Understanding the 2026 Revisions to China's Trademark Law (Part IV): Defining and Penalizing Bad-Faith Filings

2026-07-13

         On June 26, 2026, the Standing Committee of China's National People's Congress passed the newly revised Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (the "2026 Revision"). The new law, which contains 87 articles across nine chapters, will take effect on January 1, 2027.

Chapter VII of the 2026 Revision introduces significant changes to the definition and penalties for bad‑faith trademark filings, including a new Article 54 and amendments to Article 67. These provisions consolidate and codify principles that were previously scattered across various administrative regulations, examination guidelines, and policy notices issued by the National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA). In doing so, the new law raises the bar for what constitutes "abusive hoarding" of trademarks, explicitly prohibits filings made by deceptive or improper means (extending this prohibition across the entire application and opposition process), and establishes a more comprehensive penalty framework. This article provides a systematic overview of the types of bad‑faith conduct and their legal consequences under the new law.

I. Types of Bad‑Faith Trademark Filings

Article 54 of the 2026 Revision provides that where a trademark applicant engages in any of the following bad‑faith filing activities, and such conduct has an adverse effect, the trademark enforcement authorities may issue a warning and impose a fine of up to CNY 100,000:

1) knowingly filing a mark in violation of Article 15 or Article 16(1) of the trademark law;

2) filing in violation of Article 19 of the trademark law; or

3) intentionally filing in violation of Articles 21, 22, or 24 of the trademark law.

Under Article 54 of the new law, the following conduct constitutes bad-faith trademark filings:

1) Knowingly Filing Prohibited Signs (Article 15)

This covers cases where an applicant knowingly files a mark that falls within the categories prohibited by Article 15—for example, marks identical or similar to symbols associated with the Communist Party or the state, marks that are deceptive and likely to mislead the public as to the quality or origin of goods, or marks that are contrary to public order or morality or likely to create other adverse effects. Filing such marks despite knowledge of the prohibition, where this results in adverse effects, constitutes a classic case of bad‑faith filing.

2) Knowingly Filing Geographical Names (Article 16(1))

Where a trademark applicant knowingly files for registration a mark that consists of the name of an administrative division at or above the county level, or a foreign geographical name known to the public, and such filing causes adverse effects, it shall also constitute an act of bad‑faith trademark filing. However, unlike the situation involving the deliberate violation of prohibitions on certain signs, where the geographical name has acquired a secondary meaning, or where it is filed as part of a collective or certification mark, such filing shall not be deemed an act of bad‑faith trademark filing.

3) Hoarding Marks without Intent to Use (Article 19(1))

Article 19(1) refines the existing prohibition (Article 4 of the current law) on filings "without intent to use" by adding the qualifier "clearly exceeding normal business needs." This raises the threshold for finding abusive hoarding and makes the assessment more objective. The provision explicitly excludes defensive filings and applications for a reasonable number of marks in anticipation of future business needs. This strikes a balance between maintaining a tough stance on professional hoarding and trafficking, while avoiding unnecessary harm to legitimate defensive or reserve filings. The CNIPA's Trademark Examination Guidelines provide detailed guidance on identifying "bad‑faith filings without intent to use," which practitioners may consult for reference.

4) Filing by Deceptive or Improper Means (Article 19(2))

Article 19(2) explicitly designates the filing of a trademark "by deceptive or other improper means" as a bad‑faith filing. This also becomes a new statutory ground for opposition. The CNIPA's Trademark Examination Guidelines set out detailed provisions on what constitutes deceptive or improper means. Importantly, the new law extends this prohibition—previously applicable only in invalidation proceedings—to the entire process, from filing through opposition. This significantly strengthens the fight against bad‑faith filings by elevating the rule from departmental regulations and examination guidelines to a statutory prohibition, providing a firmer legal basis for combating fraudulent applications (e.g., forged documents or fabricated evidence of use).

5) Deliberately Copying, Imitating, or Translating Well‑Known Marks of Others (Article 21)

With the expanded scope of well-known mark protection under the new law, the act of knowingly copying, imitating, or translating another party's well-known mark in respect of dissimilar goods or services—even where the well-known mark has not yet been registered in China—now constitutes an act of bad‑faith trademark filing.

6) Deliberately Applying to Register a Trademark Belonging to a Person or Entity having a Specific Relationship in One’s Own Name (Article 22)

Article 22 (which replaces Article 15 of the current law) covers unauthorized squatting by agents, representatives, or parties with a contractual or business relationship with the rightful owner. While the substance of the provision remains largely unchanged, the new law requires that such conduct be shown to be intentional in order to qualify as bad faith under Article 54.

