China’s new trademark use standards: Practical guidance for brand owners

Introduction

On 21 November 2025, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (“CNIPA”) issued a notice (“Notice”) outlining seven types of illegal trademark use that will receive increased administrative enforcement scrutiny. The Notice, directed to China's local Intellectual Property Administration authorities as an enforcement directive, is intended to enhance administrative oversight of trademark use in the market. CNIPA subsequently also released an official interpretation of the Notice on 30 December 2025 (“Interpretation”), providing examples for each category to clarify the scope of the targeted violations.

The Notice and Interpretation together form part of CNIPA's broader efforts to promote public interest, fair competition, and high‑quality market development through strengthened supervision of trademark use. We set forth below a summary of the 7 types of violating activities and some of the examples provided.

Summary of the types of violating trademark use and the practical examples

1. Use of unregistered trademarks that are prohibited from being used due to their deceptive or misleading nature, such as trademarks with misleading terms as to the supply chain, quality, attributes, main ingredients, geographical origin, time of production, manufacturing process and so on, e.g. “exclusive,”(“专供”) “premium,” (“极品”)  “national,” (“国”) “organic,” (“有机”) “selenium-rich,” (“富硒”) “zero additives,” (“零添加”) “100%,” and “handmade” (“手工”).  Examples given include logos/marks such as

1.  (containing “极品”) for mineral water,
2.  (“国宴” means “state banquet”) for restaurants,
3.  (containing “100%”) for bread,
4.  “” (the first two Chinese characters are “罗马” which means “Rome”, and the last two characters “瓷砖” are ceramic tiles) for ceramic tiles that are not from Rome, Italy,
5.    (the Chinese characters mean “Have a bowl of handmade noodle”) for instant noodles which are not handmade.

Where the corresponding applications for the marks are refused due to Article 10(1)(iiv) of the Trademark Law prohibiting misleading and deceptive marks, the use of such marks will be subject administrative penalties.

2. Deceptive use of registered trademarks, focusing on situations where registered trademarks are used in combination with product names, advertising slogans, or packaging designs and so on, causing the public to be misled about the product's quality, origin, or manufacturing process and so on; and acts where registered details are altered to mislead the public about product quality, or where alterations are made to free-ride on another's trademark.

Examples given include:

1. Using the registered mark “鲜土” (“Fresh Soil”) as ”农家鲜土鸡蛋” (“Farmer's House Fresh Pastured Egg”) for eggs, whereby the 2nd Chinese character of the registered mark is split out and formed another more prominent word “土鸡蛋” (“Pastured Egg”).
2. Using the registered mark “” in the form of “” with additional deceptive green claims such as “green”, “ecological” and “healthy”.
3. Using the registered mark “” on lubricants as “ ” to free ride the reputation of the oil and gas company BP.

These acts are deemed to be in violation of Article 49 of Trademark Law prohibiting the trademark registrant to voluntarily alter the registered trademark, its address or other registered information while using the trademark registration.

3. Impersonating registered trademarks, especially focusing on acts where deceptive unregistered trademarks are falsely labelled with the registration symbol or as registered trademarks.

4. Failure to use a registered trademark when required, focusing on the tobacco sector, and particularly new tobacco products like e-cigarettes.

5. Prominent use of the alleged status of “well-known trademark” in commercial activities, particularly where the term “well-known trademark” is being used in advertising and promotions.

6. Improper use of collective trademarks and certification marks, especially when the goods fail to meet the quality standards stipulated in the usage management rules.

7. Illegal practices by trademark agencies, with a focus on conduct such as maliciously filing trademark applications or maliciously initiating non‑use cancellation actions. The Interpretation cites an example in which an agency was penalized for filing trademark applications on behalf of its client despite knowing that the marks were not intended for genuine use and constituted bad‑faith and deceptive filings.

Conclusion

The abovementioned seven categories of violating trademark use highlighted in the CNIPA Notice and Interpretation reflect a clear regulatory intention: to strengthen oversight of trademark use in order to protect the public interest, promote fair competition, and support high‑quality market development. Among these, a few of the categories, particularly the deceptive use of registered trademarks and malicious agency conduct under items 2 and 7, may provide brand owners with extra concrete and practical tools and ammunition to challenge currently ongoing bad‑faith filings and improper market use. At the same time, some types of conduct listed by CNIPA, such as the misleading or embellished claims relating to product quality or characteristics (items 1 and 2), may also fall within the scope of advertising‑law enforcement, thereby expanding the range of available enforcement pathways to brand owners.

With the new Draft Amendment of the Trademark Law released on 27 December 2025 (discussed in our article listed at the righthand side of this article) also placing increased emphasis on the proper and truthful use of trademarks, administrative authorities are expected to step up enforcement activities in the coming months. As CNIPA and local IP bureaus begin to apply the Notice across the marketplace, it may be an opportune time for brand owners to proactively assess whether the seven types of prohibited practices are occurring in connection with their own marks, or those of infringers and devise a concrete action plan to leverage the current enforcement momentum. Taken together, these developments create an opportune and strategic moment for rights holders to strengthen commercial protection, address misleading or infringing use, and take timely enforcement action.

Authored by Grace Guo, Stefaan Meuwissen, and Helen Xia.