Disclaimer & Legal Notice: This bulletin is compiled for general informational purposes only and is a summary of publicly available information. It does not constitute legal advice, a legal opinion, or an attorney-client relationship of any kind. Nothing herein should be relied upon as the basis for any legal decision or action. For advice on specific matters, please consult a qualified attorney or intellectual property professional. Β© 2026 Foridom IP Law Firm. All rights reserved. Reproduction for commercial purposes without prior written consent is strictly prohibited.
Section 01 / Executive Briefing
- China's Trademark Law revised β the most comprehensive overhaul in over a decade, adopted June 26, effective January 1, 2027. The NPC Standing Committee passed a full-scale revision at its 23rd Session, elevating the legislative vehicle from "amendment" to "revision" for the first time in the law's history. Ten substantive changes now lock in, with practical implications running from opposition monitoring timelines to brand portfolio architecture.
- The opposition period compresses from three months to two months β the single most operationally urgent change for brand owners. Any monitoring system or internal escalation workflow calibrated to the three-month window must be reconfigured before January 1, 2027; this is not a future risk but an active compliance deadline.
- Dynamic (animated) marks are now explicitly registrable for the first time, alongside new cross-class protection for unregistered well-known trademarks. Both changes create immediate new filing and strategy opportunities β and risks from competitors leveraging the same tools.
- Bad-faith applicants now face direct administrative penalties of up to RMB 100,000 β closing the longstanding gap where only agencies, not applicants, were directly liable for facilitating abusive registrations.
- Chinese-origin counterfeit goods dominate FIFA World Cup enforcement actions as the tournament progresses. US CBP and Hong Kong Customs have each intercepted six-figure volumes of infringing merchandise traceable to Chinese manufacturing sources β a sharp contrast to the legitimate Chinese brands operating as official FIFA sponsors.
3
Mainland China
1
Hong Kong SAR
1
Taiwan
β
Macau SAR
02
Legislation & Policy
Mainland China
β Landmark
Trademark Law Β· Revision
Adopted June 26, 2026
Effective January 1, 2027 β Six Months to Prepare
China's Trademark Law Comprehensively Revised by NPC Standing Committee β The Fifth and Most Far-Reaching Overhaul Since 1982
On June 26, 2026, the 23rd Session of the 14th NPC Standing Committee adopted the revised Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, which takes effect on January 1, 2027. The revision β elevated from "amendment" to "revision" for the first time since the law's original 1982 enactment β represents the most comprehensive reconfiguration of China's trademark framework since the 2013 reform that introduced the opposition system in its current form. All trademarks registered before January 1, 2027 remain valid under the existing law; the new provisions apply to proceedings initiated on or after the effective date.
This revision has been tracked across every issue of this newsletter since Issue 01. The ten changes below set the practical agenda for brand owners, trademark practitioners, and in-house IP teams operating in or entering China.
This revision has been tracked across every issue of this newsletter since Issue 01. The ten changes below set the practical agenda for brand owners, trademark practitioners, and in-house IP teams operating in or entering China.
Art. 14 Β· New
Dynamic Marks Now Explicitly Registrable
Animated logos, motion graphics, and other time-based brand identifiers are now listed alongside traditional word, device, 3D, colour, and sound marks. A functionality exclusion applies: dynamic effects arising from the nature of the goods cannot be registered.
Art. 35 Β· β Urgent
Opposition Period: 3 Months β 2 Months
The most immediate operational change. Any monitoring service, internal escalation process, or agent instruction workflow calibrated to a three-month window must be reconfigured before January 1, 2027.
Art. 20 Β· Expanded
Well-Known Mark Cross-Class Protection Extended
Expanded cross-class protection for well-known trademarks now covers unregistered well-known marks, not just registered ones β a significant shift addressing a longstanding gap for brands with de facto renown but incomplete formal registration.
