The current Trademark Law (fourth revision in 2019) contains 73 articles across 8 chapters. On December 22, 2025, the draft revision of the Trademark Law (exposure draft) was submitted for first review to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. On December 27, 2025, the National People's Congress published the reviewed Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (Revision Draft), consisting of 84 articles across 9 chapters. On June 26, 2026, the 23rd session of the 14th Standing Committee of the National People's Congress voted to adopt the newly revised Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, which contains 87 articles across 9 chapters and will take effect on January 1, 2027.
We will share our insights on the key changes and new provisions introduced by the 2026 revision of the Trademark Law through a series of articles, covering topics such as the prohibition of rights abuse, conditions for trademark registration, circumstances and penalties for bad-faith filings, opposition periods and statutory grounds, and protection of well-known trademarks.
As a cornerstone of intellectual property rights, trademark rights serve to maintain orderly market competition, yet they also carry the risk of abuse. China's trademark legal framework establishes a dynamic balancing mechanism through multiple provisions, ensuring both robust protection for trademark owners and safeguards against rights exercised in ways that overstep boundaries, whether by harming public interests or infringing upon the lawful rights of others. This article provides a brief overview of how the newly revised Trademark Law constructs institutions that both protect exclusive trademark rights and prevent their abuse.
I. Rights Protection: The Legitimate Foundation for Exercising Trademark Rights
The core value of trademark rights lies in granting the owner exclusive rights to use a registered mark for distinguishing goods or services. The law provides stable institutional safeguards by defining the scope of rights and available remedies.
The Trademark Law (2026 Revision) adds Article 2, paragraph 1, which defines "trademark" as "a mark capable of distinguishing the source of goods or services, including goods marks and service marks." Article 2, paragraph 3 is also added, clarifying that "use of a trademark includes use through the internet and other information networks."
Article 72 of the Trademark Law (2026 Revision) remains unchanged from Article 57 of the current law, enumerating specific acts that infringe upon the exclusive right to use a registered trademark. Articles 74 through 80 of the Trademark Law (2026 Revision) further refine the provisions on dispute resolution and civil liability for trademark infringement, providing direct legal remedies for rights holders while strengthening the protection of exclusive trademark rights. This "infringement-will-be-addressed" approach instills confidence in brand-building efforts by market participants, thereby contributing to the healthy development of the brand economy.
II. Preventing Abuse: Boundaries and Constraints on Exercising Rights
Unchecked expansion of rights inevitably encroaches upon the interests of others and the public. While safeguarding exclusive trademark rights, it is equally important to define appropriate boundaries to prevent misuse of rights. The law builds a firewall against trademark abuse through a combination of general principles and specific rules.
(1) Fundamental Boundaries: No Harm to State Interests, Public Interests, or Others' Rights
Article 9, paragraph 1 of the Trademark Law (2026 Revision) builds on the principle of good faith by adding that the application and use of trademarks "shall not constitute an abuse of rights harming state interests, public interests, or the lawful rights and interests of others," thereby establishing clear limits on the exercise of rights.
Article 56 (newly added) provides that where a registered mark is used "in a manner that misleads the public," the trademark enforcement authorities may order the registrant to rectify the practice within a specified period and impose a fine; if the registrant fails to do so, the trademark administrative authority may cancel the trademark registration.
Article 57 (which expands upon Article 49 of the current law) adds a new paragraph 3, providing that in addition to third-party cancellation actions, the trademark administrative authority may also cancel a registered mark ex officio, where the registrant unilaterally alters the registered mark, the registrant's name, address, or other registration particulars; where the registered trademark becomes the generic name of the designated goods; or where the mark has not been used for three consecutive years without justifiable cause.
These newly added provisions give concrete expression to the principle that trademark applications and use must not harm state, public, or others' interests, and they protect public interests through the mechanism of cancellation.
