The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has published draft rules on how it will apply the revised PRC Trademark Law, which takes effect on 1 January 2027. Released for consultation on 28 September 2026, the package has two parts: a short set of transition measures (the Transition Measures), and a revised edition of the Trademark Examination and Trial Guidelines (the Guidelines), the manual its examiners follow. Comments are due by 12 November 2026.
Implementing the new Trademark Law: progress so far
The table below shows the implementing texts released since the new law was adopted. Apart from the law itself, the texts released so far are drafts for public consultation and may change before they are finalised.
| Issuing authority | Document | Status |
| NPC Standing Committee (全国人大常委会) | Revised Trademark Law (《中华人民共和国商标法》) | Final. Adopted on 26 June 2026. Takes effect on 1 January 2027. |
| Supreme People’s Court (最高人民法院) | Draft Provisions on the Temporal Application of the Trademark Law (《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国商标法〉时间效力的若干规定（征求意见稿）》) | Draft for consultation; subject to change. Released on 14 September 2026. Sets out which version of the law the courts will apply. Consultation closes on 28 October 2026. Covered in our previous article. |
| Draft amendments to the Provisions on Trademark Grant and Confirmation Cases (《最高人民法院关于审理商标授权确权行政案件若干问题的规定（征求意见稿）》) | Draft for consultation; subject to change. Released on 14 September 2026. Updates the rules courts apply in appeals against CNIPA decisions. Consultation closes on 28 October 2026. Covered in our previous article. | |
| CNIPA (国家知识产权局) | Draft Transition Measures (《施行修订后的商标法相关业务处理办法（征求意见稿）》) | Draft for consultation; subject to change. Released on 28 September 2026. Sets out which version of the law CNIPA will apply and fills gaps until the Implementing Regulations are revised. Consultation closes on 12 November 2026. Discussed in this article. |
| Draft Trademark Examination and Trial Guidelines (《商标审查审理指南（征求意见稿）》) | Draft for consultation; subject to change. Released on 28 September 2026. Updates the manual CNIPA examiners follow to reflect the new law. Consultation closes on 12 November 2026. Discussed in this article. | |
| State Council (国务院) | Revised Implementing Regulations (《中华人民共和国商标法实施条例》) | Not yet published. Revision under way. Until it is completed, the current Regulations would continue to apply, except where they conflict with the new law. |
This article follows our overview of the new law and our article on the Supreme People’s Court’s (SPC) draft judicial interpretations.
1. Clearing cited marks: when CNIPA would suspend
The draft Guidelines add a new chapter on suspending and resuming cases. Suspension would be the exception, available only where the status of the cited mark or other prior right would materially affect the outcome. The draft distinguishes between cases where CNIPA must suspend and cases where it may do so:
- CNIPA must suspend where the cited mark is being changed or assigned so that it will no longer conflict; has expired and is in its renewal or grace period, or is being removed for non-renewal; is subject to withdrawal, a limitation of goods, an international renunciation or a correction; or was surrendered by its owner less than one year earlier.
- CNIPA may suspend where the outcome depends on another pending case, such as a non-use cancellation, invalidation or opposition against the cited mark, or related court proceedings.
The usual way of clearing a citation, a non-use cancellation, falls in the second group, so whether CNIPA waits for it would remain discretionary. If the SPC adopts its proposed amendment (under which courts would judge conflicts with prior marks on the facts at the time of CNIPA’s decision, disregarding any later cancellation or invalidation of the cited mark) and CNIPA decides the refusal review first, an applicant whose citation is removed only afterwards may have to refile.
A three-month window in refusal reviews
In a refusal review, the applicant would have to request suspension in writing before the three-month period for supplementary evidence expires, counted from the filing of the review. The request would need to identify the cited mark, the pending case against it and its relevance. In practice, the challenge to the cited mark would therefore need to be filed within the same three months.
Once the status of the cited mark is settled, only the applicant could ask CNIPA to resume. In oppositions, non-registration reviews and invalidations, by contrast, CNIPA would suspend and resume on its own initiative.
A narrower one-year bar
The 2019 law barred registration of identical or similar marks for one year after a registered mark was cancelled, invalidated or not renewed. Under new Article 49, the bar applies only where the owner voluntarily surrenders its registration, running from the date the surrender is announced. The Transition Measures would apply new Article 49 to all CNIPA decisions issued from 1 January 2027, so a cited mark cancelled for non-use or invalidated would no longer trigger a one-year bar.
2. Dynamic marks: what to file
The new law allows dynamic (motion) marks to be registered for the first time. Read together, the two drafts would require:
- A video file: one MP4 file of no more than 10 seconds and 20MB, at 720p or higher and without a sound track, showing at least one complete cycle of the motion.
- Still images: 3 to 9 JPEG frames at 300dpi or higher, showing the motion in sequence.
- A written description: up to 500 Chinese characters, objectively describing the motion from start to finish.
- Manner of use: a statement of how the mark is used, for example as an app launch animation or at the start of a film.
