China’s New Trademark Law and What It Means for U.S. Brands Doing Business Overseas

China has approved one of the most significant revisions of its trademark system in decades, creating important changes for American companies that sell products, manufacture goods, license intellectual property, operate online, or plan to enter the Chinese market.

The revised Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China was adopted on June 26, 2026. It is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2027.

That timing matters.

U.S. companies should not treat every provision discussed in this article as already controlling current trademark disputes in China. Until the new law becomes effective, the existing framework continues to govern. However, businesses with Chinese trademark portfolios have only a limited period to review registrations, monitoring programs, licensing arrangements, evidence of use, and enforcement procedures before the revised regime begins.

China’s changes are particularly significant because trademark protection there does not operate exactly like trademark protection in the United States.

American businesses often become familiar with U.S. trademark concepts built around commercial use, priority, consumer recognition, and rights developed through marketplace activity. China has traditionally placed much greater emphasis on registration and operates under a first-to-file system.

That difference can surprise companies entering China after building a successful U.S. brand.

A business that owns a federal trademark registration with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office does not automatically receive exclusive trademark rights in China. Chinese protection normally requires a separate filing, whether directly in China or through an international registration mechanism such as the Madrid System.

The 2026 revision does not eliminate that fundamental reality. Instead, it attempts to address several persistent weaknesses in China’s trademark environment while updating the system for online commerce, digital branding, abusive registrations, nontraditional trademarks, and modern enforcement.

For U.S. businesses, the practical message is clear: international trademark strategy should begin before entering a foreign market, not after a conflict develops.

Why China’s Trademark Law Matters to American Companies

China remains deeply connected to U.S. supply chains and international commerce.

A company does not necessarily need Chinese retail stores to face trademark exposure there. An American business may manufacture products through Chinese factories, source components from suppliers, sell through cross-border e-commerce platforms, license technology, attend Chinese trade shows, or work with distributors located in China.

Each situation can create intellectual property considerations.

A startup that manufactures its products in Shenzhen, for example, may believe that trademark protection can wait until it begins selling directly to Chinese customers. That can be dangerous.

Another party could apply to register the company’s English-language brand, a Chinese transliteration of the brand, a product name, or a related logo before the American company does.

The situation can become even more complicated if a local distributor, supplier, former business partner, or unrelated trademark applicant secures registrations first.

China has spent years attempting to limit malicious trademark registrations and trademark hoarding. The revised law significantly expands that effort.

The official China National Intellectual Property Administration explanation states that the revision targets applications filed without an intent to use and applications that clearly exceed normal production and business needs. It also adds stronger consequences for malicious filings that cause adverse effects.

These changes could provide foreign businesses with additional tools against trademark abuse, but they do not replace preventive registration.

For most companies, preventing a dispute remains preferable to trying to recover a brand after another party has filed for it.

China Has Formally Approved the New Trademark Law

China’s revised law was adopted by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on June 26, 2026.

According to the official CNIPA publication, the revised statute takes effect on January 1, 2027. Existing trademarks registered before implementation remain valid.

The revision is extensive.

The law expands to nine chapters and 87 articles and restructures important provisions dealing with trademark registration, trademark use, well-known marks, bad-faith applications, trademark agencies, enforcement, and litigation.

American companies evaluating the changes should therefore distinguish between three questions.

First, what does current Chinese law require today?

Second, what will change when the revised law becomes effective on January 1, 2027?

Third, what should a business do now to prepare?

For U.S. companies already operating internationally, the third question may be the most commercially important.

Bad-Faith Trademark Applications Face Stronger Scrutiny

Trademark squatting has long been one of the most discussed risks for foreign companies entering China.

A squatter may identify a successful foreign brand that has not yet filed in China and attempt to register the mark first.

In other situations, applicants may file enormous numbers of marks they have no genuine intention to use, hoping that legitimate businesses will eventually purchase registrations or become entangled in opposition and invalidation proceedings.

China’s revised Trademark Law strengthens its attack on this conduct.

The new framework provides that trademark applications filed without an intention to use and that clearly exceed normal production or business needs should not be registered.

The law also creates administrative consequences for certain malicious applications.

According to CNIPA’s official explanation, applicants engaging in malicious trademark registration that causes adverse effects may receive a warning and potentially a fine of up to RMB 100,000.

For American brands, this development could become particularly important when dealing with serial trademark squatters.

