China: The Role Of Trademark Opposition In The Protection Of Brands In China In Light Of The New Trademark Law

Last Updated: 30 October 2014
Article by Paolo Beconcini

How the use of opposition can be more effective if applied to a restricted number of cases and how alternative solutions may sometimes be more appropriate against hostile trademark filings

I. Introduction

Trademarks are the legal embodiment of brands. They are a company asset and important business vehicle in today's global market. There is no company today who is not aware of the importance of investing resources to build up brand value and to protect it.

Whereby large foreign companies and MNCs have been securing trademark portfolios in China for several years, making China the country with the largest amount of trademark applications and registrations in the world, foreign SMEs have been slower and more reluctant to file trademarks in China. In particular, they may view trademark filing in China as too expensive when compared with the low rate of success in enforcement or winning it back from a grabber. The first-to-file principle that characterizes the Chinese trademark system—a system that gives no legal value to pre-use save for a few exceptions such as that of unregistered well known trademarks—has indeed contributed to the proliferation of hostile trademark filings and theft by Chinese individuals and competing enterprises. However, what is more discouraging to foreign companies is the lack of effective strategies and legal tools to recover or block stolen and hostile trademarks. For years, trademark opposition has been the central if not the only legal strategy and tool utilized by foreign companies against similar hostile trademark filings. The rate of success has been low though, especially for brands of SMEs which do not yet enjoy much notoriety or reputation in China.

This article revisits the Chinese trademark opposition system in light of the new trademark law which has been in force since May 1, 2014, comments on the use made of trademark opposition under the prior trademark law and provides ideas on how to choose more effective and business oriented recovery strategies alternative to trademark opposition.

II. The threat of hostile filings in China

One of the negative consequences of trademark filing proliferation in a first-to-file legal system of an emerging economy is an increase of conflicts among similar trademarks, conflict which becomes an acute issue, if we consider the always large amount of bad faith similar applications by both Chinese individuals and competing Chinese companies. The result, is that foreign brands find themselves confronted with frequent attempts by third parties to obtain registration of hostile trademarks. These hostile trademarks are trademarks containing wording, pictorial elements or both, that look quite similar to an already registered trademark or to an unregistered trademark. The problem in China has not only been the continuous attempts by unknown Chinese parties to obtain the registration of a trademark that evokes and exploits a more famous and already registered brand, but also the fact that such attempts are often successful; these hostile trademark applications are, in many cases, granted by the Chinese Trademark Office.

The reasons for the high level of granted hostile trademarks may depend on several concurring factors. One factor is the very structured and rigid system of classes and subclasses in the Chinese classification of goods and services, which allows the co-existence of similar trademarks in the same class as long as they are registered in different subclasses. Another factor may be the scarce knowledge of foreign languages, e.g. English, among the Chinese examiners, which may lead to inconsistent decisions as to similarity. Another negative cause may be the not always efficient way in which work is distributed among examiners, which may hamper consistency.

The outcome of all this is always the same: large numbers of hostile similar trademarks are preliminary granted in China. This forces foreign companies affected by hostile filings to make a decision on how to react to such attacks. Trademark opposition has always been the first and foremost response to such aggressions. Whether opposition is the most effective solution for every case is questionable. Changes to the opposition system may now compel foreign brand owners to revisit their opposition strategies and consider alternative avenues and solutions.

III. The System of trademark opposition in China

The amendment to the trademark law which has been in force since May 1, 2014, has brought some relevant changes to the system of trademark opposition in China. In the view of the author, these changes, which are mostly of a restrictive nature, will help foreign companies to more carefully consider the use of opposition and determine whether there may be more effective legal tools to bring about a solution for their business, rather than a legal problem.

3.1. Introduction of restrictions as to the legitimation of the applicants

One of the goals of the new trademark law is to reduce the amount of unfounded oppositions by entitling only a restricted number of individuals or entities with the right to file trademark oppositions. Such a filter should help to reduce the amount of bogus oppositions, and thus offer relief to the overworked trademark examiners, which would improve their work flow and quality of work product. In turn, this should have a positive effect on the consistency of the decisions in pending cases.