Art. 54 Β· New
Direct Applicant Penalties for Bad-Faith Filing
For the first time, bad-faith applicants themselves β not only their agents β face standalone administrative penalties of up to RMB 100,000. Prior law reached agents directly but left a gap for applicants who instructed the filing.
Art. 2 Β· Clarified
Online Use Recognised as Trademark Use
Use via internet and other information networks is now expressly included in the definition of trademark use β directly relevant for e-commerce platforms, social media, and applications, and for defending against non-use cancellation proceedings.
Art. 9 Β· Codified
Good Faith Principle as Standalone Provision
The good faith principle is elevated to a standalone codified obligation in Article 9, applying to both the filing of applications and the use of registered marks β providing a broader textual basis for challenging applications that comply technically but violate good faith.
Ex Officio Β· New Power
CNIPA Proactive Cancellation Authority
CNIPA gains explicit authority to initiate ex officio cancellation of marks that have become generic or are being used in a manner that deceives the public β without waiting for a third-party petition. A structural shift from purely reactive to proactive registry management.
One-Year Embargo Β· New
Refiling Bar After Cancellation or Invalidation
A one-year embargo now applies after cancellation, invalidation, or lapse without renewal β closing the strategic voluntary-cancellation-and-refile loophole previously exploitable by squatters seeking to reset rights around a prior registrant's challenge.
Art. 35 Β· Procedural
Suspension: "May" β "Generally Shall"
In opposition, refusal review, and invalidation proceedings, where a prior right depends on a pending court or administrative decision, the trademark authority shall now generally suspend β replacing the prior discretionary "may suspend" standard with a more predictable, rights-protective rule.
Art. 78 Β· New Deterrent
Malicious Litigation Civil Liability
Parties who initiate trademark infringement proceedings based on squatted marks β suing the genuine brand owner β now face civil liability for the losses caused. A deterrent against the growing practice of using obtained registrations offensively against legitimate rights holders.
Brand owners with China trademark portfolios should treat January 1, 2027 as a hard transition date requiring three immediate actions: (1) reconfigure monitoring to the two-month opposition window β this is the single highest-urgency operational change; (2) audit portfolios for non-use vulnerability, since the new proactive cancellation authority and expanded use obligations raise the risk profile of dormant registrations; (3) identify dynamic brand assets β animated logos, sonic identifiers, distinctive colour combinations β that were previously unregistrable and evaluate whether new applications are warranted under the expanded registrable marks framework. These actions do not require waiting for implementing regulations; the substantive provisions have been stable across successive drafts and the January effective date is fixed.
03
Enforcement & Administration
Mainland China
Cross-Border Counterfeit
FIFA World Cup 2026
June 2026 (ongoing)
Chinese-Origin Counterfeits Dominate FIFA World Cup Enforcement Actions as US CBP and Other Customs Authorities Intercept Millions in Infringing Goods
16,257
Counterfeit Nike / FIFA jerseys seized by US CBP Miami from China-origin shipments (two seizures, June 8 & June 17)
$6M+
US CBP Houston seizure of Adidas, FIFA, and Apple-branded counterfeit goods β most shipments from China
230,000
Items seized by Hong Kong Customs in "Clean Sheet" operation (May 26βJune 10); ~30,000 counterfeit jerseys
As the FIFA World Cup 2026 (June 11βJuly 19) progresses across the United States, Canada, and Mexico, Chinese-origin counterfeit merchandise has featured prominently in multiple enforcement actions by US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Hong Kong Customs, illustrating the persistent challenge posed by China-based manufacturing of infringing sports goods.
