On September 14, 2026, the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China issued a package of draft judicial interpretations for public comment, consisting of three documents: (1) the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Temporal Application of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China (Draft for Comment); (2) the Decision of the Supreme People’s Court to Amend the “Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Cases Involving the Grant and Confirmation of Trademark Rights” (Draft for Comment), setting out thirteen specific amendments to the existing 2020 provisions; and (3) the resulting consolidated Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Cases Involving the Grant and Confirmation of Trademark Rights (Draft for Comment), republished in full to incorporate those amendments. The announcement itself refers to these collectively as “两个司法解释稿” (two judicial interpretation drafts), treating the amendment decision and its resulting consolidated text as a single interpretation.
The Supreme People’s Court is soliciting public comments on the drafts through the following channels: by mail to the Third Civil Division of the Supreme People’s Court, No. 27 Dongjiaominxiang, Dongcheng District, Beijing, postal code 100745; by email to zgfmstshb@163.com; or by fax to 010-67557460. Submissions should be marked “商标司法解释” (Trademark Judicial Interpretation) on the envelope. The comment period closes on October 28, 2026.
A translation follows. The original is available here (Chinese only).
Supreme People’s Court
Several Provisions Regarding the Temporal Effect of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China
(Draft for public comment)
In accordance with the provisions of the Legislation Law of the People’s Republic of China and the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China, the following provisions are made regarding the application of the temporal effect of the Trademark Law in trademark dispute cases heard by the people’s courts.
Article 1. Trademark civil disputes arising from legal facts after the implementation of the newly revised Trademark Law shall be governed by the provisions of the newly revised Trademark Law.
Trademark civil disputes arising from legal facts prior to the implementation of the newly revised Trademark Law shall be governed by the provisions of the Trademark Law and judicial interpretations in effect at that time, unless otherwise provided by law or judicial interpretation.
If a legal fact predating the implementation of the newly revised Trademark Law persists after its implementation, the provisions of the newly revised Trademark Law shall apply to trademark civil disputes arising from such legal fact, unless otherwise provided by law or judicial interpretation.
Article 2. If a party files an administrative lawsuit against a trademark rejection review decision or a trademark non-registration review decision made by the trademark administration department of the State Council, the Trademark Law in effect at the time the review decision was made shall apply.
Article 3 If a party files an administrative lawsuit against the invalidation review decision or invalidation request ruling made by the trademark administration department of the State Council, the Trademark Law in effect at the time the registration approval decision was made shall apply.
The phrase “when the decision to approve registration is made” as mentioned in the preceding paragraph refers to the time when the trademark administration department under the State Council makes a decision to approve registration regarding whether the disputed trademark meets the registration requirements, including the following circumstances:
(i) When a preliminary approval announcement is issued without prior review or rejection proceedings and the registration is approved after the preliminary approval announcement period has expired;
(ii) When a decision to reject registration is made in cases where the preliminary review and approval period has expired after the rejection review procedure;
(iii) When a decision to grant registration or a decision to refuse registration is made after the objection review or the re-examination procedure for refusal to register has been completed.
Article 4. If a party files an administrative lawsuit against a trademark cancellation review decision made by the trademark administration department of the State Council, the Trademark Law in effect when the petitioner applied for cancellation of the disputed trademark or when the trademark administration department of the State Council initiated cancellation proceedings ex officio shall apply.
Article 5. If a party files an administrative lawsuit against an administrative penalty decision made by the trademark administration department or trademark enforcement department of the State Council, the Trademark Law in effect at the time the illegal act occurred shall apply. However, if the Trademark Law in effect at the time the administrative penalty decision was made imposed a lighter penalty or did not consider the act illegal, that law shall apply.
Article 6. If a party files an administrative lawsuit against a trademark administrative act as stipulated in Articles 2 to 5 of these Regulations, the procedure for reviewing the trademark administrative act shall be governed by the Trademark Law in effect at the time the act was made.
Article 7. The examination of whether a party’s invalidation request exceeds the time limit for invalidation shall be governed by the Trademark Law in effect as of the date of the registration approval announcement. If the disputed trademark was approved for registration less than one year prior to the implementation of the 2001 amended Trademark Law, the five-year invalidation request period stipulated in the 2001 amended Trademark Law shall apply.
If the preliminary approval announcement date of the disputed trademark is before the implementation of the Trademark Law as amended in 2026, the three-month opposition period stipulated in the Trademark Law amended in 2019 shall apply.
