China Trademark Squatting: What to Check Before You Challenge a Filing

By Pan Jianxing · Published 20 September 2026

A distributor reports that another business has applied for the brand’s name in China. The immediate question is usually whether the application can be removed. A useful assessment starts one step earlier: what exactly has been filed, which rights can the brand prove, and which procedure is still available? “Trademark squatting” describes the concern; it does not establish a legal ground.

This article addresses mainland China and the law in force on 20 September 2026. The 2026 revision was adopted on 26 June 2026 and takes effect on 1 January 2027. In particular, Article 36 of the revised law provides a two-month opposition period. That future rule must not be substituted for the current three-month rule. Matters spanning commencement require a fresh review of the applicable procedural and transitional rules.

Start with the official record

Obtain the application or registration number, applicant’s exact name, representation of the mark, goods or services, filing date, publication record and current status. Review related filings for the English name, Chinese name and logo separately. A commercial search report is useful for identifying leads, but the deadline assessment should be based on the official record and relevant notices.

Compare the actual goods and services, not merely the class numbers. Establish whether the mark is awaiting examination, published for opposition, registered, or already subject to proceedings. Keep a dated copy of each relevant record. A portfolio spreadsheet should identify the source of each date and the person responsible for verifying the next procedural step.

Identify the ground before describing the applicant’s motives

Under the current Trademark Law, potentially relevant grounds include a bad-faith application without an intention to use under Article 4; an unauthorized agent or representative filing, or a qualifying relationship-based filing, under Article 15; and an earlier right or a previously used mark with a certain influence under Article 32. Earlier Chinese registrations or applications also require comparison under Articles 30 and 31. Each ground requires its own evidence.

For a former supplier or distributor, collect agreements, quotations, artwork transfers and correspondence showing when the relationship began and how the applicant encountered the mark. For an earlier right, establish ownership and the date that right arose. For prior use, identify the relevant market, goods, dates and evidence of influence. Overseas registrations and sales may support the history, but counsel must assess what each proves for the specific Chinese ground.

A large filing portfolio, copied artwork or a demand for payment may justify further investigation. Preserve those facts accurately. Do not treat a suspicious pattern as a substitute for proving the statutory ground, or assume that every unrelated applicant acted in bad faith.

Choose between opposition, invalidation and non-use cancellation

• Opposition: Article 33 currently allows opposition within three months from preliminary publication. Standing depends on the ground: some require an earlier rights holder or interested party; others permit any person to object. Confirm both the publication and the proposed opponent’s status. CNIPA’s opposition guidance explains that distinction.
• Invalidation: once registered, assess Articles 44 and 45 separately. Article 45 generally gives earlier rights holders or interested parties five years from registration for its listed grounds; its bad-faith exception concerns owners of well-known marks. Article 44 proceedings address different grounds and are not subject to that five-year limit. See CNIPA’s explanation of the available grounds and its guidance on time limits.
• Non-use cancellation: Article 49 addresses three consecutive years of non-use without a proper reason. It is not a finding that the original application was dishonest. CNIPA’s 2025 guidance update calls for preliminary investigation evidence, including relevant online searches or market investigation material.

Do not calculate a case deadline from this overview. International registrations, intervening proceedings and official notices can require more detailed examination. Nor should a brand wait for a possible non-use challenge while an available opposition or invalidation route expires. For non-use cancellation, verify eligibility and the relevant period against the registration history. Negotiations should run against an independently maintained procedural calendar.

Build an evidence chronology, not a document dump

Organize the file around four propositions: the brand’s entitlement, its activity before the disputed filing, the applicant’s knowledge, and the relief requested. For every item, record its date, creator, source, language and the fact it is intended to prove. Separate contemporaneous records from statements prepared after the dispute arose.

Preserve original emails and attachments, transaction records, dated packaging, catalogues and relevant website material. Identify gaps explicitly: an undated image does not establish earlier use, and a current product listing does not establish what was available years earlier. Plan translations and any required evidential formalities before the filing timetable becomes compressed.

Keep the commercial objective separate from removal

A successful challenge does not by itself place a registration in the brand’s name. Assess the brand’s own filing strategy, other blocking marks and the products that need clearance. If goods are already being manufactured or sold, review the immediate use risk separately; commencing a challenge is not equivalent to resolving the dispute.

An initial trademark enforcement review is most useful when it produces a verified status table, a ground-by-ground evidence assessment and a filing sequence. For a case-specific assessment, provide the disputed numbers, existing rights records, relationship documents and the next planned launch or shipment date.

Pan Jianxing
China-qualified lawyer · Partner, 北京市长安律师事务所
Beijing & Shenzhen
Discuss a China IP matter →