The video, still images and description would have to match exactly.
The drafts take the view that consumers tend to see moving images as advertising or product demonstrations rather than as brands, so dynamic marks would generally need evidence of distinctiveness acquired through use. Simple effects such as sliding, fading or colour changes are unlikely to qualify, and standard interface animations such as loading spinners would be treated as generic. CNIPA may ask for evidence of acquired distinctiveness, which would have to be filed within 15 days of the notice, so applicants would need to have it ready when they file.
3. Bad-faith filings vs legitimate defensive and advance filings
New Article 19 targets applications that are not intended for use and clearly exceed normal business needs. The draft Guidelines would treat these as two separate requirements: a lack of intent to use, and filing that is clearly out of line with the applicant’s business capacity, scale or actual operations, or with industry practice. Examiners would also consider the characteristics of the applicant’s industry and any market-access rules for the goods or services concerned.
Two new examples are added: mass filings for goods or services that require special business licences, where this clearly exceeds the applicant’s capacity; and mass filings of the names of historical figures, classic works or characters that are in the public domain.
For legitimate rights owners, it is reassuring that the draft Guidelines confirm that Article 19 does not apply to two types of filing:
- Defensive filings: a brand owner files marks identical or similar to its own registered mark to stop others from registering them.
- Advance filings: a brand owner files a reasonable number of marks for future business it realistically expects to carry on. CNIPA has previously rejected this argument where the applicant could not show actual preparations for that business.
In practice, applicants making defensive or advance filings should be ready to justify them. Under the draft, CNIPA may ask an applicant to explain the purpose of its filings and how it uses or intends to use the marks, and its response would form part of the evidence. In assessing this, examiners would look at how closely the filings relate to the applicant’s industry and business scope.
4. Registered marks: new cancellation risks
Cancellation on CNIPA’s own initiative
Under new Article 57(3), CNIPA may cancel registrations that have gone unused for three consecutive years without good reason, or that have become generic. The Transition Measures would extend this power to marks registered before 1 January 2027. Local trademark authorities would investigate marks in their area and report to CNIPA, which would then ask the owner for evidence before deciding. Unused registrations could therefore be cancelled even if no third party files a request.
Misleading use
New Article 56 prohibits using a registered mark in a way that misleads the public. The draft Guidelines give examples, such as combining the mark with product names, slogans or packaging so that consumers are misled, or with claims about ingredients, production methods or functions that mislead them about the product’s quality. If the owner fails to correct the use by the deadline set by the enforcement authorities, CNIPA would cancel the registration on their referral. The new rules would also apply to marks registered before 2027 where the misleading use continues after 1 January 2027.
Use evidence
In non-use cancellations, online use would expressly count, for example on online shop product pages, in electronic invoices and orders, and in livestreamed showcases at virtual trade fairs. However, isolated items of evidence would not usually be enough; owners would need evidence that together forms a consistent chain.
5. Transition rules: two points to note
Both CNIPA’s and the SPC’s transition rules take the same basic approach. Applications and reviews that CNIPA decides on or after 1 January 2027 would follow the new law, while invalidations of marks registered before that date would be assessed under the substantive law in force when the mark was registered. Within that framework, two points need attention.
International registrations: WIPO’s publication date decides the opposition period
The new law shortens the opposition period from three months to two. For national applications, both drafts apply the two-month period only to marks preliminarily published by CNIPA on or after 1 January 2027.
International registrations designating China are not preliminarily published by CNIPA. Their opposition period instead runs from the first day of the month after WIPO publishes the mark in its Gazette. CNIPA’s draft makes WIPO’s publication date the cut-off: marks published by WIPO before 1 January 2027 would keep three months, and those published on or after that date would have two. A mark published by WIPO in late December 2026 and one published in early January 2027 would therefore have opposition periods of different lengths, even though both periods start in 2027. The SPC’s draft does not deal with international registrations separately.
Marks published in late 2026: CNIPA and the courts may apply different laws
In an invalidation action, both drafts apply the law in force when the challenged mark was approved, rather than when the action is decided. But they measure “approval” differently for a mark that was neither refused nor opposed. Take a mark that is preliminarily published on 15 November 2026, attracts no opposition and is registered in February 2027:
- CNIPA’s draft looks at the registration date. Its old-law rule covers only marks registered before 1 January 2027, so this mark would presumably be assessed under the new law.
- The SPC’s draft looks at the preliminary publication date, treating that as the moment CNIPA approved the mark. The same mark would be assessed under the old law.
If the mark is later challenged, CNIPA could therefore decide the case under the new law, while a court hearing an appeal would apply the old law. The issue affects unopposed marks published in roughly the last three months of 2026, whose opposition period runs into 2027. The difference could matter. For example, the new law protects well-known marks against use on dissimilar goods even if they are not registered in China, while the old law required registration. The owner of an unregistered well-known mark could therefore win before CNIPA but lose in court. The final texts may need to reconcile the two approaches.
For further information, please contact:
Hank Leung, Partner, Bird & Bird