Article 8 These regulations shall come into effect on January 1, 2027.
After these provisions come into effect, they shall apply to first-instance and second-instance cases that have not yet been concluded by the people’s courts.
Upon the implementation of these provisions, the “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Issues Concerning Jurisdiction and Scope of Application of Law in Trademark Cases (2020 Revision)” (Fa Shi [2002] No. 1) and the “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Issues Concerning Jurisdiction and Scope of Application of Law in Trademark Cases after the Implementation of the Decision to Amend the Trademark Law (2020 Revision)” (Fa Shi [2014] No. 4) will be repealed simultaneously.
Decision of the Supreme People’s Court on Amending the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Cases of Trademark Authorization and Confirmation
(Draft for public comment)
In accordance with the provisions of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Administrative Litigation Law of the People’s Republic of China, and other relevant laws, and in light of trademark trial practice, the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Cases Involving Trademark Authorization and Confirmation are hereby amended as follows:
1. The phrase “trademark rejection review, trademark non-registration review, trademark cancellation review, trademark invalidation declaration and invalidation review, and other administrative acts” in Article 1 is amended to “trademark rejection review decision, trademark non-registration review decision, trademark cancellation review decision, trademark invalidation declaration request ruling and trademark invalidation declaration review decision, and other administrative acts”.
2. Article 3, paragraph 1 is amended to read: “The provisions of Article 15, paragraph 1 of the Trademark Law regarding ‘identical or similar to the name, flag, emblem, medal, or symbolic elements related to important theoretical achievements or historical events of the Communist Party of China’ and the provisions of paragraph 2 regarding ‘identical or similar to the name, flag, emblem, anthem, military flag, emblem, song, medal, etc. of the People’s Republic of China’ refer to trademarks that are identical or similar to the aforementioned names, etc. as a whole.”
The phrase “the name of the People’s Republic of China” in the second paragraph shall be amended to “the name as stipulated in Article 15, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Trademark Law”.
3. In Article 4, “quality” is amended to “quality, process, raw materials”.
4. In Article 6, “place name” is amended to “name”, and “the circumstances referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 10” is amended to “the circumstances in which it is prohibited from being registered and used as a trademark as stipulated in paragraph 1 of Article 16”.
5. In Article 13, “registrant of a well-known trademark” is amended to “holder of a well-known trademark”. In Items I and V, “cited trademark” is amended to “trademark for which protection is sought”. After “to determine whether the use of the disputed trademark is sufficient to make the relevant public believe that it has a considerable degree of connection with the well-known trademark,” the phrase “that it weakens the distinctiveness of the well-known trademark, damages the market reputation of the well-known trademark, or improperly uses the market reputation of the well-known trademark” is added.
6. In Article 18, “prior rights” is amended to “prior legitimate rights and interests”.
7. In Articles 21 and 22, “prior rights” shall be amended to “prior legitimate rights”.
8. In Article 23, “by improper means” is amended to “intentionally”.
9. In Article 27, Item 2, add “and” before “after review there are indeed grounds for recusal but no recusal was made”.
10. Article 28 is amended to read: “When a people’s court hears a decision of rejection review, decision of non-registration review, or ruling of invalidation made by the trademark administration department of the State Council in accordance with Article 20 of the Trademark Law, the facts at the time the appealed decision or ruling was made shall prevail.”
(Option 2: Amend Article 28 to read: “If the grounds for rejection, non-approval for registration, or invalidation of a disputed trademark by the trademark administration department under the State Council no longer exist before the people’s court makes an effective judgment on the authorization and confirmation of trademark rights, the people’s court may revoke the relevant decision of the trademark administration department under the State Council based on new facts and order it to make a new decision based on the changed facts; if the grounds no longer exist after the effective judgment is made, and the party applies for retrial solely on this ground, the people’s court shall rule not to accept the application.”)
11. Article 31 is amended to read: “These provisions shall come into force on January 1, 2027.”
Add a new clause as the second clause: “For cases in which a people’s court has already rendered an effective judgment before the implementation of this interpretation, this interpretation shall not apply if, after the implementation of this interpretation, a party applies for retrial or a people’s court decides to retry the case in accordance with the trial supervision procedure.”
12. The phrase “State Intellectual Property Office” in the relevant articles shall be amended to “Trademark Administration Department of the State Council”.
Thirteen, the article numbers of relevant articles in the Trademark Law cited in the text shall be adjusted accordingly based on the amended Trademark Law.