Previously, the legitimate brand owner might have been forced to spend significant time and money challenging questionable applications one by one.

More direct administrative penalties could increase the cost of large-scale abusive filing strategies.

Still, companies should not assume the reforms make trademark squatting disappear.

The strongest strategy usually remains early registration combined with continuous monitoring.

First-to-File Risk Still Requires Early Planning

One of the most important lessons for U.S. companies is that success in America does not automatically reserve a trademark in China.

A U.S. registration protects rights under U.S. law.

It does not by itself create a Chinese trademark registration.

China’s registration system makes timing especially important.

Consider a U.S. consumer-products company that develops a distinctive brand in California and begins selling nationwide. The company later decides to manufacture products in China and eventually enter the Asian market.

If it postpones its Chinese trademark filing until its international expansion begins, someone else may already have identified the brand.

The American company could then face an opposition, invalidation proceeding, negotiation, rebranding decision, or other costly dispute.

Trademark planning should therefore be connected to business planning.

Companies should review potential markets before public expansion announcements, major product launches, distributor negotiations, trade shows, crowdfunding campaigns, or manufacturing arrangements reveal valuable branding to the market.

American inventors and businesses dealing with international intellectual property should think about trademarks as one part of a larger protection strategy. Legal Journal’s coverage of AI-Assisted Inventions in 2026 similarly illustrates why businesses increasingly need coordinated patent, trademark, copyright, and confidentiality strategies rather than isolated filings.

The Opposition Period Will Become Shorter

One procedural change deserves particular attention from companies that monitor trademark filings.

Under the revised law, the trademark opposition period will be reduced from three months to two months.

That may sound like a minor procedural adjustment.

For global companies managing hundreds or thousands of marks, it is significant.

A trademark-watch system must identify potentially conflicting applications. Someone must then evaluate the applicant, compare the goods and services, determine whether opposition is justified, gather evidence, consult local counsel, receive internal authorization, and prepare the opposition.

Reducing the window by approximately one month compresses that entire process.

Businesses that rely on periodic manual reviews may therefore need to modernize their monitoring programs before January 2027.

A company should know who receives trademark alerts, who decides whether a filing presents a meaningful threat, who contacts Chinese counsel, and how quickly the necessary evidence can be collected.

International trademark monitoring is increasingly becoming a real-time risk-management function rather than an occasional administrative task.

Internet Use Will Be Expressly Recognized

The revised Trademark Law expressly recognizes trademark use occurring through the internet and other information networks.

That change reflects how dramatically commerce has moved online.

A brand may now reach Chinese consumers through marketplace listings, social media, livestream commerce, online advertising, mobile apps, digital storefronts, and cross-border e-commerce without operating a traditional physical retail network.

The revised statute’s definition of trademark use specifically includes internet-based use.

For American businesses, that makes digital records increasingly important.

Screenshots, online advertisements, e-commerce listings, transaction histories, campaign records, invoices, product pages, distributor materials, and other evidence may help document how a mark has been commercially used.

Businesses should not assume, however, that every online appearance automatically constitutes legally sufficient trademark use.

The context still matters.

The mark generally needs to function as an indicator of the source of goods or services.

A company preserving evidence should therefore maintain records showing not simply that the brand appeared online, but how it was used commercially.

Evidence of Genuine Trademark Use Will Become More Important

Another major theme of China’s reform is reducing inactive registrations.

Trademark registers can become cluttered when businesses or speculators secure marks and leave them unused.

China already has mechanisms allowing cancellation based on three consecutive years of nonuse.

The revised law adds another significant feature: the trademark authority may have increased ability to initiate cancellation of registrations that have not been used for three consecutive years without a valid reason.

That makes recordkeeping especially important for foreign companies.

Imagine a U.S. company registers a Chinese trademark in preparation for future expansion but does not immediately launch locally.

Years later, another party challenges the registration for nonuse.

The company may then need to establish qualifying trademark use or a legally sufficient reason for nonuse.

Evidence generated during normal business operations can become essential.

Rather than trying to reconstruct years of activity after a challenge arrives, companies should maintain organized trademark-use records as part of their intellectual property management.

That practice can be especially valuable for businesses using distributors, licensees, online sellers, or manufacturing partners.

Dynamic Trademarks Become Registrable

The revised law also expands the types of signs that may qualify for trademark registration.

CNIPA states that dynamic signs are expressly added to the categories of potentially registrable trademarks.

This development reflects changing technology and advertising.