(2) No Restriction on Others' Good-Faith Use
Article 73, paragraph 3 (newly added) further defines the boundaries of rights by clarifying that "the owner of a registered trademark may not prohibit others from making good-faith use of the relevant registered mark for the sole purpose of indicating the intended use, target audience, application scenarios, or other information about the goods, or for indicating the true source, unless such use is likely to cause confusion." This means that others' reasonable use of a mark based on principles of good faith and commercial practice (such as descriptive or referential use) is not subject to prohibition by the trademark owner. This provision effectively prevents trademark owners from monopolizing public-domain terms and preserves the openness of market competition.
(3) Deterrence against Malicious Litigation
Article 81 (newly added) of the Trademark Law (2026 Revision) provides for civil liability in cases of malicious litigation, in addition to judicial penalties, by stipulating that where a party brings a trademark lawsuit through malicious collusion or unilateral fabrication of underlying facts, and causes loss to the opposing party, it shall bear civil liability in accordance with the law. This provision not only provides the accused party with a basis for relief but also deters abusive use of litigation rights through economic penalties, thereby preventing trademark rights from being used as tools to suppress competitors or disrupt market order.
III. The Balancing Mechanism: Coordinated Provisions and Institutional Logic
Rights protection and abuse prevention are not contradictory goals but are dynamically balanced through coordination across provisions. This balance operates on three levels:
(1) Dual Regulation: Both Granting and Constraining Rights
The Trademark Law (2026 Revision) confers exclusive rights on trademark owners by enumerating infringing acts in Article 72, while simultaneously imposing clear limits on how those rights may be exercised through Articles 9, 56, 57, 73, and 81. This creates a symmetrical structure in which rights are both granted and constrained. For example, the owner is entitled to exclusive rights against infringement but is also required to use the registered mark properly; the owner may enforce rights through litigation but must bear civil liability for any losses caused by malicious suits.
(2) Balancing Private and Public Interests
The exercise of trademark rights affects not only the owner's private interests but also the lawful rights of others and fair market competition, which are matters of public concern. In the Trademark Law (2026 Revision), Article 72 protects the private interests of the registrant by enumerating acts that constitute infringement against the exclusive right to use a registered trademark, while Articles 56 and 57 reflect the principle that private interests must not override public interests—by providing for cancellation in cases where the mark is used in a way that misleads the public (Article 56), and in cases where the mark is not used properly, has not been used for three consecutive years, or has degenerated into a generic name (Article 57). Article 73 exempts good-faith use by others, and Article 81 provides the supplementary provisions on damages for malicious litigation. Together, these provisions reflect the principle that private rights must not prevail over the public interest, and ensure that trademark rights are not turned into instruments of "rights hegemony," thereby preserving fairness and efficiency in the market.
(3) Full-Cycle Coverage: Ex Ante Prevention and Ex Post Remedies
The Trademark Law (2026 Revision) establishes a full-cycle regulatory system of “prevent, constraint, and remedies” through Article 9 (preventive principle), Articles 56, 57, 72, and 73 (constraints during the exercise of rights), and Article 81 (ex post liability for malicious litigation). For instance, applicants are expected to, at the filing stage, assess whether the mark is likely to "harm state interests, public interests, or the lawful rights of others" (prevention); after registration, owners must use the mark properly and cannot prohibit others' good-faith use (constraint); and if rights are abused through litigation causing loss to others, civil liability follows (remedies). This system ensures that every stage of rights exercise is subject to regulation, minimizing opportunities for abuse.
Conclusion
The exercise of trademark rights is essentially the unity of "freedom of rights" and "obligations of restraint." The 2026 revision of the Trademark Law, through its institutional design combining the protection of exclusive trademark rights and the prevention of abuse, establishes both safe havens and warning lines for rights holders. This balancing approach reflects legal wisdom and carries profound significance for the healthy development of the market economy. Only by finding the fulcrum between encouraging innovation and preserving fairness can we promote a prosperous brand economy while serving the broader public interest.
