Tightening the screws: How China's Trademark System is Turning Against Foreign Brands in 2026

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

I do not have a crystal ball and therefore cannot predict the future with certainty. However, trends that have emerged over the past three to four years, combined with the current state of international affairs, allow us to make a reasonably informed assessment of whether 2026 is likely to be a favorable year for foreign IP holders in China.

Unfortunately, several developments suggest that the outlook for foreign trademark owners may continue to deteriorate. Below are some key trends that are expected not only to persist but to intensify in 2026, with potentially negative consequences for foreign trademark rights in China.

I. CNIPA will continue tightening trademark examination standards

In 2025, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) significantly tightened its examination standards for trademark distinctiveness under Article 11 of the China Trademark Law. (See also: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/chinas-war-bad-faith-trademark-filings-risks-brands-paolo-beconcini-v4doc/?trackingId=uoJbvzh8QwWqpCph5kzhmA%3D%3D)

Faced with an overwhelming volume of trademark filings, CNIPA has clearly decided to raise the bar. Improved examiner proficiency in foreign languages, combined with the increasing use of AI tools, has enabled examiners to more accurately assess the semantic meaning of foreign-language marks. As a result, CNIPA has become far more aggressive in finding marks descriptive or lacking distinctiveness.

At the same time, we have observed a substantial tightening of examination standards under Article 10 (7) of the China Trademark Law, particularly with respect to “deceptive” trademarks. This development is especially concerning: trademarks rejected as deceptive are not merely unregistrable, but may not be used in China at all, under penalty of severe administrative and civil sanctions pursuant to consumer protection and product quality laws.

This trend is expected to continue—and likely expand—in 2026. Even trademarks that have been registered for many years may now be placed at serious risk by bad-faith actors. A common scenario involves a foreign trademark owner initiating an infringement action, only to have the defendant retaliate by filing an invalidation action against the plaintiff’s mark on distinctiveness or deceptiveness grounds.

For this reason, trademark owners are strongly encouraged to maintain detailed and well-organized evidence of trademark use in China, even for long-registered marks, in order to fend off these increasingly sophisticated and costly attacks.

II. Non-use cancellations have become significantly more difficult

Since early 2025, we, trademark practitioners in China have observed a notable shift in CNIPA’s handling of non-use cancellation proceedings.

As is well known, trademark squatting has long been a systemic problem in China. For decades, professional squatters have taken advantage of the “first-to-file” system and historically low filing thresholds to register marks belonging to others—often well before the legitimate brand owners entered the Chinese market. This has forced foreign companies into expensive and protracted legal proceedings to recover their trademarks, with uncertain outcomes.

Based on a series of amendment notices issued by CNIPA since February 2025, it appears that the authority has materially altered its approach to non-use cancellations, which will increase the burden and cost on the cancellation applicants. Applicants are now subject to stricter procedural and evidentiary requirements at the filing stage. What constitutes “sufficient evidence” has become both more demanding and less predictable, with standards varying significantly among examiners. In practice, prima facie evidence that was once sufficient—such as basic Baidu search screenshots—no longer meets CNIPA’s expectations. Non-use cancellation petitions relying solely on such evidence are increasingly being rejected.

This represents a de facto shift in the burden of proof without a specific amendment of the Implementing Regulatoins to the Trademark Law, disadvantaging applicants for non-use cancellations, who are often the victims of trademark squatting. As a result, cancellation applicants must now conduct more extensive factual investigations to gather stronger evidence, leading to higher costs and longer timelines. (See also: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/chinas-war-bad-faith-trademark-filings-risks-brands-paolo-beconcini-v4doc/?trackingId=pHFmukdDS42wyPTJBzUYMw%3D%3D)

We expect this stricter approach to continue and become entrenched in 2026.

III. Continued impact of local factors on trademark enforcement against counterfeiters

Local protectionism has long undermined effective trademark enforcement against counterfeiters in China. The ongoing slowdown of the Chinese economy appears to be exacerbating this problem.

As discussed in prior posts (See also:https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/china-slowing-up-pace-enforcement-foreign-ip-right-paolo-beconcini-actac/?trackingId=WzBiUFhiQDGODht3KtcBWg%3D%3D; and https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/china-turning-blind-eye-counterfeiters-paolo-beconcini-zfbxc/?trackingId=lf0%2FblI3S7yAWidtiOPGug%3D%3D), the past two years have revealed several troubling enforcement trends:

1. Local Market Supervision Administrations (MSA) increasingly refuse to conduct raid actions in certain markets, citing concerns about disrupting the local struggling local economy.
2. Courts—particularly in core counterfeiting provinces such as Zhejiang and Guangdong—continue to award low levels of damages, even in serious cases.
3. There has been retaliatory or discriminatory enforcement treatment against U.S. companies (to a lesser extent EU companies), including delayed or outright denied enforcement under questionable pretexts.
4. We have seen a growing number of cases involving suspected corruption among local MSA or Public Security Bureau (PSB) officials (while confidentiality prevents disclosure, we personally encountered at least three such cases in 2025).
5. Internal PSB directives appear to discourage local stations from handling cases originating outside their province. This undermines a key enforcement tactic previously used by rights holders to bypass local protectionism by involving more cooperative agencies from other regions.

These factors are unlikely to disappear in 2026, particularly if geopolitical tensions between China and Western countries continue to escalate. Despite these challenges, experience shows that persistent and well-planned enforcement remains the only viable strategy. Successful anti-counterfeiting efforts require collaboration with competent firms capable of providing both investigative and legal services at competitive costs. Given that raids can become prohibitively expensive over time, alternative and composite enforcement strategies—particularly those aimed at damage recovery—are increasingly essential, especially for SMEs seeking impact without exhausting their budgets.

Expected Legislative Amendments

Finally, 2026 may also be the year in which the National People’s Congress approves long-anticipated amendments to the Trademark Law and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. While legislative reform could offer some opportunities, it remains to be seen whether these amendments will meaningfully improve the position of foreign IP holders in practice. We shall fallow these developments during 2026.