- within Technology, Food, Drugs, Healthcare and Life Sciences topic(s)
- in European Union
On June 26, 2026, China’s Standing Committee of the National People's Congress passed the newly revised Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (the "2026 Revision"). The new law consists of 87 articles across nine chapters and will take effect on January 1, 2027.
The 2026 revision introduces important changes to both the timeframe for filing trademark oppositions and the statutory grounds on which they may be based. The opposition period has been shortened from three months to two months. In addition, "applying for trademark registration by deceptive or other improper means" has been formally added as a statutory opposition ground. While the total number of statutory opposition grounds remains at eleven, comprising five relative grounds and six absolute grounds, the specific provisions have been refined and improved in several respects. We examine each of these changes in detail below.
| Current Trademark Law (amended for the fourth time in 2019) |
New Trademark Law |
|---|---|
|
Article 33 The prior right owner or any interested party may, within three months from the date of publication, files an opposition against a preliminarily approved and published application for registration of a trademark, if he finds that the application stands in violation of the provisions of paragraph two or three of Article 13, Article 15, paragraph one of Article 16, Article 30, Article 31 or Article 32 of this law, or any person finds that the application stands in violation of the provisions of Article 4, Article 10, Article 11, or Article 12, or paragraph four of Article 19 of this law. If no opposition is filed within the specified period, the trademark shall be registered, a certificate of registration shall be issued, and the registration shall be published. |
Article 36 The prior right owner or any interested party may, within two months from the date of publication, files an opposition against a preliminarily approved and published application for registration of a trademark, if he finds that the application stands in violation of the provisions of paragraph two or three of Articles 20 to 22, paragraph one of Article 23, or Article 24 of this law, or any person finds that the application stands in violation of the provisions of Article 15, paragraph one of Article 16, Articles 17 to 19, or Article 25 of this law. If no opposition is filed within the specified period, the trademark shall be registered, a certificate of registration shall be issued, and the registration shall be published. |
|
Article 36(2) After examination, if it is decided that an opposition is not justified and the trademark is approved to be registered, the applicant's exclusive right to use the trademark shall start from the date of expiry of the three-month period from the preliminarily approval publication. Where, after the date of expiry of the publication, and before the decision to approve the registration is made, another party uses a trademark which is identical or similar to the trademark to be approved for registration in respect of the same or similar goods, the decision to approve the registration has no retroactive effect on such use by the other party. However, the damage caused to the trademark registrant by the other party who has used the trademark in bad faith shall be compensated. |
Article 39(2) After examination, if it is decided that an opposition is not justified and the trademark is approved to be registered, the applicant's exclusive right to use the trademark shall start from the date of expiry of the two-month period from the preliminarily approval publication. Where, after the date of expiry of the publication, and before the decision to approve the registration is made, another party uses a trademark which is identical or similar to the trademark to be approved for registration in respect of the same or similar goods, the decision to approve the registration has no retroactive effect on such use by the other party. However, the damage caused to the trademark registrant by the other party who has used the trademark in bad faith shall be compensated. |
I. Opposition Period Shortened from Three Months to Two Months
One of the most significant procedural changes introduced by the 2026 Revision is the shortening of the opposition period from three months to two months. This change is intended to compress the trademark application cycle and improve registration efficiency. For potential opponents, this means they must make a decision on whether to file an opposition within a shorter timeframe, and they face higher demands on the timeliness of evidence collection and other preparatory work. For trademarks that are approved for registration after an opposition is unsuccessful and dismissed, the starting point for calculating the exclusive right to use the mark is correspondingly adjusted from the expiration of the three month preliminarily approval publication period to the expiration of the two- month period.
II. Refinements to Opposition Grounds
Trademark opposition grounds fall into two categories: absolute grounds and relative grounds. Absolute grounds allow any person to oppose a trademark application based on violations of the absolute prohibitions on registration under the Trademark Law. Relative grounds, in contrast, are available only to prior rights holders and parties in interest who oppose an application based on harm to their prior legitimate rights and interests. Building on the current law, the 2026 Revision supplements and refines the opposition grounds. In particular, it formally makes "applying for trademark registration by deceptive or other improper means" a statutory opposition ground, further strengthening the regulation of bad faith filings.
1. Amendments to Relative Grounds for opposition
Under the current Trademark Law, six provisions (Article 13(2) and (3), Article 15, Article 16(1), Article 30, Article 31, and Article 32) serve as relative grounds for opposition, allowing prior rights holders and parties in interest to file an opposition within the prescribed period if they believe that the opposed trademark application violates one of those provisions. The 2026 Revised Trademark Law consolidates the relative grounds for opposition into five provisions, refining the current law as follows.
1.1 Opposition Based on Previously Registered and/or Previously Applied for Marks (Article 20)
New Article 20 builds on the current provision concerning "already registered" marks and incorporates the content of the current provision (Article 31) addressing "prior applications." It provides that a trademark application shall not be identical or similar to a mark that has already been registered or is the subject of prior application in respect of the identical or similar goods. This consolidates two previously separate provisions (Articles 30 and 31 of the current law) into a single opposition ground.
