On June 26, 2026, China's National People's Congress Standing Committee passed the first comprehensive revision of the Trademark Law since 1983. It takes effect on January 1, 2027. While everyone's attention was on the USPTO's fraud crackdowns in the United States, Beijing quietly rewrote the rules at home — and two provisions hit Chinese brands and Amazon sellers exactly where it hurts: their stockpiled registrations, and their bargain filing agents.
Under the revised law, the maximum fine for bad-faith trademark applications rises from RMB 10,000 in practice to RMB 100,000, and the law now spells out the test: applications "obviously exceeding normal production and business needs." The fine can be imposed directly on the applicant. Agencies that knowingly assist bad-faith filings face penalties of their own. One important nuance: the law targets hoarding with no genuine intent to use — it reserves room for legitimate defensive registrations, so not every unused mark in your portfolio triggers a RMB 100,000 fine.
For sellers who spent years filing speculative marks "just in case" — this is the provision with your name on it. The old logic was that a speculative filing cost little and might help someday. The new logic: a filing you never intend to use, far beyond what your business needs, can cost you RMB 100,000.
A registered mark that has gone unused for three consecutive years can now be cancelled by the trademark authority on its own motion — ex officio. No competitor needs to file a non-use cancellation against you first. The cleanup squad no longer waits for a complaint.
Consider the scale: as of the end of 2024, mainland China had nearly 50 million valid registered marks — the reason the revision is about quality over quantity. If your portfolio contains marks you registered years ago and never used, the practical advice is blunt: audit the portfolio before January 1, 2027. Use the marks, license them, or be prepared to lose them.
New Article 69 gives the revised law extraterritorial reach over Chinese trademark agencies: where an agency engages in fraud or other improper conduct in handling overseas trademark applications for Chinese clients — harming the client's interests or the public interest — it faces administrative penalties under Article 67 even though the conduct occurred abroad. The same provision lets CNIPA issue a confirmation of well-known status ("驰名情况确认") at a party's request, for use in foreign confirmation or litigation proceedings.
For the Amazon seller who hired the cheapest overseas filing agent available: the agent's fraud in your foreign filings is now your supply chain's problem too. Vet your agent. Ask specifically about their compliance practices for overseas filings — and get the answer in writing.
The opposition period is being shortened from three months to two. Trademark watch services need to be upgraded before the end of 2026 — a mark you would have caught in month three will now be registered before you notice.
And the interpretation layer is being written right now: on September 14, 2026, China's Supreme People's Court published two draft judicial interpretations for the new law (covering retroactivity and transition rules, malicious registrations, and evidence of use), with public comments due October 28, 2026. If the transition rules affect your pending oppositions or invalidations, that comment window is your last chance to be heard before the rules harden.
There is some good news in the package: online use now expressly counts as trademark use, motion marks become registrable for the first time, and the statutory damages cap stays at RMB 5 million.
One line for the cross-border picture: the U.S. International Trade Commission keeps opening Section 337 investigations naming Chinese respondents — 337-TA-1526 (October 9, vertical power delivery modules; respondents include Foxconn, Delta, and Luxshare entities among 20 companies), 337-TA-1524 (September 23, power recliner mechanisms; Jiangsu and Zhejiang furniture makers), and 337-TA-1522 (September 22, wearable breast pumps; respondents include Anker and Shenzhen Root). These are instituted investigations with allegations only — not findings of infringement — and 337 cases typically take 12 to 16 months to resolve. Separately, in early October, Amazon and Crocs jointly sued third-party sellers in the Western District of Washington over alleged classic-clog counterfeits.