China's War on Bad-Faith Trademark Filings Risks Undermining Legitimate Brands

Written by Mr. Paolo Beconcini, IP Expert and collaborator of the China IP SME Helpdesk.

Introduction

Over the past twelve months, I’ve observed a noticeable increase in trademark rejections by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), particularly concerning Latin word marks. These refusals are frequently issued under Article 10(7) of the Chinese Trademark Law, which prohibits marks deemed deceptive or misleading.

Several clients have asked whether these rejections are politically motivated or targeted specifically at them. Based on my experience, I do not believe there is any political agenda at play. Rather, this trend appears to reflect a broader policy shift within the CNIPA aimed at tightening examination standards and reducing the volume of low-quality or bad-faith trademark filings, which remain a significant problem in the Chinese system.

Unfortunately, this stricter approach means that genuine, good-faith applicants are now carrying a heavier burden during the registration process. Let me explain how and why this is happening.

Art. 10 of the Chinese Trademark Law

Article 10(7) of the Chinese Trademark Law refers to a prohibition on the registration and use of trademarks that are deceptive or misleading. The provision reads out like this:

"The following signs shall not be used as trademarks: [...] (7) those that are deceptive and are likely to mislead the public in terms of the quality, origin, or other characteristics of the goods."

A trademark must not mislead consumers about key aspects of a product or service, such as its origin or place of manufacture, its quality, composition, or function, and any performance claims or features the goods or services might falsely imply. If a mark gives a false impression—intentionally or not—it can be rejected by the CNIPA.

Why is this happening?

Foreign clients may initially suspect a political motive aimed at disadvantaging foreign rights holders in China. However, based on what we’re seeing, I do not believe that is the case. This trend appears to be affecting both foreign and domestic rights holders alike, suggesting a broader policy shift rather than targeted discrimination.

It rather appears to be part of a broader policy shift by the CNIPA. I assume that the CNIPA is aiming to raise examination standards. With years of experience behind them and an overwhelming volume of questionable filings, they seem to be tightening scrutiny to reduce clutter and manage their workload more effectively.

As a result, we can expect a much stricter and rigid posture during the examination. The implicit message seems to be: if you’re a serial filer or lack genuine interest in the mark, you’ll likely drop it rather than invest time and money fighting for it. That’s likely how they intend to filter out weak or speculative applications. If you’re a serial filer or lack genuine interest in the mark, you’ll likely drop it rather than invest time and money fighting for it

This trend seems to be confirmed by a recent new posture of CNIPA regarding trademark non-use cancellations. The CNIPA is making it harder for third-party squatters to initiate bogus cancellations by raising the evidentiary burden for proof of use. While this helps deter abuse, it also creates new hurdles for legitimate brand owners who need to cancel bad-faith registrations.

In short, we’re seeing a consistent philosophy emerge: stricter standards across the board, aimed at discouraging frivolous filings and claims, but at the cost of increased burden on genuine rights holders who have to spend more time and resources defending their genuine applications.

Conclusion

Even if my assumption is correct—and the CNIPA’s intentions are well-meaning rather than politically motivated—a serious issue remains. In several cases I’ve handled, the CNIPA has made hasty decisions based on questionable procedural interpretations. One common example is the artificial splitting of a single word into multiple components to justify a refusal under Article 10(7), based on the meaning of these isolated parts rather than the actual meaning of the original word mark.

This practice amounts to a misuse of authority and a departure from established trademark examination norms. It highlights a broader concern: when stricter standards are implemented without sufficient examiner training or without allocating adequate time for case-by-case analysis, the burden shifts unfairly onto legitimate rights holders.

In such a scenario, the effort to curb bad-faith filings risks backfiring, undermining the protection of genuine trademarks and harming those the system is meant to safeguard.