Modern branding does not always consist of a static word or logo.

Companies increasingly use animated introductions, moving visual sequences, app-launch animations, digital interfaces, motion graphics, and other recurring visual identifiers.

For technology companies, media companies, gaming businesses, streaming services, digital platforms, and consumer electronics brands, movement itself may become a recognizable source identifier.

However, the ability to apply for a dynamic mark does not mean every animation will qualify.

Distinctiveness remains important.

Certain functional characteristics or effects arising from the nature of the goods may also be excluded.

Businesses interested in protecting nontraditional branding should therefore consider whether a motion element genuinely identifies commercial source rather than merely providing decoration or functionality.

Chinese-Language Versions of U.S. Brands Deserve Attention

A frequently overlooked problem for American companies is the Chinese-language version of a brand.

Consumers, distributors, journalists, and online communities may create Chinese names for foreign brands even when the company has never formally selected one.

Over time, an unofficial Chinese name can become commercially important.

If the company has not protected that name, another party may attempt to register it.

American businesses entering China should therefore evaluate several forms of protection rather than focusing only on an English word mark.

The portfolio might include the original English name, logo, Chinese transliteration, Chinese translation, selected Chinese brand name, major product names, and other commercially important identifiers.

The correct approach depends on the business.

A technology company may require different coverage from a fashion company, restaurant chain, pharmaceutical manufacturer, or software platform.

The larger principle is consistent: localization and trademark registration should be coordinated.

Trademark Classes Can Create Unexpected Gaps

International trademark systems divide goods and services into classes.

A company may believe that registering its core mark gives it complete protection, only to discover that another party holds a similar registration in a commercially adjacent category.

China also makes extensive use of subclass concepts when evaluating similarity between goods and services.

That can create surprises for U.S. applicants accustomed to domestic trademark practice.

For example, a fashion company might file for its core apparel products but overlook bags, jewelry, cosmetics, online retail services, downloadable virtual goods, or other categories associated with brand expansion.

A technology company might protect software but neglect related consulting, cloud services, hardware, education, or digital-content categories.

The goal should not be indiscriminate filing across every possible category.

That approach becomes especially problematic as China strengthens rules against excessive registrations unrelated to legitimate business needs.

Instead, companies should build a filing strategy based on actual products, planned expansion, foreseeable commercial extensions, licensing plans, and known areas of counterfeiting risk.

Well-Known Marks Receive Broader Protection

The revised law also changes provisions relating to well-known trademarks.

CNIPA explains that protection against registration on dissimilar goods or services will no longer depend in the same way on whether the well-known mark was already registered in China.

This could be valuable for internationally prominent brands.

A famous U.S. brand might face an application attempting to exploit its reputation in an unrelated category.

Broader treatment of well-known marks can provide additional avenues for challenging such conduct.

However, companies should not treat well-known status as a substitute for registration.

Establishing that a mark is well known can require substantial evidence and fact-specific analysis.

Ordinary businesses, startups, and even recognizable U.S. brands may face uncertainty over whether they satisfy the necessary standard.

Registration therefore remains the more predictable foundation of an international trademark portfolio.

Trademark Agents Face Tighter Regulation

Foreign companies without a habitual residence or business establishment in China generally must work through a qualified Chinese trademark agency when handling Chinese trademark matters.

That makes the quality and conduct of agents particularly important.

The revised law strengthens obligations affecting trademark agencies and practitioners, including professional-conduct requirements, filing restrictions, conflict issues, recordkeeping, and penalties for improper behavior.

CNIPA’s summary states that the reforms strengthen supervision of agencies and individual trademark practitioners and expand penalties for certain misconduct.

For U.S. companies, agent selection should therefore be treated as more than a price comparison.

Businesses should understand who controls their portfolio, who receives official communications, how instructions are documented, who maintains deadlines, and how ownership information is recorded.

The trademark registration should belong to the correct legal entity.

That may seem obvious, yet international expansion can involve subsidiaries, distributors, joint ventures, contractors, agencies, or local partners.

Registering a core trademark in the wrong entity’s name can create major problems later.

Enforcement Tools Are Also Being Strengthened

Registration matters only if a company can enforce its rights.

China’s revised law strengthens several enforcement mechanisms.

The law addresses coordination between administrative trademark enforcement and potential criminal cases. It also expands powers involving relevant documents, records, electronic data, and preservation of evidence.

