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...
Post a Comment

Calcutta High Court Appoints Amicus Curiae to Resolve GUI Registrability Under Designs Act

 

Summary

The Calcutta High Court has appointed Adv. Adarsh Ramanujan as amicus curiae to comprehensively address the registrability of Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) under the Designs Act, 1970, following repeated rejections by the Indian Patent Office despite previous judicial guidance favoring GUI design protection.


Background

The Calcutta High Court appears determined to definitively resolve the contentious issue of GUI registrability under the Designs Act, 1970. In Erbe Elektromedizin GmbH v. The Controller of Patents (IPDAID/22/2024), the Court appointed Adv. Adarsh Ramanujan as amicus curiae to assist in determining questions concerning GUI design registration. This development follows the Court's earlier ruling in Ust Global (Singapore) Pte Ltd v. The Controller of Patents and Designs, where it indicated that GUIs are registrable as designs and remanded the matter to the Indian Patent Office (IPO) for reconsideration. However, upon re-examination, the Controller again denied registration, prompting this fresh judicial intervention to resolve the persistent impasse.

IPO's Grounds for Rejection

The Patent Office has consistently relied on four primary grounds to refuse GUI design registration. First, GUIs are ephemeral in nature and fail to provide consistent eye appeal. Second, GUIs are inherently functional rather than ornamental, rendering them ineligible for design protection. Third, GUIs have not been applied through an "industrial process" to devices, a mandatory requirement under Section 2(d) of the Designs Act. Fourth, the mere existence of a class for GUIs in the classification system does not automatically confer registrability unless the application satisfies the threshold scrutiny under Section 2 of the Act.

The Ust Global Precedent

In 2023, the Calcutta High Court in Ust Global (Singapore) Pte Ltd v. The Controller of Patents and Designs set aside the Controller's refusal to register a GUI design and remanded the application for fresh determination. The Court observed that the Controller failed to consider the 2021 Design Amendment and the 2008 amendment adopting the Locarno classification system. Importantly, the Court held that the ephemeral nature of GUIs does not justify rejection, and that GUIs are applied through industrial processes, thereby satisfying Section 2(d)'s threshold requirements. Despite this judicial guidance, the Controller again rejected the application post-remand, highlighting the continuing discord between judicial interpretation and administrative practice.

Locarno Classification Framework

The Locarno Agreement, to which India is a signatory, harmonizes classification of articles among member countries through a uniform scheme. Since the Designs (Amendment) Rules, 2008, India has recognized "Screen display and icons" as a separate subclass, updated in 2021 to include "Graphical User Interfaces and Icons," tracking amendments to the international Locarno classification. The explicit inclusion of GUI-specific classes in India's design classification framework strengthens arguments for their registrability under the Designs Act.

Significance

The appointment of an amicus curiae in Erbe signals the High Court's serious intent to conclusively determine GUI registrability under Indian law. This case presents an opportunity to reconcile judicial pronouncements with Patent Office practice, provide clarity on the interpretation of Section 2(d), address the functionality versus ornamentation debate, and establish definitive standards for GUI design protection in India. The outcome will significantly impact technology companies, software developers, and the broader IP ecosystem by clarifying whether GUIs constitute protectable industrial designs under Indian law.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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"...
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
5 comments
Read more