China is tightening the reins on malicious trademark registrations, with the China National Intellectual Property Administration (“CNIPA”) signaling an increasingly aggressive posture against trademark squatting—a long-standing concern for both domestic and international rights holders. Through heightened enforcement of existing provisions, including Article 44(1) of the Trademark Law, and greater use of its opposition and invalidation system, the CNIPA is seeking to deter behavior that undermines the integrity of the trademark regime and the principle of good faith in commercial dealings.
Targeting “Improper Means” Under Article 44(1)
At the heart of CNIPA’s crackdown is Article 44(1), which provides that trademarks obtained “by deception or other improper means” may be declared invalid. This includes filings that appear to be strategic imitations of well-known marks or names, or bulk registrations that exceed normal commercial needs without a clear intention of use.
The law allows third parties—including brand owners—to petition the CNIPA for invalidation of such registrations. Examples of improper means include applying for large volumes of marks that resemble established brands, company names, or even packaging and product designs. The bar for action under this provision is not limited to likelihood of confusion; it shifts the focus to the applicant’s intent and conduct, opening up a broader avenue of enforcement for trademark owners whose core challenge is not always direct infringement, but bad faith mimicry.
In a recent case illustrative of the CNIPA’s shift in approach, a Chinese app operator specializing in maternal and child products came under scrutiny after filing over 900 trademark applications, including more than 50 in 2022 alone. The CNIPA issued an examination opinion notice, noting that the volume of applications far exceeded normal business needs and that the filings lacked genuine intent to use.
In the absence of adequate justification or proof of planned commercial use, the agency rejected the applications outright—demonstrating that mass registration without use can now constitute independent grounds for refusal, even without an opposition from a third party.
Opposition & Invalidation in Practice
Beyond proactive review, trademark owners are also turning to China’s opposition and invalidation channels to combat misuse of their marks. In an opposition proceeding involving the NOVARTIS mark, the CNIPA rejected a third-party application for an identical name in Class 21, despite a technical finding that the goods were not similar to those in the opponent’s Class 5 registration. The tipping point? Evidence that the applicant had filed a pattern of copycat trademarks, not only of NOVARTIS but of other recognized brands.
In another matter, Automobili Lamborghini successfully challenged a trademark for ESTOQUE, the name of its concept car, even though it had not previously registered the name in China. The CNIPA accepted Lamborghini’s claim that the adverse party had registered the name in bad faith and demanded a high transfer fee—reportedly $100,000—amounting to an attempt to seek illegitimate gains. Notably, the registrant had also filed a series of marks imitating other famous brands, further reinforcing the bad faith argument.
While China has made strides in strengthening its IP framework, trademark owners continue to face structural challenges. The threshold for proving confusion remains high, and the “similar mark over similar goods” test often limits recourse unless the mark in question qualifies as well-known—a bar that is difficult to meet without extensive local use and documentation.
In this context, malicious intent has become a critical legal hook. CNIPA examiners and tribunals are showing increased willingness to recognize patterns of abuse—especially when an applicant files for dozens or hundreds of marks that show no clear connection to a legitimate commercial venture.
The Takeaway for Brands
For brand owners operating or entering the Chinese market, the message is clear: timely registration remains the first and best line of defense. But where squatting has already occurred, filing opposition and invalidation actions grounded in Article 44(1) may offer a viable path forward—particularly where there is evidence of copycat behavior or abusive filing practices.
As Chinese authorities continue to refine their enforcement tools, rights holders should monitor the use of Article 44(1) and related provisions as part of a broader trademark strategy tailored to one of the world’s most dynamic, but legally complex, markets.
Share