7) Deliberately Infringing Prior Lawful Rights or Deliberately Pre‑Emptively Filing a Mark Already Used by Others with a Certain Reputation (Article 24)

Article 24 broadens the scope of protected subject matter beyond traditional "prior rights" to encompass "prior lawful rights and interests"—which may include data rights, virtual property, and commercialization rights in character images or work titles. Deliberately harming such rights and interests, or pre‑emptively filing a mark that others have already used with a certain reputation, now constitutes bad‑faith filing. To establish that such conduct constitutes bad‑faith trademark filing, it is equally necessary to prove that the applicant acted with subjective intent in violation of the relevant provisions.

In summary, Article 54 of the new law provides a more detailed and specific list of the types of conduct that constitute bad‑faith trademark filings. At the same time, it makes "adverse effects" a precondition for the application of the provision. The new law itself does not further specify the criteria for determining "adverse effects," so practitioners will need to watch for subsequent implementing regulations and examination guidelines for further clarity.

II. A Multi‑Layered System of Legal Liabilities and Penalty Provisions

The 2026 Revision establishes a comprehensive penalty framework targeting bad‑faith filings, covering procedural obstacles at multiple stages (examination, opposition, invalidation) and administrative penalties against applicants, agents, and responsible individuals. This significantly raises the cost of bad‑faith registrations.

1. Procedural Barriers: Refusal, Opposition, and Invalidation

1) Examination‑Stage Refusal

During examination, the Trademark Office may issue an Office Action requiring the applicant to provide evidence of actual use or intended use of the mark. If the applicant fails to respond within the statutory period, or if the response is not accepted, the Trademark Office will refuse the application without publication.

2) Opposition‑Stage Interception

The opposition period has been shortened to two months, and the statutory grounds for opposition have been expanded. All of the bad‑faith filing activities listed above are now valid grounds for opposition:

a) Absolute grounds: Anyone may, within two months, oppose a mark based on Articles 15, 16(1), or 19 of the new law, thereby blocking bad‑faith marks before they are registered.

b) Relative grounds: Rights holders or interested parties may, within two months, file an opposition based on Articles 21, 22, or 24 of the new law against the pre‑emptive registration of well‑known marks, marks of parties with a special relationship, marks that infringe prior lawful rights and interests, or marks that have been used by others with a certain reputation—thereby blocking bad‑faith marks before they are registered.

3) Invalidation

The new law aligns the grounds and claimant eligibility for invalidation with those for opposition. For bad‑faith marks that have already been registered, claimants may seek invalidation on the same grounds as those available for opposition. Notably, for marks registered in bad faith, the holder of a well‑known mark is not subject to the statutory five‑year time limit for filing an invalidation request from the date of registration of the trademark.

2. Administrative Penalties: Warnings and Raised Fines against Applicants with Malicious Intent

Under Article 12 of the Several Provisions on Regulating the Application for Registration of Trademarks, applicants engaged in bad‑faith filings may be subject to warnings and fines by the local Administration for Market Regulation at or above the county level in the place of the applicant's domicile or where the violation occurred. Where there is illegal income, fines of up to three times that income (capped at CNY 30,000) may be imposed; where there is no illegal income, fines of up to CNY 10,000 may be imposed.

Article 67 of the new law significantly increases the administrative penalties for bad‑faith filings. Where such conduct has an adverse effect, the trademark enforcement authorities may issue a warning and impose a fine of up to CNY 100,000. This provision grants local market regulators direct statutory authority to impose penalties and substantially raises the maximum fine, increasing the cost of non‑compliance.

3. Administrative Penalties: Dual Sanctions on Agencies and Directly Responsible Personnel

Article 67 of the new law also strengthens oversight of agents and directly responsible individuals. While the new law removes the references to "warnings" and "criminal liability" for agencies from the current law, it increases the financial penalties. A comparison is set out below:

Closing Remarks

The 2026 Revision's tough stance on bad‑faith filings will have far‑reaching implications for brand protection and the agency industry. By more precisely defining bad‑faith conduct, moving the interception point forward, introducing high administrative fines, and applying dual sanctions to both agencies and responsible individuals, the new law establishes a regulatory system that combines source‑based prevention with after‑the‑fact accountability. This reflects China's strong commitment to protecting intellectual property and improving the business environment. As the new law takes effect in 2027, the room for abusive registrations will shrink further, and a trademark registration system based on good faith will be placed on a stronger legal footing.