Skip to main content

China Trademark Law 2026 Revision: Key Changes Every Brand Owner Must Know

Introduction China has completed the most consequential rewrite of its Trademark Law in over a decade. On June 26, 2026, the 23rd Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Fourteenth National People's Congress adopted a comprehensive revision of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China — the fifth amendment since the law was first enacted in 1982, and the first substantive overhaul since the narrow 2019 revision. The revised law, comprising 87 articles across nine chapters (up from 73 articles in eight chapters under the outgoing law), will enter into force on January 1, 2027. Trademarks registered before that date remain valid. For brand owners, in-house counsel, and IP practitioners with China exposure, this is not a routine update. The revision touches registration standards, opposition timelines, well-known mark protection, damages calculations, and — perhaps most significantly — the treatment of bad-faith and speculative filings that have long troubled foreig...

Customs Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights: The IPR (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007

Overview

The Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 empower Indian customs authorities to suspend the clearance of infringing goods, provided the rights holder has registered a notice to that effect. In practice, however, this mechanism remains significantly underused by registered proprietors and owners of intellectual property rights.

Registering such a notice gives the IP owner a valuable layer of border protection against the import of infringing goods, particularly in relation to copyrights, trademarks, and designs. Patents are also covered under the Rules, but patent-related border enforcement is comparatively rare in practice, given the greater technical complexity and specialized expertise required to assess infringement at the border.

Filing the Notice

A notice of registration must be filed together with:

  • a certified copy of the relevant IP right;
  • an annexure setting out details of the right holder's rights and the grounds on which registration of the notice is sought;
  • the prescribed fee of INR 2,000;
  • an indemnity bond, accompanied by a surety bond.

Where the request is filed through an attorney, a Power of Attorney must also be furnished. Where necessary, the customs office may call for photographs or physical samples of the product, article, or work in which the IP right subsists. If the information supplied is not in the required format, the customs office may seek additional details or clarification from the right holder.

Registration Timeline and Validity

Customs authorities must register or reject the notice within 30 days of its filing, or within 30 days of receipt of any additional information sought from the right holder. Once a notice is registered, the customs office communicates the period of validity to the right holder — a minimum of one year, unless the right holder itself requests a shorter period. The registering customs office then circulates the registered notice to all other customs offices covered by it, ensuring nationwide enforcement.

Suspension of Clearance

Where the import of goods is suspended pursuant to a registered notice, the customs office notifies both the right holder and the importer of the suspension, along with the reasons for it.

If the right holder does not join the proceedings within 10 working days of the date of suspension, the customs office may proceed to decide the matter on its merits. This 10-working-day period may be extended by a further 10 working days where the customs office considers it appropriate to do so.

Perishable goods are subject to a shorter timeline: the right holder must join proceedings within 3 working days of suspension, extendable by a further 4 working days only where customs officials are satisfied that the extension will not affect the condition of the goods.

Inspection, Seizure, and Disposal

Both the right holder and the importer are entitled to examine the suspended goods, including by way of representative samples, for the purposes of examination, testing, and analysis where necessary.

Where the right holder joins the proceedings and the goods are found to infringe the relevant IP rights, customs officials may seize the goods. The right holder is then informed, and the seized goods are either:

  • destroyed under official supervision, or
  • disposed of outside normal trade channels by the customs authorities, subject to obtaining a No Objection Certificate or concurrence from the right holder.

The right holder may object to the proposed manner or mode of disposal within 20 days of being informed of it. In all cases, the costs of detention and destruction of the goods are borne by the right holder.

Exemptions

Goods of a non-commercial nature contained in personal baggage, or sent in small consignments intended for personal use, fall outside the scope of these Rules.

Summary of Key Timelines

Stage Standard Timeline Perishable Goods
Registration/rejection of notice by customs 30 days from filing (or from receipt of additional information sought) Same
Minimum validity of registered notice 1 year (or shorter, if requested by right holder) Same
Right holder to join proceedings after suspension 10 working days 3 working days
Permissible extension Further 10 working days Further 4 working days (only if goods' condition is unaffected)
Right holder's objection to disposal method Within 20 days of notification Same

This article is intended for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult a qualified IP attorney or customs practitioner for guidance on specific matters arising under the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2024: What the New Flexibility Gives You — and the Hard Deadlines It Cannot Touch

Introduction On 15 March 2024, the Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2024 came into force and quietly rewrote the rhythm of patent prosecution in India. Practitioners who had spent two decades telling clients "this deadline cannot be extended, full stop" suddenly found themselves revising standard advice: many timelines that were once immovable can now be bought back, at a price, under the liberalised Rule 138. But here lies the trap — and it is a trap that has already caught applicants who read the headlines and not the fine print. The 2024 amendments are subordinate legislation made under Section 159 of the Patents Act, 1970. They can soften only those timelines that live in the Rules . Where the Act itself fixes a period and attaches a consequence — "deemed abandoned," "deemed withdrawn," "shall not be entertained" — no Rule, however generously worded, can rescue a defaulting applicant. Only Parliament can. This article does two things. First, it wal...

Keyword Advertising and Trademark Infringement: MakeMyTrip India Pvt. Ltd. v. Booking.com B.V. & Ors.

Background By order dated April 27, 2022, Justice Pratibha M. Singh of the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of MakeMyTrip India Private Limited ("MMT") in its suit against Booking.com B.V. and others. MMT had sued to protect its registered trademarks "MakeMyTrip" and its variants, which Booking.com was using as keywords on Google's Ads Program to trigger its own advertisements in Google search results. MMT's grievance was that a search for "MakeMyTrip" frequently displayed, as the very first result in the advertisement category, a sponsored listing for Booking.com — one of MMT's principal competitors. MMT argued that such use of its registered mark by a direct competitor amounted to trademark infringement. Booking.com's Defense Booking.com resisted the injunction on several grounds: It relied on the European Commission's decision in Case AT.40428 — Guess , dated December 17, 2018 (the " Guess decision"...

Myanmar's New Trademark Law: A Shift Toward a Modern Registration System

On January 30, 2019, the Parliament of Myanmar passed the country's first modern Trademark Law, marking a significant step toward aligning Myanmar's intellectual property regime with international standards. This legislation will replace the existing practice—under which trademark rights are secured merely by registering a Declaration of Ownership with the Office of the Registration of Deeds—with a formal, examination-based trademark registration system. To administer this new regime, Myanmar will establish an Intellectual Property Office ("IPO") under the Ministry of Commerce. Transition for Existing Registrations Recognizing that numerous trademarks are already on record under the old declaration-based system, the IPO will introduce a "soft-opening" period, commencing in January 2020, during which owners of existing registrations may re-file their marks with the IPO. This re-filing window will remain open for six (6) months, and re-filed marks will be a...