China’s National Intellectual Property Administration Releases Draft Revisions to Trademark Examination and Adjudication Guidelines for Public Comment

The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has issued the “Trademark Examination and Adjudication Guidelines (Draft for Public Comment) (商标审查审理指南（征求意见稿）).” The draft was released on September 28, 2026, and CNIPA is accepting comments through November 12, 2026, by email, fax, or mail. According to CNIPA’s accompanying notice, the revision is intended to implement the newly revised Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China, which was passed by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on June 26, 2026. CNIPA states that the draft focuses on the provisions of the new Trademark Law that require implementing detail, taking into account practical needs identified through examination experience and input from business entities.

The following summary addresses eight of the substantive areas covered by the draft, with citations to the parts and chapters of the Guidelines in which each change appears. The original text is available here (Chinese only).

Dynamic mark applications: formal examination requirements

Part I, Chapter 2, Sections 3 and 4 add formal examination rules for applications to register dynamic marks, a category of mark newly permitted under the revised Trademark Law. New Section 3.1.4.5.1 specifies the materials required for a dynamic mark application: one video file containing the mark, three to nine static frames depicting the mark’s transformation sequence, and a written description of the mark. The content of the video, the static frames, and the written description must be consistent with one another. The section also identifies specific circumstances in which submitted materials will be found non-conforming. New Section 3.1.4.5.2 requires applicants to describe, in the trademark description, the manner or circumstances in which the dynamic mark is used on goods or services. The draft also adds grounds for requiring correction of an application (for example, failure to indicate in the application form whether a corresponding design patent application has been filed, or failure to submit conforming video, image, or text materials) and grounds for non-acceptance of an application where these deficiencies are not corrected.

Dynamic mark applications: substantive examination

Part II adds a new chapter setting out substantive examination and adjudication rules for dynamic marks. The chapter defines a dynamic mark as a trademark that uses visual elements – words, graphics, letters, numerals, three-dimensional shapes, or color – presented through continuous movement, positional change, or transformation over time, for the purpose of distinguishing the source of goods or services. The scope of protection for a dynamic mark is defined by reference to the overall impression created by its dynamic visual effect. The chapter states that examination should not isolate individual static frames or discrete elements, but should evaluate the dynamic sequence as a whole, taking into account how the mark is used. Subsections address examination of dynamic marks under provisions governing prohibited content, distinctiveness, non-functionality, and similarity or identicality to other marks.

Marks that cannot be used as trademarks

Part II, Chapter 3 is revised to reflect provisions in the new Trademark Law addressing marks that may harm national or public interests. New Sections 2.1 and 3.1 address marks identical or similar to the name, flag, or emblem of the Communist Party of China, providing that registration and use of such marks are prohibited, together with illustrative cases and stated exceptions. Section 2.8 is revised and new Section 3.8.1.6 is added to refine the standards for identifying deceptive marks, including specific circumstances in which combinations of words, numerals, or letters together with the designated name of goods or services are likely to mislead the public as to raw materials, ingredients, quality, or content.

Non-functionality examination for color combination and sound marks

Part II, Chapter 7, new Section 3.3.1, addresses non-functionality examination of color combination marks, identifying three categories of functional color combinations: those arising from the inherent nature of the goods, those necessary to achieve a technical effect, and those that give the goods substantial value. Part II, Chapter 8, new Section 3.3.1, sets out corresponding categories for sound marks: sounds arising from the inherent nature of the goods, and sounds necessary to achieve a technical effect. The draft also clarifies that non-functionality examination is conducted independently of, and in addition to, distinctiveness examination; a color combination or sound mark must satisfy both requirements.

Bad-faith provisions under Article 19 of the revised Trademark Law

Part II, Chapter 2 is revised to refine the standard for identifying applications filed “without intent to use, and clearly exceeding the normal needs of production and business operations.” The revision articulates that this element is assessed based on the applicant’s objective conduct – for example, whether the application is inconsistent with the applicant’s business capacity, scale, or actual operations, or with commercial or industry norms – and that this objective element corresponds with the separate “without intent to use” element. Additional factors for this assessment are added, including industry characteristics, commercial custom, and market-entry regulatory measures relevant to the applicant’s field and the class of goods or services applied for. Part II, Chapter 16 is revised to refine the standard for “application by deceptive or other improper means,” clarifying that this determination is based on the applicant’s subjective state and conduct at the time of filing; an applicant’s subsequent filing conduct may be considered as relevant evidence but is not by itself sufficient to establish improper means. The draft further clarifies that both provisions apply throughout examination, opposition, and review proceedings.

Well-known mark examination

Part II, Chapter 10 is revised to implement the expanded well-known mark protection in the new Trademark Law, which extends the bar on preemptive registration of another party’s well-known mark to dissimilar goods or services and removes the distinction between registered and unregistered well-known marks. The revised chapter specifies that, where a party asserts such protection under Article 21, paragraph 2, of the new Trademark Law, the mark must have been well-known before the filing date of the disputed mark, and an unregistered mark relied upon must not otherwise violate the provisions of Chapter 2 of the new Trademark Law. The chapter also refines the factors and evidentiary requirements used to confirm well-known status.

Prior legitimate rights and preemptive registration of marks with existing use and influence

Part II, Chapter 14 is revised to address the change in the Trademark Law from “prior existing rights” to “prior legitimate rights and interests.” The revised chapter clarifies that “prior legitimate rights and interests” is not limited to enumerated statutory rights (name rights, portrait rights, copyright, design patent rights, geographical indications, and rights in the name, packaging, or decoration of goods or services with existing influence) but also includes other legitimate prior interests warranting protection. The chapter also refines certain existing rules, such as the requirements for copyright-based claims, and adds illustrative opposition cases. Part II, Chapter 15 is revised to reflect the Trademark Law’s change from “registration by unfair means” to “intentional preemptive registration,” aligning the subjective and objective elements of this provision. The revision adds factors relevant to establishing intent, including prior contact between the disputed mark’s applicant and the prior user regarding licensing or assignment of the mark.

Suspension of examination and adjudication proceedings

Part II adds a new chapter implementing the Trademark Law’s provision permitting suspension of examination or adjudication proceedings where determination of a prior right or interest depends on the outcome of another pending case. The chapter establishes necessity as the governing principle for suspension, limiting it to cases where the outcome of the cited mark or other prior right would materially affect the result of the pending case. It enumerates specific circumstances warranting suspension (for example, where a cited mark is undergoing a change of ownership or assignment that, once completed, would eliminate the conflict with the disputed mark) and distinguishes between circumstances where suspension is discretionary and where it is mandatory. The chapter also sets out rules for resuming proceedings, including resumption once the portion of the prior right determination sufficient to resolve the case has been settled, or upon a party’s written request even if the underlying prior right has not yet been finally determined, along with procedural requirements for requesting suspension and the examiner’s authority to suspend proceedings on its own initiative.