The Trademark Office of the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has announced that, effective September 11, 2026, online filing for trademark administrative reconsideration will be officially available. This marks another step in China’s ongoing digitalization of trademark services. However, for foreign rights holders and industry peers, this change should not be misinterpreted as an invitation for self-service. While the filing channel becomes more convenient, the legal complexity, strict deadlines, and evidentiary rules remain unchanged. In fact, the role of professional representatives becomes even more critical in a digital era where procedural pitfalls may be overlooked by unprepared applicants. 1. What Is Trademark Administrative Reconsideration? Why Should Foreign Companies Pay Attention? Administrative reconsideration is a statutory remedy under China’s Trademark Law and Administrative Reconsideration Law, available to parties who disagree with CNIPA decisions on registration, assignment, renewal, cancellation, opposition, invalidation, and other trademark actions. Crucially, the statutory filing deadline is strict 60 days from the date of notification. Moreover, the interplay between reconsideration and subsequent administrative litigation, the rules on new evidence, and the standards for review are all highly technical. For foreign companies unfamiliar with China’s administrative legal framework, self-filing carries hidden risks: language barriers, misinterpretation of legal provisions, improper evidence formatting, and missed deadlines. Even with an online portal, the system is merely a tool – substantive success still hinges on a deep understanding of trademark examination guidelines and reconsideration review criteria. 2. Advice to Foreign Enterprises: Convenience ≠ Simplicity – Entrusting Professionals Is a Safer Bet Although online filing saves courier costs and travel time, the drafting of a legally sound reconsideration request, the construction of a robust evidence chain, the timing for submitting supplementary evidence, and the decision on whether to request an oral hearing all demand seasoned counsel. For foreign enterprises with cross-border brand portfolios, such cases often intertwine with local use evidence and reputation recognition in China. A professional representative can help strategize holistically and avoid procedural forfeiture of remedies. 3. Implications for Domestic Counterparts: An Upgrade in Service Delivery, Not Replacement For law firms and trademark agents, the new online function offers a more efficient submission tool. Yet it also raises the bar for response speed, quality of written submissions, and case management capabilities. We remain committed to providing full-spectrum reconsideration services – from strategic assessment, pleading drafting, to end‑to‑end case monitoring – ensuring each step is legally sound, precise, and timely. No official fee is charged for filing a reconsideration application, but the value of professional representation is irreplaceable. For inquiries regarding trademark administrative reconsideration, please contact our firm.

1. Combating malicious registration and hoarding of trademarks. Previous: Provisions were scattered and lacked targeted measures against malicious hoarding.  Current: A new dedicated chapter has been added, explicitly stipulating that applications "not for use purposes and clearly exceeding normal business needs" shall be refused registration. Summary: Cracking down on "squatting without using" for speculative resale.  Example: A company that operates only in the catering sector files over a thousand trademark applications in unrelated classes (e.g.,clothing, electrical appliances) with the intent to resell at high prices. Under the new law, such filings will be directly rejected. 2. New registrable elements (dynamic marks).  Previous: Only words, graphics, letters, numerals, three-dimensional signs, color combinations, and sounds were registrable.  Current: "Dynamic marks" and combinations thereof have been added. Summary: Moving patterns can now be registered as trademarks.  Example: A unique "animated flip effect" on a short-video app's startup screen, or a specific "headlight flashing rhythm" when a car brand starts up, may now be filed for trademark protection. 3. Severe penalties for deceptive marks and misleading use.  Previous: Penalties for improper use of registered trademarks were relatively lenient.  Current: High fines may be imposed for misleading the public through deceptive marks, and failure to rectify within the prescribed period will lead to direct revocation of the trademark.  Summary: Wordplay or deliberate consumer misleading will result in cancellation.  Example: An enterprise registers the mark "千禾0" but deliberately displays it as "千禾0添加" on product packaging, leading consumers to believe the product is additive-free. Under the new law,such deceptive practices will face heavy fines and possible revocation. 