Article 33 of the new Trademark Law provides that, where any prior right owner or interested person believes that provisions of Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 13, Article 15, Paragraph 1 of Article 16, Article 30, Article 31 or Article 32 of the Law have been breached or any person believes that the provisions of Article 10, Article 11 or Article 12 have been violated, it may raise an objection to the Trade Office against a trademark that has been published after a preliminary examination within three months from the date of announcement. As under the old Trademark Law, any person can file opposition based on "absolute" grounds (i.e. trademarks reproducing symbols of State, non-distinctive and descriptive trademarks and 3D marks). In this case, the grounds for opposition aim at protecting general public interest, and there is, indeed, no reason to limit access to such a legal tool to specific groups of right holders. On the other hand, only the right holders or any interested parties can file opposition on "relative" grounds (i.e. unregistered well known trademarks, trademarks filed by the agent without the consent of the principal, similar or identical prior registrations, infringement of prior's existing rights, etc.). In this case, the right of opposition would serve only private business interests. Therefore in this case, the law limits access to this recourse only to those parties with such immediate economic interest. Furthermore, according to the practice and jurisprudence, interested parties are the exclusive licensees. This is the main difference in Article 30 of the old Trademark Law which allowed any person to file opposition on whatever ground.

3.2. Simplifying the procedure for trademark opposition

Article 35 of the new Trademark Law provides that in the event an objection is raised against a trademark published after preliminary examination, the Trademark Office shall consider the facts and grounds submitted by both the dissenting party and the person challenged, shall decide whether the registration is allowed within 12 months upon the expiration of announcement after investigation and verification, and shall notify the dissenting party and the person challenged in writing. Where the Trademark Office decides to approve the opposed trademark registration (i.e. rejection of the opposition), it shall grant a certificate of trademark registration to the person challenged and publish the same. The dissenting party may then file a cancellation action before the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board according to Articles 44 and 45 of the Trademark Law.

In sum, if the opponent loses, the opposed trademark gets registered and the opposition procedure is concluded. If we apply this to the case of hostile similar trademarks, considering the chances that such trademarks may be indeed confirmed in spite of an opposition, the opposition appears to no longer be the ideal, always-good-to-use tool that many believed it to be. An opposition may turn into a wasted year or more, which may prevent or preclude better and more efficient solutions to the same problem.

The inadequacy of the opposition to play the all-purpose IP tool to solve trademark conflicts was evident under the prior Trademark Law. The new Trademark Law seems to be sanctioning this as a given fact. This should have been recognized in the past as well, so that many companies would not have wasted valuable resources and time in pointless legal actions, rather than focusing those resources in finding alternative solutions more suitable to their specific cases. The new Trademark Law, with its barring preclusion to further recourse for failed opposition requests, will force foreign companies to consider and earnestly evaluate the chances of success of an opposition, and to limit its use to those cases in which such chances are objectively high, while looking elsewhere for more suitable solutions when chances are uncertain.

4. An evaluation of the use of trademark opposition by foreign companies

The success rate of trademark oppositions in China is very low for the reasons mentioned above. Also, overworked examiners were and will now be even more under pressure to deliver quick decisions while flooded with never ending amounts of recourse. The result is oppositions being used to stretch for lengthy period of times, thus blocking the possibility to overcome these deadlocks by resorting to alternative forms of IP protection which in practice may have been more efficient.

Filing opposition has always been the first recommendation of a trademark attorney to a client. Often the client's in-house counsel are IP attorneys and trained trademark specialists. It is natural for them to resort immediately and without much hesitation to a ready legal tool such as opposition to counter a hostile act of trademark filing. Also, there may be a perception that trademark opposition in China works as it does in Europe or the U.S. This is understandable from the point of view of a trademark practitioner; maybe it appears less understandable from an IP management perspective. The IP manager should not be a critical when deciding on an IP right enforcement. He should consider firstly what the business strategies and goals of his company are, what the role of each IP right is in this strategy and what are the available and appropriate legal or business tools to achieve the function of the given IP right. Also, the brand manager should always make sure of looking at the issue not just as a mere legal issue, but as a business matter overall.

