The Second Draft Amendment to the Trademark Law of the
People's Republic of China (the "Trademark Law") was
tabled for discussion during the 3rd meeting of the 12th Standing
Committee of the National People's Congress on June 26, 2013.
The proposed amendment included several important new provisions
which enhance the compensation against trademark infringement,
refine the protection for well-known trademarks and notably,
regulate for the first time the examination speed of the trademark
authorities. The following are the major new amendments compared
with the previous versions of the draft amendment.
To increase the compensation ceiling to RMB 2
The maximum statutory compensation was doubled up from RMB
50,000 to 1 million in the First Draft Amendment. For the purpose
of improving the protection of trademark rights and further
cracking down on trademark infringement, the maximum statutory
compensation is now proposed to increase further to RMB 2
To prohibit the use of well-known trademarks for
The Second Draft Amendment proposes that manufacturers and
dealers should not use the wordings "well-known
trademark" on their products, packages or containers of the
products; or in advertising, exhibition or other commercial
activities. This is to prevent enterprises from taking
"well-known" as an honorable title, or as a short-cut to
mark their products more popular and competitive, or even as a
means of confusing customers. It is predicted that this new
amendment, if coming into effect finally, may help cooling down the
unusual "fever" of applying for recognition of
"well-known trademark" in China.
To shorten the period for preliminary examination of
trademark applications to 9 months
The lengthy period for examination of trademark cases has long
remained a serious problem for both brand owners and the Chinese
trademark authorities. In order to tackle this problem, the
Legislative Committee of National People's Congress suggested
to stipulate in the amendment that the period for examination of
trademark applications shall be no longer than 9 months; the
duration for investigation and verification in opposition cases
shall be no longer than 9 months; the period for the Trademark
Review and Adjudication Board in deciding on the review cases on
the refusal decisions made by the Trademark Office shall be on
longer than 6 months; the review on opposition case where the
Trademark Office finds the opposition is not tenable shall be no
longer than 9 months. If special circumstances arise, upon approval
of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of the
People's Republic of China, the above periods can be
To remove the provision for single color
In the 30th meeting of the eleventh Standing Committee of the
National People's Congress held in last December, single color
was allowed to be registered as trademarks in China which was
included in the First Draft Amendment. In the Second Draft
Amendment, this provision was removed because the Legislative
Committee holds that there are few such demand among the Chinese
enterprises and China also lacks experience of examining and
managing the applications or registrations of such marks.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
This article enunciates the recent, much awaited, and landmark judgment delivered on September 16, 2016 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court throwing light on the important provisions of the Copyright Act, 1962.
The Patents Act 1970, along with the Patents Rules 1972, came into force on 20th April 1972, replacing the Indian Patents and Designs Act 1911. The Patents Act was largely based on the recommendations of the Ayyangar Committee Report headed by Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar. One of the recommendations was the allowance of only process patents with regard to inventions relating to drugs, medicines, food and chemicals.
The Policy stresses on the need for a holistic approach to be taken on legal, administrative, institutional and enforcement issues related to IP.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).