1.2 Opposition Based on Prior Use of a Well-known Trademark (Article 21)
New Article 21 consists of two paragraphs, corresponding respectively to current Article 13(2) and (3), which address the protection for well-known trademarks. The first paragraph deals with protection for well-known marks on similar goods and remains unchanged from the current law. However, for cross-class protection of well-known marks on dissimilar goods, the new law no longer requires that the well-known trademark be "already registered in China" as a prerequisite. This change expands the scope of protection for unregistered well-known marks and strengthens the protection of the rights and interests of their holders.
1.3 Opposition Based on Squatting by Agents, Representatives, or Persons with a Specific Relationship (Article 22)
New Article 22 corresponds to current Article 15 and remains unchanged.
1.4 Opposition Based on Geographical Indications (Article 23(1))
New Article 23(1) corresponds to current Article 16(1) and remains unchanged.
1.5 Opposition Based on Prior Legitimate Rights and Interests and/or Prior Used Marks with Certain Influence (Article 24)
New Article 24, which corresponds to current Article 32, introduces two key changes to the current provision. First, the term "prior rights" has been replaced with "prior legitimate rights and interests," broadening the scope of protected subject matter. The concept of "legitimate interests" extends beyond statutory rights to encompass interests that are protected by law even if they have not yet been elevated to the status of legal rights. Examples include data rights, virtual property, and commercialization rights associated with character images and work titles. Second, the precondition for opposing the squatting of a mark that has been previously used and has acquired a certain degree of influence has been revised from "by improper means" to "intentionally," raising the threshold for establishing bad faith.
2. Amendments to Absolute Grounds for Opposition
Under the current Trademark Law, five provisions (Article 4, Article 10, Article 11, Article 12, and Article 19(4)) serve as absolute grounds for opposition, allowing any person to oppose an application within the prescribed period if they believe it violates one of those provisions. The 2026 Revised Trademark Law expands the absolute grounds for opposition to six provisions, with the following key revisions.
2.1 Opposition Based on Prohibited Signs (Article 15)
New Article 15 corresponds to current Article 10(1) but adds a new subparagraph that includes signs that are identical or similar to symbols associated with the name, party flag, party emblem, medals, or landmark elements related to major theoretical achievements or historical events of the Communist Party of China. In addition, the wording of another subparagraph has been refined, the term "central state organs" has been revised to "central and state organs," and it is expressly clarified that such signs may not be registered as trademarks. Under the new law, any person may file an opposition if they believe the opposed trademark violates this provision.
2.2 Opposition Based on Geographic Names (Article 16(1))
New Article 16(1) separates the current provision on geographic names (Article 10(2)) into a standalone provision. It refines the wording from "geographical names of administrative divisions at or above the county level" to "names of administrative divisions at or above the county level" and similarly clarifies that such names may not be registered or used as trademarks.
2.3 Opposition Based on Lack of Distinctiveness (Article 17)
New Article 17 consolidates current Articles 9 and 11. The substantive content remains unchanged. While lack of distinctiveness is an absolute ground for opposition, it is not without exception. Under both the current and new law, signs that have acquired distinctiveness through use and are capable of being readily identified and distinguished may still be registered as trademarks.
2.4 Opposition Based on Functional Signs (Article 18)
New Article 18, which corresponds to current Article 12, concerns the non registrability of functional signs such as three dimensional marks. The new law expands the scope of functional signs that may not be registered, adding to the existing three dimensional marks, color combinations, sounds, motion marks, and other signs. Where the shape, color combination, sound, motion effect, etc. is inherent to the nature of the goods, necessary to achieve a technical effect, or gives the goods substantial value, they will likewise be refused registration.
2.5 Opposition Based on Bad Faith Filings (Article 19)
New Article 19(1) supplements the current provision on filings "not intended for use" (Article 4) by adding the condition "and clearly exceeding normal production and business needs." If a trademark application satisfies both conditions, any person may file an opposition. New Article 19(2) expressly designates "applying for trademark registration by deceptive or other improper means," previously only an invalidation ground, as a statutory opposition ground. The consolidated Article 19 serves as a unified opposition ground that, at the legislative level, is more effective in combating bad faith trademark filings.
2.6 Opposition Based on Agents Filing Beyond Their Service Scope (Article 25)
New Article 25 corresponds to current Article 19(4) and remains unchanged. It restricts trademark agents from applying for marks beyond their agency services. Any person may file an opposition if they believe that a trademark agent has applied to register marks beyond the scope of its agency services.
Conclusion
The 2026 Revision of the Trademark Law introduces procedural changes by shortening the opposition period from three months to two months, thereby improving registration efficiency while imposing higher demands on opposition filers' trademark monitoring capabilities and response times. On the substantive side, the new law expressly designates "applying for trademark registration by deceptive or other improper means" as a statutory opposition ground, reinforcing efforts to combat bad faith filings. It also expands cross class protection for unregistered well-known trademarks and replaces "prior rights" with "prior legitimate rights and interests," broadening the scope of protectable subject matter, which has positive practical implications. At the same time, the standards for interpreting undefined concepts such as "contrary to public order and good customs (i.e., contrary to the doctrine of public policy or morality in common law jurisdictions)," "prior legitimate rights and interests," and "intentional" will require continued attention to subsequent implementing regulations and the accumulation of practical experience over time.
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.
[View Source]