In the past three years obtaining trademark registration in China has become increasingly challenging. Notably, the absolute grounds for refusal stipulated in Article 10, Paragraph 1, Items 7 and 8 of China Trademark Law have emerged as significant hurdles in securing trademark rights.
High Upholding Rate of Refusals on Review
Article 10, Paragraph 1, Item 7 prohibits the registration and use of trademarks that are deceptive or likely to mislead the public regarding the quality or origin of goods. Item 8 forbids trademarks that harm socialist moral standards or have other adverse effects. These provisions have broad and evolving scopes and currently serve as key bases for refusals and enforcement actions involving trademarks related to health claims, ethnic sentiments, military terms, and more.
Data from China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) shows a sharp increase in trademark refusals based on absolute grounds since 2022, with deceptiveness becoming a primary focus. In 2024 alone, over 26,000 review requests were filed against refusals citing deceptiveness under Item 7, with approximately 88% (more than 23,000 cases) upholding the original refusal decisions. Terms previously accepted are now subject to stricter scrutiny. The term PURE, which was previously widely accepted for various products, has recently faced refusals when used in combinations like SKINPURE, AQUAPURE and PURECARE. Examiners have expressed concerns that PURE could potentially mislead consumers about the product content or quality, particularly in categories such as cosmetics, beverages, or cleaning products. Similarly, trademarks containing NATIONAL or STATE (for example, NATIONAL HEALTH or STATEGUARD) have increasingly been rejected under Item 8 due to the possibility of implying official endorsement or generating negative social perceptions.
Trends in Use and Enforcement of Trademarks Subject to Absolute Grounds
Can a refused trademark still be used?
From a legal standpoint, using a trademark that breaches Article 10 can result in administrative sanctions, such as fines and orders to stop using the mark. The CNIPA’s 2021 General Standards for Determining Trademark Violations have clarified the enforcement guidelines for such infringements.
Between 2020 and 2024, administrative enforcement actions across the country under Items 7 and 8 have been relatively limited but are gradually rising, especially in economically active areas like the Yangtze River Delta and Pearl River Delta. Recent enforcement efforts have targeted industries including health products, food and beverages, and cultural goods, particularly when marks make unproven efficacy claims, use national symbols, or reference culturally sensitive elements.
Examples of Enforcement:
- Health Supplement Labeling: A dietary supplement brand used the term IMMUNE BOOST along with a shield icon on its packaging. Local market regulators concluded that this wording and imagery falsely suggested disease-prevention benefits, misleading consumers about the product function, thus violating Item 7.
- Regional Implication in Retail: A jewelry store prominently displayed ASIAN GOLD on its signage and promotional materials. Authorities determined this could mislead consumers into thinking the business was connected to or certified by a specific regional authority, potentially giving it an unfair competitive edge and violating Items 7 and 8.
- Cultural Symbolism on Apparel: A clothing brand featured stylized dragon designs and the phrase EASTERN LEGEND on T-shirts. Regulators found that this combination could be linked to culturally sacred symbols in a commercial setting deemed inappropriate, constituting an adverse effect under Item 8.
- Food Product Naming: A seasoning product was labeled NATURAL FARM with images suggesting rural origins. An investigation revealed the product was actually produced in an urban industrial facility without direct farm sourcing. This was considered deceptive regarding the product origin and production methods, violating Item 7.
Strategic Recommendations for Responding to Absolute Grounds Refusals
Given the rising risk of refusals based on absolute grounds, brand owners should proactively address key questions when planning their brand strategies. Combining legal analysis with practical tactics is essential: assess risks early, prepare alternatives, and monitor enforcement trends to understand potential impacts.
1. Early Identification of Key Issues
Before filing, evaluate the trademark intended use and risk profile: Is it for short-term campaigns or a long-term brand? Are elements that may trigger absolute grounds (e.g., product ingredients, health claims, geographic names) truly indispensable? If not, consider removing or replacing them. Early assessment helps avoid unnecessary refusals and allows ample time to gather evidence or develop alternatives.
2. Comprehensive Pre-Application Risk Assessment
Conduct thorough trademark searches to identify similar refusals or registered marks. CNIPA examiners often do not specify the fundamental issues in absolute grounds refusals, making local legal expertise and case experience invaluable. If a mark risks refusal for deceptiveness, consider narrowing the goods/services scope to better align with the mark nature and characteristics. This approach can mitigate concerns under Item 7 and demonstrate good faith and clear usage intent to examiners. In some cases, such strategic adjustments can be decisive for registration success.
3. Careful Selection of Response Strategies After Refusal
Not every refusal warrants an appeal. After refusal, calmly evaluate whether the mark is critical to your brand strategy and the likelihood of success given CNIPA high refusal and low review success rates Be aware that during review, CNIPA may introduce new absolute grounds, complicating the case. Also consider the public nature of review decisions in China—an unsuccessful appeal may attract unwanted attention or set unfavorable precedents. If the mark is not essential, adjusting direction early (e.g., changing elements) may be safer. If pursuing review, prepare thoroughly by collecting strong evidence, researching administrative and judicial precedents, and seeking professional support to maximize chances.
4. Prudent Use of Unregistered Trademarks
Some companies use unregistered trademarks, especially for short-term marketing. This requires caution: ensure the wording serves only descriptive, decorative, or product name functions without acting as source identifiers, and avoid using ™ symbols. Stay informed on enforcement developments, particularly in regions like the Yangtze River Delta, where scrutiny of deceptive or socially sensitive marks is increasing. While unregistered use carries risks, it can be viable with careful management.
5. Developing Contingency Plans
Not all trademarks will pass China stringent examination. Prepare alternatives in advance: Can problematic elements (e.g., ingredients, health claims, geographic names) be removed or modified? Sometimes minor changes significantly improve registration prospects. A flexible, multi-layered trademark strategy ensures brand development remains resilient when primary marks face legal challenges.
Looking Ahead
China trademark authorities are increasingly emphasizing absolute grounds in legal compliance reviews, reshaping trademark decision-making beyond traditional legal frameworks. Corporate strategies are evolving toward greater strategic foresight, evidence-based approaches, and agility. Leading brands proactively anticipate risks, plan ahead, and integrate resilience into their intellectual property frameworks. The key is to stay composed and plan carefully. Trademark refusals are not the end but can mark the beginning of smarter, more adaptable brand strategies.