recognition as a “well-known trademark” is a tool for case-by-case protection, not an honorary title. Recognition in administrative proceedings rests with the trademark administration department, and in judicial proceedings with courts designated by the Supreme People’s Court; the boundary between the two tracks is now more clearly drawn.

III. Infringement Damages: Punitive Damages and Evidentiary Burden-Shifting Reinforced

The rules for calculating damages are a key barometer of how forcefully a jurisdiction protects trademarks. The 2019 amendment had already introduced punitive damages; this revision further tightens the mechanism for shifting the burden of proof within that framework while maintaining the statutory ceiling on damages.

Punitive Damages: Up to Five Times the Base Amount

Article 77 (excerpt). Where infringement of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark is intentional and the circumstances are serious, the amount of damages may be set at not less than one and not more than five times the amount determined by the methods above. … Where the right holder’s actual losses, the infringer’s gains, and a reasonable multiple of the trademark license fee are all difficult to determine, the People’s Court shall, in light of the circumstances of the infringement, award damages of up to RMB 5,000,000. The award shall also include the reasonable expenses the right holder incurs in stopping the infringement.

For intentional infringement of a serious nature, the court may multiply the calculated base amount by not less than one and not more than five times in setting the final award. Where none of the three measures of harm can be determined, statutory damages are capped at RMB 5,000,000, and reasonable enforcement costs (such as attorneys’ fees) are to be included in the award.

Shifting the Burden of Proof: The “Order to Compel Production” Compels the Infringer to Self-Disclose

Article 77 (excerpt). For the purpose of determining damages, where the right holder has made its best efforts to adduce evidence but the account books and materials relating to the infringement are mainly in the infringer’s control, the People’s Court may order the infringer to produce those account books and materials; where the infringer refuses to produce them or produces false account books or materials, the court may determine the amount of damages by reference to the right holder’s claims and the evidence it has provided.

This responds directly to the “evidentiary difficulty” that has long plagued trademark litigation. Where the relevant account books are held mainly by the infringer and the right holder has made its best evidentiary efforts, the court may order their production; if the infringer refuses or submits falsified records, the court may set damages directly on the basis of the right holder’s claims.

Administrative Enforcement: Fines of Up to Five Times, Plus Codified Aggravating Factors

Article 74 (excerpt). Where the illegal turnover is RMB 50,000 or more, a fine of up to five times the illegal turnover may be concurrently imposed; where there is no illegal turnover or it is less than RMB 50,000, a fine of up to RMB 250,000 may be concurrently imposed. Anyone who commits trademark infringement two or more times within five years, or under other serious circumstances, shall be punished more severely.

The administrative-enforcement route retains comparable force, and for a second infringement within five years the Law now expressly provides that the offender “shall” be punished more severely, rather than “may” be, giving enforcement greater certainty.

IV. Curbing Trademark Trolls: Regulating “Shakedown-Style” Enforcement

The trademark system has long harbored an irony: bad-faith squatters not only hoard marks but also go on the offensive in court. Article 81 addresses this problem directly, expressly bringing “malicious trademark litigation” within its regulatory scope.

Article 81. Where a party brings trademark litigation through malicious collusion, the unilateral fabrication of basic facts, or similar means, the People’s Court shall impose sanctions in accordance with the law; where such conduct causes losses to the opposing party, the party shall bear civil liability in accordance with the law.

Hoarding marks and then demanding payment from genuine users, suing on fabricated infringement facts, and exploiting litigation procedure to coerce unreasonable settlements—under Article 81, such acts expose the actor to both procedural sanctions and civil liability in damages.

V. An Upgraded Non-Use Cancellation Regime: Authorities May Cancel Idle Marks on Their Own Initiative

Non-use cancellation has always been an important tool for clearing hoarded marks, but the current Law operates on a “petition-driven” basis—the Trademark Office can launch proceedings only upon a third party’s application.

Article 57 (excerpt). Where a registered trademark has become the generic name of the goods for which it is approved, or has not been used for three consecutive years without justifiable reason, any entity or individual may apply to the trademark administration department under the State Council to cancel the registration. … Where a registered trademark falls within the circumstances set out in the preceding paragraph, the trademark administration department under the State Council may cancel the registration.

Article 57 adds a mechanism for ex officio cancellation: where the trademark administration department identifies the relevant circumstances, it may commence cancellation proceedings without waiting for a third-party petition. Idle marks thus face a markedly greater risk of being cleared.

VI. Opposition Period Shortened to Two Months: Trademark Watch Service Now More Urgent

Article 36 (excerpt). Within two months of the date of publication of a preliminarily approved and published trademark, the holder of a prior right or an interested party … may file an opposition with the trademark administration department under the State Council. Where no opposition is filed by the close of the publication period, the registration shall be approved.

The opposition period under the current Law is three months; the amended Law compresses it to two months. This equally shortens the preparation time for enterprises seeking to file legitimate oppositions, raising the premium on timely trademark watching.

VII. Online Use Written into the Law: Confirming the Legal Status of Digital Evidence

Article 2 (excerpt). The use of a trademark referred to in the preceding paragraph includes use carried out through the Internet and other information networks.

Online storefronts, platform pages, apps, social media, livestreaming, and digital advertising now fall more clearly within the scope of qualifying trademark use. This affects enterprises in three concrete settings: defending against a non-use cancellation, asserting infringement against unauthorized online use, and any future application for recognition of a well-known mark.

The Amendments at a Glance

Curbing Bad-Faith Squatting

• Article 19: Bad-faith filings may now be determined objectively, without proof of subjective intent.
• Article 54: A bad-faith applicant may be warned and fined up to RMB 100,000.
• Article 67: An agency that accepts an engagement despite knowing of the bad faith may, in serious cases, be barred from handling agency business.

Protection of Well-Known Trademarks

• Article 21: A well-known mark not registered in China may still claim cross-class protection.
• Article 63: The dual-track administrative and judicial recognition framework is clarified.

Infringement Damages

• Article 77: Damages for serious intentional infringement may reach one to five times the base amount.
• Article 77: Statutory damages are capped at RMB 5,000,000; reasonable enforcement costs are included.
• Article 77: An order to compel production of account books can shift damages determination in the right holder’s favor.

Other Important Changes

• Article 81: Malicious or fabricated trademark litigation draws sanctions and civil liability.
• Article 57: The trademark administration department may cancel idle marks on its own initiative.
• Article 36: The opposition period is shortened from three months to two.
• Article 2: Online use is expressly written into the definition of trademark use.

Conclusion: With a Six-Month Transition, What Should You Do Now?

The amended Law enters into force on January 1, 2027—half a year away. This transition period is a critical window in which to take stock of your Chinese trademark assets, assess the compliance of your agencies, and shore up your evidence of use.

• Conduct a full audit of your trademarks and plan early to surrender or assign those you have decided not to use.
• Reassess your filing strategy to align with the objective standard of “the needs of normal production and business operations.”
• Build a digital evidence-of-use archive for e-commerce, social media, and advertising.
• Deploy trademark watching so you can act within the shortened two-month opposition window.
• Build an evidence repository for high-profile brands that may claim well-known-mark protection.
• Review your trademark agencies for compliance risks under the new, heightened duties.

The core logic of trademark protection has never changed: it is those who genuinely use a mark who deserve protection. The 2026 revision simply gives that logic sharper teeth and a more objective method of application.

If you have any questions about Chinese trademark strategy, responding to bad-faith squatting, or infringement enforcement, please feel free to contact our trademark team.

Source: Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of China, Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China (2026 Revision), promulgated June 26, 2026.