The revised framework additionally clarifies that reasonable expenses incurred by a rights holder while stopping infringement may be included in damages calculations.

These provisions can matter for U.S. companies confronting counterfeiting, unauthorized sales, misleading branding, or commercial impersonation.

China’s trademark enforcement system offers several potential channels, depending on the dispute.

A business may consider administrative action, civil litigation, customs measures, online-platform complaints, criminal enforcement in serious counterfeiting situations, or combinations of these approaches.

The appropriate strategy depends heavily on facts and should be evaluated with qualified local counsel.

The New Law Does Not Replace a Global IP Strategy

International brands frequently make the mistake of treating trademarks, patents, copyright, trade secrets, and contracts as separate legal departments.

Modern businesses rarely operate that way in practice.

A single product may include a patented technical invention, copyrighted software, confidential manufacturing methods, product-design rights, registered trademarks, domain names, packaging, and valuable customer data.

An international launch therefore creates overlapping risks.

Legal Journal’s discussion of AI Copyright After Thaler demonstrates a similar principle in the U.S. context: different categories of intellectual property protect different aspects of a commercial product.

A company expanding into China should map those rights before disclosure or launch.

Trademark registration protects branding.

Patent protection may protect technical inventions.

Copyright may protect qualifying creative expression.

Trade-secret protection depends heavily on maintaining secrecy.

Contracts can define confidentiality, ownership, licensing, manufacturing rights, and restrictions on business partners.

The protections work best when they are coordinated.

What U.S. Brands Should Do Before January 1, 2027

The months before implementation give American businesses an opportunity to review their Chinese trademark strategies.

A useful review should begin with the actual brand portfolio.

Which English-language marks are registered?

Are Chinese-language versions protected?

Are important product names covered?

Are registrations held by the correct corporate entity?

Do the covered goods and services match the company’s current business?

Are renewal deadlines approaching?

Has the company accumulated defensible evidence of use?

Businesses should also examine their monitoring systems.

Because the opposition period is expected to shorten from three months to two months, slow internal approval processes could become more dangerous.

A trademark alert sitting unread in an inbox for several weeks may consume a significant portion of the available response period.

Finally, businesses should review relationships with local partners.

Distributor agreements, manufacturing agreements, licensing arrangements, employment documents, and joint-venture contracts should make intellectual property ownership clear.

A valuable trademark should not accidentally become controlled by the company that happened to file it locally.

Official Guidance Should Remain the Starting Point

Because China’s revised law is new and implementation will continue developing, businesses should distinguish statutory text from commentary and prediction.

The China National Intellectual Property Administration maintains an official resource covering the 2026 revision, including the law itself and explanations of the major changes.

Readers following this issue can review CNIPA’s official Trademark Law 2026 revision materials.

Companies should also watch for implementing regulations, examination guidance, administrative practices, and court decisions interpreting the new provisions after January 1, 2027.

The wording of legislation establishes the framework.

Actual enforcement will show how that framework operates in practice.

What China’s Trademark Reform Means for American Businesses

China’s new Trademark Law should not be understood simply as another foreign legal update.

For U.S. businesses with international ambitions, it is a reminder that brand ownership becomes more complicated the moment commerce crosses borders.

The revised framework strengthens restrictions against malicious applications, recognizes internet-based trademark use, allows dynamic signs to enter the trademark system, enhances oversight of trademark agencies, addresses unused registrations, expands certain protections involving well-known marks, shortens the opposition period, and strengthens enforcement procedures.

Some of these changes may benefit legitimate foreign brand owners.

Others impose new procedural and compliance pressures.

The shorter opposition window, for example, means companies must react more quickly.

The stronger emphasis on legitimate commercial needs and use means businesses should avoid filing strategies disconnected from genuine commercial plans.

Greater recognition of online use may help modern digital businesses, but companies should still maintain organized evidence.

Most importantly, an American trademark portfolio should not end at the U.S. border.

Businesses that manufacture, sell, advertise, license, distribute, or expect to expand internationally should consider trademark protection early in the commercial planning process.

Waiting until a trademark dispute occurs can turn a routine filing decision into an expensive cross-border problem.

China’s revised law officially takes effect on January 1, 2027.

For U.S. companies, however, the practical preparation period has already begun.

Disclaimer: This article is for general educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute U.S., Chinese, or international legal advice. Trademark rights and filing strategies depend on specific facts, jurisdictions, business activities, and subsequent legal developments.