This decision shall take effect on January 1, 2027.
In accordance with this decision, the “Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Cases of Trademark Authorization and Confirmation” will be revised accordingly and republished.
Supreme People’s Court on the Trial of Administrative Cases Involving Trademark Authorization and Confirmation
Provisions on Several Issues
(Draft for public comment)
In order to correctly adjudicate administrative cases concerning trademark authorization and confirmation, these provisions are formulated in accordance with the provisions of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Administrative Litigation Law of the People’s Republic of China, and other relevant laws, and in light of judicial practice.
Article 1 The administrative cases concerning trademark authorization and confirmation of rights referred to in these provisions are cases in which the opposing party or interested party files a lawsuit with the people’s court against administrative actions such as trademark rejection review decisions, trademark non-registration review decisions, trademark cancellation review decisions, trademark invalidation request rulings, and trademark invalidation review decisions made by the trademark administration department of the State Council.
Article 2 The scope of review by the People’s Court of administrative acts concerning trademark authorization and confirmation shall generally be determined based on the plaintiff’s claims and grounds. If the plaintiff fails to raise any claims in the litigation, but the relevant determinations by the State Council’s trademark administration department are clearly inappropriate, the People’s Court may review the relevant grounds and render a judgment after all parties have presented their opinions.
Article 3 The trademark mark that is identical or similar to the aforementioned name, flag, emblem, medal or symbolic elements related to important theoretical achievements or historical events as stipulated in Article 15, Paragraph 1 of the Trademark Law, and the trademark mark that is identical or similar to the aforementioned name, flag, emblem, national anthem, military flag, military emblem, military song or medal as stipulated in Paragraph 2, refer to the trademark mark that is identical or similar to the aforementioned name, flag, emblem or medal as a whole.
For marks that contain names or similarities as stipulated in Article 15, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Trademark Law, but are not identical or similar in general, if registering such marks as trademarks may harm national dignity, the People’s Court may determine that they fall under the circumstances stipulated in Article 15, Paragraph 9 of the Trademark Law.
Article 4 If a trademark or its constituent elements are deceptive and are likely to mislead the public about the quality, craftsmanship, raw materials, or place of origin of goods, and the trademark administration department of the State Council determines that it falls under the circumstances stipulated in Article 15, Paragraph 8 of the Trademark Law, the people’s court shall support such determination.
Article 5 If a trademark or its constituent elements may have a negative impact on the public interest and public order of China, the people’s court may determine that it falls under the category of “other adverse effects” as stipulated in Article 15, Item 9 of the Trademark Law.
Registering the names of public figures in the political, economic, cultural, religious, and ethnic fields as trademarks falls under the category of “other adverse effects” mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
Article 6 A trademark symbol consisting of the name of an administrative division at or above the county level or a foreign place name known to the public, and other elements, if as a whole it has a meaning that is distinct from the place name, the people’s court shall determine that it does not fall under the circumstances stipulated in Article 16, Paragraph 1 of the Trademark Law that prohibit its registration and use as a trademark.
Article 7 When examining whether a disputed trademark possesses distinctive features, the people’s court shall determine whether the trademark as a whole possesses distinctive features based on the common understanding of the relevant public regarding the goods for which the trademark is designated. If a trademark contains descriptive elements, but this does not affect its overall distinctiveness; or if the descriptive mark is expressed in a unique manner, enabling the relevant public to identify the source of the goods, it shall be deemed to possess distinctive features.
Article 8 When the disputed trademark is a foreign language mark, the People’s Court shall examine and determine whether the foreign language trademark possesses distinctive features based on the common understanding of the relevant public within China. The inherent meaning of the foreign language in the mark may affect its distinctiveness on the designated goods, but if the relevant public has a low level of awareness of that inherent meaning and can identify the source of the goods by the mark, it may be deemed to possess distinctive features.
Article 9 If a three-dimensional mark is applied for trademark registration based solely on the shape of the goods themselves or a part thereof, and the relevant public is generally unlikely to recognize it as a mark indicating the source of the goods, the three-dimensional mark does not possess the distinctive features required for trademark registration.
The fact that the shape was created by the applicant or was the first to be used does not automatically make it a distinctive feature for use as a trademark.
If a mark referred to in paragraph 1 of this article has been used for a long period of time or widely and the relevant public can identify the source of goods through the mark, the mark may be deemed to have distinctive features.
Article 10 If the disputed trademark is a legally recognized product name or a customary product name, the People’s Court shall determine that it falls under the category of generic names as referred to in Article 17, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Trademark Law. If a trademark is a generic name for goods according to legal provisions or national or industry standards, it shall be deemed a generic name. If the relevant public generally believes that a certain name can refer to a class of goods, it shall be deemed a customary generic name. If a trademark is listed as a product name in professional reference books, dictionaries, etc., it may be used as a reference in determining whether a trademark is a customary generic name.
A commonly accepted generic name is generally determined by the common understanding of the relevant public nationwide. For goods whose names are fixed in a relevant market due to historical traditions, local customs, geographical environment, etc., the people’s court may recognize them as generic names.
If the applicant for the disputed trademark knew or should have known that the trademark it applied to register was a customary name of goods in a certain region, the people’s court may regard the trademark it applied to register as a generic name.
When a people’s court examines and determines whether a disputed trademark is a generic name, it generally bases its judgment on the factual situation at the time of trademark application. If the factual situation has changed at the time of registration approval, the determination of whether it is a generic name shall be based on the factual situation at the time of registration approval.
Article 11 Where a trademark mark merely or primarily describes or indicates the quality, main raw materials, function, use, weight, quantity, or place of origin of the goods used, the People’s Court shall determine that it falls under the circumstances stipulated in Article 17, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Trademark Law. Where a trademark mark or its constituent elements suggest the characteristics of the goods but do not affect its function of identifying the source of the goods, it does not fall under the circumstances stipulated in that item.
Article 12 Where a party claims, pursuant to Article 21, Paragraph 1 of the Trademark Law, that a disputed trademark constitutes a reproduction, imitation, or translation of its unregistered well-known trademark and should therefore be invalidated, the People’s Court shall comprehensively consider the following factors and the mutual influence between these factors to determine whether confusion is likely:
(a) The degree of similarity between the trademarks;
(b) The degree of similarity between the goods;
(c) The distinctiveness and reputation of the trademark requested for protection;
(d) The level of attention paid by the relevant public;
(e) Other relevant factors.
The trademark applicant’s subjective intent and evidence of actual confusion can serve as reference factors in assessing the likelihood of confusion.
Article 13 Where a party claims, pursuant to Article 21, Paragraph 2 of the Trademark Law, that a disputed trademark constitutes a reproduction, imitation, or translation of its well-known trademark and should therefore not be registered or should be invalidated, the People’s Court shall comprehensively consider the following factors to determine whether the use of the disputed trademark is sufficient to lead the relevant public to believe that it has a substantial connection with the well-known trademark, thereby weakening the distinctiveness of the well-known trademark, damaging the market reputation of the well-known trademark, or improperly utilizing the market reputation of the well-known trademark, thereby misleading the public and potentially harming the interests of the holder of the well-known trademark:
(a) Requesting protection for the distinctiveness and reputation of the trademark;
(b) Whether the trademarks are sufficiently similar;
(c) Details of the goods designated for use;
(d) The degree of overlap and attention paid by the relevant public;
(e) The circumstances under which a mark similar to the trademark for which protection is sought is legally used by other market entities or other relevant factors.
Article 14 Where a party claims that a disputed trademark constitutes a reproduction, imitation, or translation of a well-known trademark that it has already registered, and therefore should not be registered or should be invalidated, and the trademark administration department of the State Council rules in favor of the party’s claim in accordance with Article 20 of the Trademark Law, if the disputed trademark has been registered for less than five years, the people’s court may conduct the trial in accordance with Article 20 of the Trademark Law after the parties have stated their opinions; if the disputed trademark has been registered for more than five years, the trial shall be conducted in accordance with Article 21, Paragraph 2 of the Trademark Law.
Article 15 Where a trademark agent, representative, or agent or representative in the sense of a sales agency relationship (such as a distributor or agent) applies for registration in his or her own name on the same or similar goods that is identical or similar to the trademark of the principal or the represented party, the people’s court shall adjudicate the case in accordance with the provisions of Article 22, Paragraph 1 of the Trademark Law.
During the consultation stage for establishing an agency or representation relationship, if the agent or representative mentioned in the preceding paragraph applies for registration of the trademark of the principal or the represented party, the people’s court shall conduct the trial in accordance with the provisions of Article 22, Paragraph 1 of the Trademark Law.
If there is a specific relationship, such as kinship, between the trademark applicant and the agent or representative, it can be presumed that the trademark registration was done in bad faith in collusion with the agent or representative, and the people’s court shall apply the provisions of Article 22, Paragraph 1 of the Trademark Law to conduct the trial.
Article 16 The following circumstances may be considered as “other relationships” as stipulated in Article 22, Paragraph 2 of the Trademark Law:
(a) There is a kinship between the trademark applicant and the prior user;
(b There is an employment relationship between the trademark applicant and the prior user;
(c) The trademark applicant and the prior user have adjacent business addresses;
(d) The trademark applicant and the prior user had previously negotiated to establish an agency or representative relationship, but no agency or representative relationship was formed;
(e) The trademark applicant and the prior user had negotiated to enter into a contract or business relationship, but no contract or business relationship was entered into.
Article 17 If a party with an interest in a geographical indication claims, pursuant to Article 23 of the Trademark Law, that another party’s trademark should not be registered or should be invalidated, and if the goods designated for use by the disputed trademark are not the same as the geographical indication product, and the party with an interest in the geographical indication can prove that the use of the disputed trademark on the product is still likely to mislead the relevant public into believing that the product originates from the region and therefore possesses specific quality, reputation, or other characteristics, the People’s Court shall support such a claim.
If the geographical indication has been registered as a collective mark or certification mark, the rights holder or interested party of the collective mark or certification mark may choose to assert their rights based on this article or separately based on Articles 20 and 21 of the Trademark Law.
Article 18 The prior legitimate rights and interests stipulated in Article 24 of the Trademark Law include the civil rights or other legitimate rights and interests that the parties enjoyed before the application date of the disputed trademark. If the prior legitimate rights and interests no longer exist at the time of approval of registration of the disputed trademark, this shall not affect the registration of the disputed trademark.
Article 19 Where a party claims that a disputed trademark infringes upon its prior copyright, the people’s court shall, in accordance with the Copyright Law and other relevant provisions, examine whether the claimed object constitutes a work, whether the party is the copyright owner or other interested party entitled to claim copyright, and whether the disputed trademark constitutes an infringement of copyright.
If a trademark constitutes a work protected by copyright law, the design drafts, originals, contracts for obtaining rights, and copyright registration certificates prior to the application date of the disputed trademark provided by the parties can all serve as preliminary evidence of copyright ownership.
Trademark announcements and trademark registration certificates can serve as preliminary evidence to determine that the trademark applicant is an interested party entitled to claim copyright of the trademark.
Article 20 Where a party claims that a disputed trademark infringes upon its right to its name, and the relevant public believes that the trademark refers to that natural person and is likely to believe that the goods bearing the trademark are authorized by that natural person or have a specific connection with that natural person, the people’s court shall determine that the trademark infringes upon the natural person’s right to its name.
When a party asserts their right to a name using a pen name, stage name, translated name, or other specific name, and that specific name has a certain degree of recognition, establishes a stable correspondence with the natural person, and is used by the relevant public to refer to the natural person, the people’s court shall support such assertion.
Article 21 Where a party claims that its trade name has a certain degree of market recognition, and another party applies for registration of a trademark that is identical or similar to that trade name without permission, which is likely to cause confusion among the relevant public regarding the source of the goods, the people’s court shall support the party’s claim that it constitutes a prior legitimate right.
The preceding paragraph applies when a party makes a claim based on an abbreviation of a company name that has a certain market reputation and has established a stable relationship with the company.
Article 22 Where a party claims that a disputed trademark infringes on the copyright of a character image, the People’s Court shall review the case in accordance with Article 19 of these Provisions.
For works within the copyright protection period, if the title of the work, the names of characters in the work, etc., have high popularity, and using them as trademarks on related goods is likely to mislead the relevant public into believing that they have been authorized by the rights holder or have a specific connection with the rights holder, the people’s court shall support the party’s claim that it constitutes prior legitimate rights.
Article 23 If a prior user claims that a trademark applicant intentionally preemptively registers a trademark that the prior user used and that has a certain influence, and if the prior-used trademark already has a certain influence, and the trademark applicant knew or should have known of the trademark, it can be presumed that the prior user has “intentionally preemptively registered” the trademark. However, this does not apply if the trademark applicant provides evidence proving that it did not maliciously exploit the goodwill of the prior-used trademark.
If the prior user provides evidence that their prior trademark has a certain period of continuous use, area, sales volume, or advertising, the people’s court may determine that it has a certain influence.
If a prior user claims that the trademark applicant’s application to register a trademark that the prior user used and that has a certain influence on goods that are not similar to their own violates Article 24 of the Trademark Law, the People’s Court shall not support such a claim.
Article 24 Any act that disrupts the trademark registration order, harms the public interest, improperly occupies public resources, or seeks improper benefits by means other than deception may be deemed by the people’s court to fall under the category of “other improper means” as stipulated in Article 19, Paragraph 2 of the Trademark Law.
Article 25 When determining whether an applicant for a disputed trademark has “maliciously registered” another’s well-known trademark, the people’s court shall comprehensively consider the reputation of the cited trademark, the reasons given by the applicant for the disputed trademark, and the specific circumstances of the use of the disputed trademark to judge its subjective intent. If the cited trademark has a high reputation and the applicant for the disputed trademark has no legitimate reasons, the people’s court may presume that its registration constitutes “malicious registration” as referred to in Article 51, Paragraph 1 of the Trademark Law.
Article 26 Use by the trademark owner on its own, use by others with permission, and other uses that do not violate the will of the trademark owner may be deemed as use as referred to in Article 57, Paragraph 2 of the Trademark Law.
If the trademark logo actually used differs slightly from the approved registered trademark logo, but its distinctive features remain unchanged, it can be considered as the use of the registered trademark.
If there is no actual use of the registered trademark, but only a transfer or licensing, or merely the publication of trademark registration information or a declaration of exclusive right to the registered trademark, it shall not be deemed as trademark use.
If a trademark owner has a genuine intention to use the trademark and has made the necessary preparations for actual use, but has not yet actually used the registered trademark due to other objective reasons, the people’s court may determine that there is a legitimate reason.
Article 27 Where a party claims that the following circumstances of the State Council’s trademark administration department constitute “violation of statutory procedures” as stipulated in Article 70, Paragraph 3 of the Administrative Litigation Law, the People’s Court shall support such claim:
(a) Omitting the review reasons put forward by the parties, which has a real impact on the rights of the parties;
(b) The review process failed to inform the members of the collegial panel, and upon review, it was found that there were grounds for recusal but the members did not recuse themselves;
(c) Failure to notify a qualified party to participate in the review, and that party expressly raises an objection;
(d) Other circumstances that violate statutory procedures.
Article 28 When a people’s court hears a decision to reject a trademark application, a decision to refuse registration, or an invalidation ruling made by the trademark administration department of the State Council in accordance with Article 20 of the Trademark Law, the facts at the time the decision or ruling was made shall prevail.
(Option 2: If the grounds for the State Council’s trademark administration department to reject, refuse to approve registration, or declare invalid a disputed trademark no longer exist before the People’s Court makes an effective judgment on the trademark authorization and confirmation, the People’s Court may revoke the relevant decision of the State Council’s trademark administration department based on new facts and order it to make a new decision based on the changed facts; if the grounds no longer exist after the effective judgment is made, and the party applies for retrial solely on this ground, the People’s Court shall rule not to accept the application.)
Article 29 An application for review based on evidence newly discovered after the original administrative act, or evidence that could not be obtained or provided within the prescribed time limit due to objective reasons in the original administrative procedure, or a new legal basis, does not constitute a resubmission of an application for review based on the same facts and reasons.
In trademark rejection review proceedings, if the State Council’s trademark administration department approves the preliminary examination and publication of a trademark application on the grounds that the applied-for trademark and the cited trademark do not constitute identical or similar trademarks used on the same or similar goods, the following circumstances will not be considered as filing a review application again “on the same facts and grounds”:
(a) If the owner or interested party of the cited trademark raises an objection based on the cited trademark, and the trademark administration department of the State Council supports it, and the applicant of the objected trademark applies for a review;
(b) The owner or interested party of the cited trademark may apply to declare the cited trademark invalid after the trademark application has been approved for registration.
Article 30 Where a people’s court has made a clear determination on the relevant facts and application of law in an effective judgment, and the opposing party or interested party files a lawsuit against a new ruling made by the trademark administration department of the State Council based on the effective judgment, the people’s court shall rule not to accept the case in accordance with the law; if the case has already been accepted, the court shall rule to dismiss the lawsuit.
Article 31 These Regulations shall come into force on January 1, 2027.
For cases in which a people’s court has already rendered an effective judgment before this interpretation came into effect, this interpretation shall not apply if, after this interpretation comes into effect, a party applies for retrial or a people’s court decides to retry the case in accordance with the trial supervision procedure.