US CBP Miami executed two related seizures β on June 8 (7,857 jerseys) and June 17 (8,400 jerseys) β targeting the same shipper and consignee, reflecting a pattern of structured illicit trade rather than isolated incidents. Both shipments were manifested as "T-shirts," originated from China, and were destined for Brazil. Houston CBP separately seized over USD 6 million in Adidas soccer jerseys, FIFA soccer balls, athletic shoes, and FIFA-branded Apple-counterfeit watches, with most shipments originating from China. Hong Kong Customs' "Clean Sheet" operation, running from May 26 to June 10, detected 34 cases at logistics companies, seized approximately 30,000 counterfeit jerseys among 230,000 total items (estimated HKD 156 million market value), and arrested six persons β with the goods believed intended for re-export to overseas markets rather than local sale in Hong Kong, highlighting the city's transit role in global counterfeit supply chains.
The enforcement picture stands in striking contrast to China's legitimate commercial presence at the tournament: four of the sixteen FIFA global sponsors are Chinese companies β Hisense (official display technology partner for VAR systems), Mengniu, Vivo, and others β and Chinese companies have facilitated over 3,900 World Cup-related ATA Carnet shipments for broadcasting equipment and fan festival materials. The simultaneous presence of Chinese companies as official IP licensees and Chinese-origin goods as the dominant source of counterfeits captures the dual-track challenge that Chinese IP policy has long sought to address: building legitimate international brand equity while suppressing the manufacturing and export of infringing goods that undermine it.
US CBP Miami executed two related seizures β on June 8 (7,857 jerseys) and June 17 (8,400 jerseys) β targeting the same shipper and consignee, reflecting a pattern of structured illicit trade rather than isolated incidents. Both shipments were manifested as "T-shirts," originated from China, and were destined for Brazil. Houston CBP separately seized over USD 6 million in Adidas soccer jerseys, FIFA soccer balls, athletic shoes, and FIFA-branded Apple-counterfeit watches, with most shipments originating from China. Hong Kong Customs' "Clean Sheet" operation, running from May 26 to June 10, detected 34 cases at logistics companies, seized approximately 30,000 counterfeit jerseys among 230,000 total items (estimated HKD 156 million market value), and arrested six persons β with the goods believed intended for re-export to overseas markets rather than local sale in Hong Kong, highlighting the city's transit role in global counterfeit supply chains.
The enforcement picture stands in striking contrast to China's legitimate commercial presence at the tournament: four of the sixteen FIFA global sponsors are Chinese companies β Hisense (official display technology partner for VAR systems), Mengniu, Vivo, and others β and Chinese companies have facilitated over 3,900 World Cup-related ATA Carnet shipments for broadcasting equipment and fan festival materials. The simultaneous presence of Chinese companies as official IP licensees and Chinese-origin goods as the dominant source of counterfeits captures the dual-track challenge that Chinese IP policy has long sought to address: building legitimate international brand equity while suppressing the manufacturing and export of infringing goods that undermine it.
Chinese manufacturers and exporters in the sporting goods, apparel, and consumer electronics sectors should treat the current enforcement surge as a reminder that World Cup-themed goods marketed to foreign distributors carry heightened scrutiny. Companies with legitimate licensing relationships should ensure their export documentation clearly evidences the licence, since infringing and licensed goods may be physically indistinguishable at point of inspection. Companies receiving requests to produce unbranded or "private label" sporting goods resembling official merchandise should verify the buyer's licensing status before accepting orders.
04
Courts & Key Decisions
Mainland ChinaJune 22β28, 2026
No significant new court decisions were identified during this reporting period. The SPC's Judicial Interpretation (III) on Patent Infringement Disputes remains pending finalisation. The Innoscience-Infineon dispute has concluded in all three major jurisdictions as of Issue 11.
05
Industry, Market & Emerging Issues
Hong Kong SAR
Trademark Strategy
June 2026
The Revised Trademark Law's Two-Month Opposition Window Is the Most Operationally Urgent Change for Hong Kong-Based Brand Owners with China Portfolios
For the substantial community of multinational brand owners who use Hong Kong as a base for managing Greater China IP portfolios, the Trademark Law revision adopted this week carries immediate practical implications that cannot wait until late 2026 to address. The compression of the opposition period from three to two months is the single most time-sensitive structural change: monitoring services, internal legal escalation protocols, and agent service-level agreements all need to be reviewed against this tighter window before January 1, 2027. This is particularly acute for companies with large portfolios and high monthly watch-notice volumes, where a one-month compression in response time can materially affect the number of potentially conflicting filings that are caught within the actionable window.
Beyond the procedural compression, the new one-year refiling embargo and expanded well-known mark cross-class protections also provide practical tools that Hong Kong-based IP teams should assess proactively β the embargo, in particular, changes the calculus around non-use cancellation strategy and defensive filing patterns that have been common portfolio management approaches under the prior regime.
Beyond the procedural compression, the new one-year refiling embargo and expanded well-known mark cross-class protections also provide practical tools that Hong Kong-based IP teams should assess proactively β the embargo, in particular, changes the calculus around non-use cancellation strategy and defensive filing patterns that have been common portfolio management approaches under the prior regime.
Taiwan
Trademark Policy
June 2026
Taiwan Companies Exporting to Mainland China Markets Should Reassess China Trademark Strategy Against the Revised Law's New Framework
Taiwan-based companies selling into Mainland China markets, or operating parallel trademark portfolios across both jurisdictions, will need to assess their China trademark strategies against the January 1, 2027 framework. The revised law's dynamic mark registrability provisions are particularly relevant for Taiwan's technology and consumer electronics sector, where animated logos and motion-based brand identifiers are increasingly common across digital channels. Companies that have previously deferred pursuing dynamic mark registrations in China due to regulatory uncertainty now have a defined pathway, and those with competitors that might seek to register similar animated elements should evaluate defensive filing priorities before the effective date. The two-month opposition window also directly affects Taiwan companies' ability to respond to bad-faith filings against their China marks β a known pain point that the revised law's enhanced anti-bad-faith mechanisms are designed to address, but which requires faster internal detection than has previously been standard practice.
β
Macau SAR
MacauJune 22β28, 2026
No significant IP policy, legislative, or enforcement announcements were issued by Macao's Economic and Technological Development Bureau (DSEDT) during this reporting period. IP registration and enforcement operations continue normally. For Macau-specific IP enquiries, please contact foridom@foridom.com.
π
Upcoming Dates & Key Deadlines
Jan 1, 2027
China Revised Trademark Law takes effect. Monitor now for two-month opposition window; audit portfolios for non-use risk; assess dynamic mark filing opportunities. β
Now confirmed
~Jul 2026
US ITC limited exclusion order against Innoscience's discontinued legacy GaN products expected to take effect after Presidential review period. International
Monthly
CNIPA public list of unlicensed patent/IP agency companies updates monthly. China
2026
CNIPA's national IP plan for the 15th Five-Year Plan period (2026β2030) β publication expected later this year. China
Pending
SPC Judicial Interpretation (III) on Patent Infringement Disputes β finalisation expected following closed comment period. China
Publication
Greater China IP Watch, Issue No. 12
Reporting period: June 22β28, 2026
Published: Monday, June 29, 2026
Reporting period: June 22β28, 2026
Published: Monday, June 29, 2026
Prepared & Proofread by
Foridom IP Law Firm (ηΎδΈη₯θ―δΊ§ζ)
Proofread by: Wiky Wang β Attorney at Law, Patent Attorney & Trademark Attorney
Proofread by: Wiky Wang β Attorney at Law, Patent Attorney & Trademark Attorney
Contact & Subscriptions
foridom@foridom.com
For subscription, feedback, or IP enquiries
For subscription, feedback, or IP enquiries
Coverage & Sources
Mainland China Β· Hong Kong SAR Β· Taiwan Β· Macau SAR
Primary: CNIPA, NPC, SPC, US CBP, HK Customs, TIPO, IPD, DSEDT
Primary: CNIPA, NPC, SPC, US CBP, HK Customs, TIPO, IPD, DSEDT