Rushing into an opposition in China may not in fact be the best solution for all cases of hostile similar trademark filing. Pursuing opposition as the only way to solve such problems may even lead to paradoxical occurrences and surely to economic and time losses. An example: Opposition is filed against a hostile trademark in a case of disputable similarity. The case escalates to the highest administrative recourses; after five years of litigation, the hostile trademark is finally granted. What if the owner of the hostile trademark is liquidated during the opposition process? What of the trademark was transferred to another entity with different business and interests from the fist applicant? Or what if the applicant was just a trademark grabber who would never have had the will and resources to use such trademark? A paradoxical result indeed. The trademark would be lost and years and money would have been thrown away, when an expert eye and good due diligence could have helped provide continous assessments of facts that could have led to more commercially and economically sensitive solutions, such as letting the hostile trademark be granted and rather file non-use cancellations or cancellation for liquidation of the owner of the trademark, to transact the transfer of licensing of the trademark, or to start retaliation by custom protection outside China, etc.

An assessment of the trademark value to the owner and a background investigation of the hostile party could provide information and grounds for alternatives. For instance, it is known that most trademark grabbers will never file a troll nor have sufficient resources for infringement actions. Additionally, the new trademark law recognizes a certain legal relevance to pre-use as a defense against trolls. Why then not try to go for a three-year non-use cancellation which has a very high rate of success in cases of trademarks stolen by individuals? Or , if the applicant of the hostile trademark is a foreign company, why not negotiate a Trademark co-existence agreement since the very beginning? In the new jurisprudence and according to the latest draft of court regulations by the Supreme People's Court on trademark administrative disputes, it is expressly mentioned that a court shall allow these agreements to produce legal effect! Furthermore, other circumstances emerging from an investigation of the case may help shape more effective strategies alternative to or coupled with the filing of an opposition. If for instance the hostile filing entity exports products with the hostile filing abroad, why not consider custom protection or a civil lawsuit in the destination country while filing opposition in China, thus increasing the chances of convincing the counterpart to settle for a trademark transfer or abandonment of the hostile mark? What if, aside from filing a hostile similar trademark, the Chinese grabber also uses the foreign company brand on his products in China? A civil lawsuit would help not only stop an act of infringement, but also persuade the infringer to transfer or abandon the hostile trademark filing. Given that, there are many variables of a case each may suggest different and various solutions.

Some may object that opposition deadlines are tight and that maybe there is no time for making such investigations or taking such decisions, and that not missing the opposition deadline becomes the highest priority. Well, this may be true especially if a company does not have a good trademark monitoring systems in place; surely it is no longer true for large companies and MNCs. Even if this were the case, we can still say that an opposition could be filed with the mere intent of not missing the deadline and win time for better case assessment. Nothing speaks against withdrawing it, if better solutions are found in the meanwhile. Also, SME's should consider some sort of monitoring in at least in a few key countries such as China, in order to reduce the risk of receiving warning of a hostile filing hours before expiration of the opposition deadline.


In general, investigating case backgrounds reveals information which allows companies to make better business decisions. This applies to all kinds of business activities, especially in difficult countries such as China, in light of its peculiar business habits and legal system. Blind filing of oppositions as the only tool available against hostile trademark filings has often backfired for opponents in that time and money have been lost in cases without much hope from the point of view of Chinese trademark law and practice. Determining the chances of success based on Chinese law and the factual background of a hostile filing should be a must when deciding whether to file a trademark opposition. Deciding to file an opposition as a default way to slow things down, especially in cases where the chances of success are 50% or lower, may backfire on the opponent as explained above.

The legislator has somewhat given a legal nobility to the author's vision of the real function of trademark opposition by eliminating restricting its access to specific groups of claimants and by barring from further recourse in case of a rejection of an opposition request. In this way, the opponent may be motivated to focus early on in evaluating not only the formal collision among trademarks and the level of similarity, but also in investigating the commercial and factual background of the case of hostile filing, and choose the most suitable legal and commercial tools to solve such trademark disputes, which may indeed be alternative and more efficient than filing a one-shot opposition according to the new Trademark Law.

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

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Paolo Beconcini
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
CCPIT Patent & Trademark Law Office
HFG Law & Intellectual Property
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”

Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
CCPIT Patent & Trademark Law Office
HFG Law & Intellectual Property
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
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).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions