On 14 September 2026, the Supreme People's Court of China (SPC) released two draft judicial interpretations for public comment in preparation for the amended Trademark Law, which will take effect on 1 January 2027. The drafts are: (1) the Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Temporal Application of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (Draft for Public Comment); and (2) the revised Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Cases Involving Trademark Registration and Validity (Draft for Public Comment). The consultation closes on 28 October 2026.
The first draft addresses which version of the Trademark Law should apply to civil disputes and to administrative cases involving refusal review, non-registration review, invalidation, cancellation and administrative penalties, and also sets transitional rules for opposition and invalidation periods and pending court cases. The second draft makes broader adjustments to the rules governing judicial review of trademark registration and validity decisions, covering prohibited and deceptive signs, distinctiveness of foreign-language and three-dimensional marks, generic names, well-known trademarks, agent filings, prior lawful rights and interests, copyright and name rights, geographical indications, malicious registration, evidence of trademark use and the relevant factual point in time for judicial review.
For foreign applicants, brand owners and overseas counsel, the drafts are particularly relevant to case strategy around the transition to the amended Trademark Law, as well as opposition, invalidation, cancellation, well-known trademark protection, prior-right claims and evidence of use. Both documents remain drafts for public comment and may be revised before final issuance.
Source: Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China, 14 September 2026
Unofficial Translation for Reference Only
The English text below is an unofficial translation prepared for general reference. It is not an official translation of the Supreme People's Court. In the event of any discrepancy or inconsistency, the original Chinese text shall prevail.
English Translation of the SPC Materials
Supreme People's Court Releases Draft Judicial Interpretations on the Temporal Application of the Trademark Law and on Trademark Registration and Validity Administrative Cases for Public Comment
To ensure the correct application of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, which will take effect on 1 January 2027, and the proper adjudication of trademark cases in accordance with law, the Supreme People's Court, following research and deliberation, has drafted the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Temporal Application of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (Draft for Public Comment). It has also made corresponding amendments to the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Cases Involving Trademark Registration and Validity, resulting in the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Cases Involving Trademark Registration and Validity (Draft for Public Comment). The Supreme People's Court is now seeking public comments on these two draft judicial interpretations. Comments and suggestions are welcome and may be submitted as follows:
1. By post to: Third Civil Division, Supreme People's Court, No. 27 Dongjiaominxiang, Dongcheng District, Beijing 100745, China.
2. By email to: zgfmstshb@163.com.
3. By fax to: +86 10 6755 7460.
Please mark the envelope 'Trademark Judicial Interpretations'. The deadline for submitting comments is 28 October 2026.
Notice is hereby given.
Supreme People's Court
14 September 2026
Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Temporal Application of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (Draft for Public Comment)
In accordance with the Legislation Law of the People's Republic of China, the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China and other relevant laws, the following provisions are made concerning the temporal application of the Trademark Law in the trial of trademark disputes by the people's courts.
Article 1. Trademark civil disputes arising from legal facts occurring after the amended Trademark Law takes effect shall be governed by the amended Trademark Law.
Trademark civil disputes arising from legal facts occurring before the amended Trademark Law takes effect shall be governed by the Trademark Law and judicial interpretations in force at that time, unless otherwise provided by laws or judicial interpretations.
Where a legal fact arose before the amended Trademark Law took effect and continued after its effective date, a trademark civil dispute arising from that legal fact shall be governed by the amended Trademark Law, unless otherwise provided by laws or judicial interpretations.
Article 2. Where a party brings an administrative action challenging a decision on review of refusal or a decision on review of non-registration made by the trademark authority under the State Council, the Trademark Law in force when the review decision was made shall apply.
Article 3. Where a party brings an administrative action challenging a decision on review of invalidation or a ruling on a request for declaration of invalidity made by the trademark authority under the State Council, the Trademark Law in force when the decision approving registration was made shall apply.
For the purposes of the preceding paragraph, 'when the decision approving registration was made' means the time when the trademark authority under the State Council made a decision on whether the disputed trademark satisfied the conditions for registration, including the following circumstances:
(1) where registration was approved after expiry of the publication period for preliminary approval without refusal-review proceedings: the date of publication of preliminary approval;
(2) where registration was approved after expiry of the publication period for preliminary approval following refusal-review proceedings: the date on which the refusal-review decision was made;
(3) where registration was approved following opposition proceedings or review of non-registration: the date on which the decision approving registration or the decision on review of non-registration was made.
Article 4. Where a party brings an administrative action challenging a decision on review of cancellation made by the trademark authority under the State Council, the Trademark Law in force when the applicant filed the request to cancel the disputed trademark, or when the trademark authority under the State Council initiated cancellation proceedings ex officio, shall apply.
Article 5. Where a party brings an administrative action challenging an administrative penalty imposed by the trademark authority under the State Council or a trademark enforcement authority, the Trademark Law in force when the unlawful conduct occurred shall apply. However, if the Trademark Law in force when the administrative penalty decision was made provides for a lighter penalty or no longer treats the conduct as unlawful, that law shall apply.
Article 6. Where a party brings an administrative action challenging any of the trademark administrative acts referred to in Articles 2 to 5 of these Provisions, procedural issues concerning the review of the administrative act shall be governed by the Trademark Law in force when that act was made.
Article 7. In determining whether a request for declaration of invalidity was filed after expiry of the applicable time limit, the Trademark Law in force on the date of publication of the approved registration shall apply. Where the disputed trademark had been published as approved for registration for less than one year when the 2001 amended Trademark Law took effect, the five-year time limit for requesting a declaration of invalidity under the 2001 amended Trademark Law shall apply.
Where the date of publication of preliminary approval of the disputed trademark falls before the 2026 amended Trademark Law takes effect, the three-month opposition period under the 2019 amended Trademark Law shall apply.
Article 8. These Provisions shall take effect on 1 January 2027.
These Provisions shall apply to first-instance and second-instance cases that remain pending before the people's courts after these Provisions take effect.
Upon the entry into force of these Provisions, the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Issues Concerning Jurisdiction and the Scope of Application of Law in the Trial of Trademark Cases (2020 Amendment) (Judicial Interpretation [2002] No. 1) and the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Issues Concerning Jurisdiction and the Application of Law in Trademark Cases Following the Entry into Force of the Decision to Amend the Trademark Law (2020 Amendment) (Judicial Interpretation [2014] No. 4) shall be repealed simultaneously.
Decision of the Supreme People's Court on Amending the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Cases Involving Trademark Registration and Validity (Draft for Public Comment)
In accordance with the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and other relevant laws, and in light of judicial practice in trademark cases, the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Cases Involving Trademark Registration and Validity are amended as follows:
1. In Article 1, 'administrative acts including trademark refusal review, review of non-registration, review of cancellation, declaration of invalidity and review of invalidation' is replaced with 'administrative acts including decisions on review of trademark refusal, decisions on review of non-registration, decisions on review of cancellation, rulings on requests for declaration of invalidity, and decisions on review of invalidation'.
2. Paragraph 1 of Article 3 is amended to read: 'The expressions in Article 15(1) of the Trademark Law, namely signs identical with or similar to the name, flag or emblem of the Communist Party of China, decorations, or distinctive elements associated with major theoretical achievements or historical events, and in Article 15(2), namely signs identical with or similar to the name, national flag, national emblem, national anthem, military flag, military emblem, military anthem or decorations of the People's Republic of China, mean that the trademark sign as a whole is identical with or similar to the foregoing names, symbols or other elements.'
In paragraph 2, 'the state name of the People's Republic of China' is replaced with 'the names specified in Article 15(1) and (2) of the Trademark Law'.
3. In Article 4, 'quality' is replaced with 'quality, manufacturing process and raw materials'.
4. In Article 6, 'place name' is replaced with 'name', and 'the circumstances referred to in Article 10(2)' is replaced with 'the circumstances under Article 16(1) in which a sign may not be registered or used as a trademark'.
5. In Article 13, 'registrant of a well-known trademark' is replaced with 'holder of a well-known trademark'; 'cited trademark' in items (1) and (5) is replaced with 'trademark for which protection is sought'; and after 'in determining whether use of the disputed trademark is sufficient to cause the relevant public to believe that it has a certain degree of association with the well-known trademark,' the following is added: 'thereby weakening the distinctiveness of the well-known trademark, damaging its market reputation, or taking unfair advantage of its market reputation,'.
6. In Article 18, 'prior rights' is replaced with 'prior lawful rights and interests'.
7. In Articles 21 and 22, 'prior interests' is replaced with 'prior lawful rights and interests'.
8. In Article 23, 'by improper means' is replaced with 'intentionally'.
9. In Article 27(2), 'and' is inserted before 'where, upon examination, there were grounds requiring recusal but the person concerned failed to recuse himself or herself'.
10. Article 28 is amended to read: 'When hearing a case concerning a decision on review of refusal, a decision on review of non-registration or a ruling on invalidation made by the trademark authority under the State Council pursuant to Article 20 of the Trademark Law, the people's court shall determine the case based on the factual circumstances existing when the challenged decision or ruling was made.'
(Alternative 2: Article 28 is amended to read: 'Where the grounds on which the trademark authority under the State Council refused, declined to approve registration of, or declared invalid the disputed trademark cease to exist before the people's court issues a legally effective judgment in the trademark registration and validity case, the people's court may set aside the relevant administrative decision on the basis of the new facts and order the trademark authority under the State Council to make a new decision in light of the changed circumstances. Where such grounds cease to exist only after the legally effective judgment has been issued, and a party seeks retrial solely on that basis, the people's court shall rule not to accept the application for retrial.')
11. Article 31 is amended to read: 'These Provisions shall take effect on 1 January 2027.'
A second paragraph is added: 'Where a people's court rendered a legally effective judgment before these Provisions took effect, these Provisions shall not apply to an application for retrial filed after their effective date or to a retrial ordered by a people's court under the adjudication supervision procedure.'
12. References to the 'China National Intellectual Property Administration' in the relevant provisions are replaced with 'the trademark authority under the State Council'.
13. References to article numbers of the Trademark Law shall be adjusted correspondingly in light of the amended Trademark Law.
This Decision shall take effect on 1 January 2027.
The Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Cases Involving Trademark Registration and Validity shall be amended accordingly pursuant to this Decision and republished.
Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Cases Involving Trademark Registration and Validity (Draft for Public Comment)
These Provisions are formulated in accordance with the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and other relevant laws, and in light of judicial practice, for the purpose of properly adjudicating administrative cases concerning trademark registration and validity.
Article 1. For the purposes of these Provisions, administrative cases concerning trademark registration and validity refer to cases in which an administrative counterpart or an interested party brings an action before a people's court because it disagrees with an administrative act of the trademark authority under the State Council, including a decision on review of trademark refusal, a decision on review of non-registration, a decision on review of cancellation, a ruling on a request for declaration of invalidity, or a decision on review of invalidation.
Article 2. The scope of judicial review of an administrative act concerning trademark registration and validity shall generally be determined by the plaintiff's claims and grounds. Where the plaintiff has not raised a particular issue in the proceedings but the relevant finding of the trademark authority under the State Council is manifestly improper, the people's court may, after hearing the parties' submissions, examine that issue and render a decision.
Article 3. The expressions in Article 15(1) of the Trademark Law, namely signs identical with or similar to the name, flag or emblem of the Communist Party of China, decorations, or distinctive elements associated with major theoretical achievements or historical events, and in Article 15(2), namely signs identical with or similar to the name, national flag, national emblem, national anthem, military flag, military emblem, military anthem or decorations of the People's Republic of China, mean that the trademark sign as a whole is identical with or similar to the foregoing names, symbols or other elements.
Where a sign contains a name or other element specified in Article 15(1) or (2) of the Trademark Law but, taken as a whole, is neither identical nor similar to it, the people's court may find that the sign falls within Article 15(9) of the Trademark Law if its registration as a trademark could impair national dignity.
Article 4. Where a trademark sign, or any element of it, is deceptive and is likely to mislead the public as to characteristics such as the quality, manufacturing process or raw materials of the goods, or as to their place of origin, the people's court shall uphold a determination by the trademark authority under the State Council that the sign falls within Article 15(8) of the Trademark Law.
Article 5. Where a trademark sign, or any element of it, may have an adverse or negative impact on public interests or public order in China, the people's court may find that it has 'other adverse effects' within the meaning of Article 15(9) of the Trademark Law.
An application to register as a trademark the name or similar identifier of a public figure in fields such as politics, economics, culture, religion or ethnic affairs shall fall within the 'other adverse effects' referred to in the preceding paragraph.
Article 6. Where a trademark sign consists of the name of an administrative division at or above county level, or the name of a foreign place known to the public, together with other elements, and the sign as a whole conveys a meaning distinguishable from the geographical name, the people's court shall find that it does not fall within the circumstances under Article 16(1) of the Trademark Law in which a sign may not be registered or used as a trademark.
Article 7. In determining whether the disputed trademark is distinctive, the people's court shall assess, from the perspective of the ordinary understanding of the relevant public for the designated goods, whether the trademark as a whole has distinctive character. Where a trademark contains descriptive elements but remains distinctive as a whole, or where a descriptive sign is presented in a distinctive manner such that the relevant public can use it to identify the commercial origin of the goods, it shall be found to have distinctive character.
Article 8. Where the disputed trademark is a foreign-language sign, the people's court shall determine its distinctiveness based on the ordinary understanding of the relevant public in China. Although the inherent meaning of the foreign-language wording may affect its distinctiveness for the designated goods, the sign may be found distinctive where the relevant public has a low level of awareness of that meaning and can use the sign to identify the commercial origin of the goods.
Article 9. Where an application seeks registration of a three-dimensional trademark consisting solely of the shape of the goods themselves or part of that shape, and the relevant public would generally not readily perceive it as an indication of commercial origin, the three-dimensional sign lacks distinctive character as a trademark.
The fact that the shape was independently created or first used by the applicant does not, by itself, establish distinctiveness as a trademark.
Where a sign referred to in paragraph 1 has acquired, through long-term or extensive use, the ability to enable the relevant public to identify the commercial origin of the goods, it may be found to have distinctive character.
Article 10. Where the disputed trademark is a legally prescribed name of the goods or a customary name of the goods, the people's court shall find it to be a generic name under Article 17(1)(1) of the Trademark Law. A name that is generic for the goods under laws, national standards or industry standards shall be found to be a generic name. A name that the relevant public generally understands as referring to a category of goods shall be found to be a customary generic name. Inclusion of a name as a product name in professional reference works, dictionaries or similar publications may be considered in determining whether it is a customary generic name.
A customary generic name shall generally be assessed by reference to the ordinary understanding of the relevant public nationwide. For goods associated with a particular relevant market because of historical tradition, local customs, geographical environment or other factors, a name commonly used for those goods within that market may be found to be generic.
Where the applicant for the disputed trademark knew or should have known that the sign it sought to register was a customary name for the goods in a particular region, the people's court may treat the applied-for sign as a generic name.
In determining whether the disputed trademark is a generic name, the people's court shall generally consider the factual circumstances existing on the filing date. If the relevant facts changed by the time registration was approved, the determination shall be made by reference to the factual circumstances existing at the time of approval of registration.
Article 11. Where a trademark sign merely or primarily describes or indicates the quality, principal raw materials, function, purpose, weight, quantity, place of origin or other characteristics of the goods for which it is used, the people's court shall find that it falls within Article 17(1)(2) of the Trademark Law. A trademark sign, or an element of it, that merely suggests characteristics of the goods but does not impair its function of identifying commercial origin does not fall within that provision.
Article 12. Where, pursuant to Article 21(1) of the Trademark Law, a party contends that the disputed trademark is a reproduction, imitation or translation of its unregistered well-known trademark and therefore should not be registered or should be declared invalid, the people's court shall consider the following factors, as well as their interaction, in determining whether confusion is likely:
(1) the degree of similarity between the trademark signs;
(2) the degree of similarity between the goods;
(3) the distinctiveness and reputation of the trademark for which protection is sought;
(4) the level of attention of the relevant public; and
(5) other relevant factors.
The trademark applicant's subjective intent and evidence of actual confusion may be considered as reference factors in assessing the likelihood of confusion.
Article 13. Where, pursuant to Article 21(2) of the Trademark Law, a party contends that the disputed trademark is a reproduction, imitation or translation of its well-known trademark and therefore should not be registered or should be declared invalid, the people's court shall consider the following factors in determining whether use of the disputed trademark is sufficient to cause the relevant public to believe that it has a certain degree of association with the well-known trademark, thereby weakening the distinctiveness of the well-known trademark, damaging its market reputation, or taking unfair advantage of its market reputation, misleading the public and potentially prejudicing the interests of the holder of the well-known trademark:
(1) the distinctiveness and reputation of the trademark for which protection is sought;
(2) whether the trademark signs are sufficiently similar;
(3) the goods designated for use;
(4) the degree of overlap between the relevant publics and their level of attention; and
(5) lawful use by other market participants of signs similar to the trademark for which protection is sought, and other relevant factors.
Article 14. Where a party contends that the disputed trademark is a reproduction, imitation or translation of its registered well-known trademark and therefore should not be registered or should be declared invalid, and the trademark authority under the State Council has upheld that contention in a decision under Article 20 of the Trademark Law, the people's court may, after hearing the parties' submissions, adjudicate the case under Article 20 if the disputed trademark has been registered for less than five years. If it has been registered for five years or more, Article 21(2) of the Trademark Law shall apply.
Article 15. Where, without authorisation, a trademark agent or representative, or an agent or representative in a distribution, agency or other sales-agency relationship, applies in its own name to register a trademark identical with or similar to the principal's or represented party's trademark for identical or similar goods, the people's court shall adjudicate the case under Article 22(1) of the Trademark Law.
Where, during negotiations to establish an agency or representative relationship, an agent or representative referred to in the preceding paragraph applies to register the principal's or represented party's trademark, the people's court shall adjudicate the case under Article 22(1) of the Trademark Law.
Where the trademark applicant has a specific personal relationship with the agent or representative, such as a family relationship, it may be presumed that the application was made in bad-faith collusion with that agent or representative, and the people's court shall adjudicate the case under Article 22(1) of the Trademark Law.
Article 16. The following circumstances may constitute an 'other relationship' under Article 22(2) of the Trademark Law:
(1) a family relationship between the trademark applicant and the prior user;
(2) an employment relationship between the trademark applicant and the prior user;
(3) proximity between the business addresses of the trademark applicant and the prior user;
(4) prior negotiations between the trademark applicant and the prior user to establish an agency or representative relationship, although no such relationship was ultimately formed;
(5) prior negotiations between the trademark applicant and the prior user to enter into a contract or business relationship, although no contract or business relationship was ultimately established.
Article 17. Where an interested party in a geographical indication relies on Article 23 of the Trademark Law to contend that another party's trademark should not be registered or should be declared invalid, and the goods designated by the disputed trademark are not the same as the geographical-indication goods, the people's court shall uphold the claim if the interested party can prove that use of the disputed trademark on those goods would nevertheless be likely to cause the relevant public to mistakenly believe that the goods originate from the region concerned and therefore possess a particular quality, reputation or other characteristic.
Where the geographical indication has been registered as a collective mark or certification mark, the owner or an interested party of that collective or certification mark may choose to assert rights under this Article or, separately, under Articles 20 or 21 of the Trademark Law or other applicable provisions.
Article 18. 'Prior lawful rights and interests' under Article 24 of the Trademark Law include civil rights or other lawful interests deserving protection that a party enjoyed before the filing date of the disputed trademark. If those prior lawful rights and interests no longer exist when registration of the disputed trademark is approved, this shall not affect registration of the disputed trademark.
Article 19. Where a party contends that the disputed trademark infringes its prior copyright, the people's court shall, in accordance with the Copyright Law and other relevant provisions, examine whether the subject matter relied upon constitutes a copyright work, whether the party is the copyright owner or another interested party entitled to assert copyright, and whether the disputed trademark infringes that copyright.
Where the trademark sign constitutes a work protected by copyright, design drafts, originals, contracts through which rights were acquired, copyright registration certificates issued before the filing date of the disputed trademark, and other materials concerning the trademark sign may serve as prima facie evidence of copyright ownership.
Trademark gazettes, trademark registration certificates and similar materials may serve as prima facie evidence that the trademark applicant is an interested party entitled to assert copyright in the trademark sign.
Article 20. Where a party contends that the disputed trademark infringes his or her right to a name, and the relevant public understands the trademark sign as referring to that natural person and is likely to believe that goods bearing the trademark were authorised by that person or have a specific connection with that person, the people's court shall find that the trademark infringes the person's right to a name.
Where a party asserts a right to a name in a specific designation such as a pen name, stage name or translated name, and that designation has acquired a certain degree of reputation and a stable association with the natural person such that the relevant public uses it to refer to that person, the people's court shall uphold the claim.
Article 21. Where a trade name claimed by a party has a certain degree of market reputation, and another party applies without permission to register an identical or similar trademark in circumstances likely to cause the relevant public to be confused as to the commercial origin of the goods, the people's court shall uphold the claim that the trade name constitutes a prior lawful right or interest.
The preceding paragraph shall also apply where a party relies on an abbreviated enterprise name that has a certain degree of market reputation and has formed a stable association with the enterprise.
Article 22. Where a party contends that the disputed trademark infringes copyright in the image of a fictional character, the people's court shall conduct its examination in accordance with Article 19 of these Provisions.
For a work still within its term of copyright protection, where the title of the work, the name of a character in the work or a similar element has a high degree of reputation, and use of that element as a trademark for relevant goods is likely to cause the relevant public to mistakenly believe that such use has been authorised by the right holder or that there is a specific connection with the right holder, the people's court shall uphold a claim that the element constitutes a prior lawful right or interest.
Article 23. Where a prior user contends that the trademark applicant intentionally pre-empted registration of a trademark that the prior user had already used and that had acquired a certain influence, intentional pre-emptive registration may be presumed if the prior-used trademark had acquired a certain influence and the applicant knew or should have known of it, unless the applicant proves that it had no bad-faith intent to exploit the goodwill of the prior-used trademark.
Where the prior user proves that its earlier trademark had been used continuously for a certain period, in a certain geographical area, with a certain sales volume or level of advertising and promotion, the people's court may find that the trademark had acquired a certain influence.
Where the prior user contends that the applicant violated Article 24 of the Trademark Law by seeking to register the prior-used trademark with a certain influence for dissimilar goods, the people's court shall not uphold the claim.
Article 24. Where conduct other than deception disrupts the trademark registration order, harms public interests, improperly occupies public resources or seeks improper benefits, the people's court may find that it constitutes 'other improper means' under Article 19(2) of the Trademark Law.
