Background information:

The current Trademark Law came into effect in 1983 and has undergone four revisions, playing an active role in encouraging innovation, building brands, regulating the market, and expanding opening-up. As the economy and society develop, the role of trademarks has become increasingly prominent, and new situations and challenges have emerged in the trademark field. It is therefore necessary to amend and improve the current Trademark Law in a timely manner.

The 2025 Draft Amendment of China's Trademark Law represents its fifth amendment and the first comprehensive "revision" rather than a simple "amendment." It shifts from the current law's focus on registration to a new emphasis on genuine use and good faith, introducing systematic changes across registration, enforcement, and management.

On December 22, 2025, the draft amendment to the Trademark Law was submitted for its first deliberation to the 19th session of the Standing Committee of the 14th National People's Congress. On the 25th, members of the Standing Committee conducted group deliberations on the draft amendment and put forward relevant opinions and suggestions. 

Currently, the NPC Standing Committee is finalizing the Amendment. Given the current legislative trajectory, the new Trademark Law is projected to potentially pass in 2026, with a view to being promulgated and implemented later.

Key changes of the 2025 Draft Amendment of China's Trademark Law

1. Explicitly adding dynamic marks (e.g., animated logos) as a registrable element (Article 14)

This addition aligns China’ s trademark regime with international standards, and responds to the realities of the modern digital economy. Dynamic logos, such as smartphone boot animations or a footballer's signature celebration move, can now be protected. This allows brands, particularly internet-based companies, to secure protection for their full brand image, making it more three-dimensional and diversified.

2. "Not for the purpose of use and obviously exceeding the needs of normal production and operation" is explicitly listed as a direct ground for refusal of registration, accompanied by corresponding administrative penalties (Article 18 & Article 53)

The "normal business operations" threshold still needs to be further specified. Also, some believe the provision may leave small space for “defensive marks” . 

3. Extending cross-class protection to unregistered well-known trademarks (Article 20)

Article 20 of the Draft removes the "registered" requirement, extending this enhanced protection to unregistered well-known marks as well.

This is a paradigm shift from a "registration-based" to a "use-based" philosophy of protection. It recognizes that the reputation and goodwill associated with a famous brand exists independently of registration. 

4. Opposition period shortened to 2 months (Article 35)

The shortening of the opposition period helps to further expedite the overall trademark registration cycle, streamline the trademark authorization process, and improve examination efficiency. It compresses the window for brand owners to monitor and oppose potentially conflicting marks, requiring them to be more vigilant and efficient in their watching practices. While it reduces the opportunity for "malicious oppositions" designed to delay registration, it also places a greater burden on legitimate rights holders to act swiftly.

5. A formal suspension mechanism is established, and an attempt to deny the court’ s power to reverse a review decision based on changed circumstance (Article 40)

The suspension mechanism changes from “may suspend” to “shall generally suspend” , which is widely applauded. However, the draft also provides that when reviewing a decision made by the CNIPA, the People's Court shall base its judgment on the factual circumstances existing at the time the challenged decision was made. 

If this becomes the law, the court would lose the power to correct wrongful or unreasonable review decision made by the CNIPA, and it would trigger widespread undesirable chain reactions and unexpected harm may be caused to the trademark protection system.

Currently, people are still debating over this article, and hopefully reasonable changes may be applied to this article. 

6. The intellectual property authority of the State Council granted ex-officio power to cancel trademarks unused for 3 consecutive years or that have become generic. (Article 56)

There are chances this article is asserted, but it should be in rare cases. Also, it is hardly practical that the authority voluntarily takes action against a mark based on non-use. Actually, the ex-officio power to cancel a mark unused for 3 years may be the correlative measure to the previous voluntary submission of use of evidences, which has now been deleted. 

7. Intensifying penalties for infringement, establishing a collaborative mechanism for infringement investigation and handling (Article 72 & Article 74 & Article 78)

The revised draft clarifies that the amount of compensation for trademark infringement shall not only include actual losses but also cover the reasonable expenses incurred by the rights holder in stopping the infringing act, such as attorney fees and investigation costs.  Additionally, the conditions for applying punitive damages have been revised from "malicious intent" to "intentional acts," further broadening the scope of punitive damages and enhancing the deterrent effect against willful infringement. 

Regarding the act of initiating trademark litigation in bad faith, the draft also explicitly stipulates that penalties shall be imposed in accordance with the law, and if losses are caused, civil liability shall be borne in accordance with the law. It further suggests specifying that losses include reasonable expenses paid by the rights holder, such as attorney fees, to effectively curb the abuse of rights.

8. Agency Regulation: The Draft marks the arrival of a "strict supervision" era for trademark agencies. By elevating rules from a lower level departmental regulations to the law itself and introducing clear penalties, the Draft aims to clean up unethical practices in the profession. It compels agencies to move beyond simple "filing services" to providing high-value consulting on risk analysis, portfolio strategy, and evidence management. This will ultimately benefit brand owners by fostering a more ethical and professional service environment.

A heads-up for brand owners: exercising care in selecting a trademark agency is essential. The draft provides that where an agency seriously violates legal provisions, the CNIPA may suspend its practice, which could adversely affect the trademark rights of brand owners who have entrusted their matters to that agency.

On Focus

Attempt from “first-to-file” to “first-to-use”

The draft amendment targets the long-standing “prioritizing registration over use” problem. It imposes stricter usage requirements on trademark registration applications at the source by strengthening the "Intent to Use" in the Registration Stage. It explicitly stipulates that trademark registration applications "not for use and clearly exceeding the needs of normal production and operations" shall not be registered. Consequently, we expect a further decline in the annual number of new applications.

The draft amendment also explicitly prohibits using registered trademarks in a manner that misleads the public and stipulates clear penalties against misleading use. 

Strengthened protection for Well-known Marks

China’ s well-known trademark system centers on “case-by-case determination, passive protection, on-demand determination” , emphacizing substantive protection over honorary evaluation to maintain fair market competition and consumer rights.

The draft amendment extends cross-class protection to unregistered well-known trademarks. It acknowledges the reality of "brand extension" and protects the investment of brand owners who have created significant goodwill. However, it also places a higher burden on the mark owner to provide evidence of the mark's "high repute" to qualify for such dilution protection, ensuring that only truly renowned marks benefit from this enhanced remedy.

Continuous Battle against Bad Faith: 

The new law expands upon the 2019 version's initial crackdown on bad faith. By providing an objective standard ("exceeding normal business needs"), and imposing direct fines on applicants and harsher penalties on complicit agencies, it creates a multi-front attack on trademark hoarding.

Conclusion:

The draft amendment represents a "progressive refinement." Compared to the more aggressive 2023 discussion draft, the 2025 version "returns to a steady and pragmatic approach." Its most notable highlights include reshaping trademark registration logic based on a "usage-oriented" approach, resolving inefficiencies in rights confirmation through procedural optimization, and curbing misleading usage via strengthened supervision. 

However, the Draft still contains areas that require further refinement. For example, the phrase "not for use and clearly exceeding the needs of normal production and operations" in Article 4 needs to be further clarified. Additionally, greater attention could be given to the protection of procedural rights.