4. Upgraded protection for well-known trademarks (facilitating global expansion).  Previous: Cross-class protection was mainly available for registered well-known marks; the term used was "recognition".  Current: No distinction is made between registered and unregistered marks - both are protected against pre-emptive filings; the term is changed to "confirmation"; and for overseas enforcement, domestic authorities may issue official certificates confirming the mark's well-known status within China.  Summary: Well-known trademark protection becomes more comprehensive, with official backing for overseas litigation.  Example: A renowned domestic time-honored brand, well-known in China but not registered abroad, is pre-emptively registered by a foreign merchant. Now, the domestic trademark office can issue a "confirmation of well-known status in China" to strengthen the brand's case in overseas enforcement proceedings. 5. Ex officio revocation mechanism.  Previous: Revocation for non-use for three consecutive years could only be requested by third parties (typically competitors).  Current: The competent administrative authority (the State Council's trademark office) may ex officio revoke trademarks that are "registered but unused".  Summary: The authority proactively cleans up "zombie marks", without waiting for third-party complaints.  Example: A company registered a trademark a decade ago but has long abandoned its use. Previously, the mark would remain on the register unless challenged. Now, the office will periodically review and actively revoke such marks, freeing resources for genuine users. 6. Stricter regulation of trademark agency industry.  Previous: Penalties for agency misconduct were relatively light, leading to widespread malpractices.  Current: Agencies are required to file for recordal, with clear professional ethics rules; heavier sanctions are imposed for fraudulent solicitation, knowingly assisting in unlawful filings, and other violations.  Summary: Tighter control over "unscrupulous intermediaries" - agencies cannot facilitate clients' illicit activities.  Example: An agency knowingly files a trademark application that copies another's mark, merely to earn fees. Under the new law, both the agency and its responsible employees will face severe penalties. 7. Clarification of online use activities.  Previous: The definition of trademark use on the Internet was unclear.  Current: It is explicitly provided that trademark use carried out through information networks such as the Internet falls within the scope of the law.  Summary: Online trademark use now counts as legally recognized use.  Example: An online store prominently displays its trademark in product descriptions and on livestream studio backdrops - such activities are now statutorily defined as "trademark use" and may serve as evidence to maintain the validity of the registration. 8. Shortened opposition period for enhanced efficiency.  Previous: The opposition period after preliminary approval was 3 months.  Current: The opposition period is shortened to 2 months.  Summary: Accelerating trademark finalization and reducing procedural delays, though rights holders must act more swiftly.  Example: An applicant passes preliminary examination and faces an opposition period reduced from 3 to 2 months. If no opposition is filed, the registration certificate can be obtained one month earlier, enabling faster market entry. However, if a third party discovers a pre-emptive filing, they must file an opposition within the 2-month window, or risk losing the chance to challenge.

To further advance the comprehensive digitalization of the "non-use cancellation for three consecutive years" (hereinafter referred to as "non-use cancellation") procedures, enhance the delivery rate of legal documents in Madrid international trademark non-use cancellation cases, and effectively safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of Madrid international trademark registrants, notice is hereby given regarding adjustments to the delivery methods for certain legal documents in these proceedings: Effective June 5, 2026, the following documents will no longer be delivered directly to the trademark registrant via physical mail. Instead, they will be transmitted as electronic documents to the registrant via the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO): Notice to Submit Evidence of Use of the Registered Trademark or Statement of Justifiable Grounds for Non-Use; Decision on the Application for Cancellation of the [XXXX] Registered Trademark Due to Three Consecutive Years of Non-Use (issued when the registrant fails to respond upon expiration of the time limit); Closing Notice on the Application for Cancellation of the [XXXX] Registered Trademark Due to Three Consecutive Years of Non-Use. Where a Madrid international trademark registrant has entrusted a trademark agency to handle the response/defense, the delivery method for the relevant decision documents shall remain unchanged.