Article 25. In determining whether the applicant for the disputed trademark has 'maliciously registered' another party's well-known trademark, the people's court shall assess the applicant's subjective intent by considering comprehensively the reputation of the cited trademark, the applicant's reasons for applying for the disputed trademark, and the circumstances in which the disputed trademark has been used. Where the cited trademark enjoys a high degree of reputation and the applicant has no legitimate reason, the people's court may presume that the registration constitutes 'malicious registration' within the meaning of Article 51(1) of the Trademark Law.
Article 26. Use by the trademark owner itself, use by another party with the owner's authorisation, and other use that is not contrary to the trademark owner's will may all constitute use within the meaning of Article 57(2) of the Trademark Law.
Where the trademark sign actually used differs only slightly from the registered trademark and the difference does not alter its distinctive features, such use may be treated as use of the registered trademark.
A transfer or licence, without actual use of the registered trademark, or merely publishing trademark registration information or declaring ownership of the exclusive right to use the registered trademark, shall not be regarded as trademark use.
Where the trademark owner genuinely intends to use the trademark and has made the necessary preparations for actual use, but has not yet used the registered trademark due to other objective reasons, the people's court may find that there is a justifiable reason for non-use.
Article 27. The people's court shall uphold a party's contention that any of the following circumstances involving the trademark authority under the State Council constitutes a 'violation of statutory procedure' under Article 70(3) of the Administrative Procedure Law:
(1) failure to address a ground for review raised by a party where that omission materially affects the party's rights;
(2) failure to inform the parties of the members of the collegial panel in the review proceedings, where, upon examination, grounds for mandatory recusal existed but the relevant member did not recuse himself or herself;
(3) failure to notify an eligible party to participate in the review proceedings where that party expressly raises an objection; or
(4) other violations of statutory procedure.
Article 28. When hearing a case concerning a decision on review of refusal, a decision on review of non-registration or a ruling on invalidation made by the trademark authority under the State Council pursuant to Article 20 of the Trademark Law, the people's court shall determine the case based on the factual circumstances existing when the challenged decision or ruling was made.
(Alternative 2: Where the grounds on which the trademark authority under the State Council refused, declined to approve registration of, or declared invalid the disputed trademark cease to exist before the people's court issues a legally effective judgment in the trademark registration and validity case, the people's court may set aside the relevant administrative decision on the basis of the new facts and order the trademark authority under the State Council to make a new decision in light of the changed circumstances. Where such grounds cease to exist only after the legally effective judgment has been issued, and a party seeks retrial solely on that basis, the people's court shall rule not to accept the application for retrial.)
Article 29. A request for review based on evidence newly discovered after the original administrative act, evidence that could not be obtained for objective reasons during the original administrative proceedings or could not be submitted within the prescribed time limit, or a new legal basis, shall not be regarded as a repeated request for review 'based on the same facts and grounds'.
Where, in refusal-review proceedings, the trademark authority under the State Council allows an applied-for trademark to proceed to publication for preliminary approval on the ground that it is not identical with or similar to a cited trademark in respect of identical or similar goods, the following circumstances shall not be treated as a repeated request for review 'based on the same facts and grounds':
(1) the owner of or an interested party in the cited trademark files an opposition based on that cited trademark, the trademark authority under the State Council upholds the opposition, and the applicant for the opposed trademark seeks review;
(2) after the applied-for trademark is registered, the owner of or an interested party in the cited trademark files a request to declare it invalid on the basis of that cited trademark.
Article 30. Where a legally effective judgment of a people's court has clearly determined the relevant facts and the applicable law, and an administrative counterpart or interested party brings an action against a new decision made by the trademark authority under the State Council pursuant to that judgment, the people's court shall rule not to accept the action; if the action has already been accepted, the people's court shall dismiss it.
Article 31. These Provisions shall take effect on 1 January 2027.
Where a people's court rendered a legally effective judgment before these Provisions took effect, these Provisions shall not apply to an application for retrial filed after their effective date or to a retrial ordered by a people's court under the adjudication supervision procedure.
