China IP Law Blog

Understanding CNIPA Stricter Trademark Examination Policies and Their Impact on Brands From 2024, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), which oversees the Trademark Office (TMO) and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB), introduced significantly stricter examination criteria for new trademark applications. This policy change has led to a notable increase in refusals based on absolute grounds, as well as more frequent objections citing prior trademarks. This rigorous approach reflects CNIPA goal to reduce the annual number of trademark registrations in China, thereby strengthening the quality and distinctiveness of the trademark register. Since these enhanced standards were implemented, brand owners have faced a growing number of refusals that sometimes seem arbitrary or inconsistent with past practices. Particularly challenging are cases where applicants already hold valid registrations for identical textual marks in China and seek to protect new stylized versions of the same marks. Such refusals not only hinder brand

In recent years, an increasing number of Chinese brands have confidently entered the international market by acquiring well-known foreign brands. Today, renowned names such as Arc’teryx, G-III, Paladin, Bogner, and THG—previously celebrated worldwide—are now proudly included in the portfolios of Chinese companies. These brands have been integrated into a strategic framework developed by Chinese enterprises, highlighting the rich and diverse appeal of Chinese branding on the global stage. Intellectual property, as a crucial asset for maintaining competitive advantage, has become a fundamental element in China overseas acquisition strategies. By carefully assessing risks and aiming to maximize the protection and acquisition of their rights, Chinese companies are effectively managing the transfer, restructuring, and value enhancement of intellectual property associated with these international brands. As Chinese brands continue to globalize, many companies have strategically prioritized acquiring overseas brands. Since 2019, despite a slowdown caused by the pandemic, over 20 acquisitions of foreign

The Supreme Court delivered a final decision regarding the trademark ownership and infringement dispute between Heilongjiang Chuanfeng Co and Russia Balizam concerning the Barizam trademarks. The Court overturned the previous rulings from the lower courts, affirming that the Barizam series trademarks registered in China rightfully belong to Russia Barizamm Company, and has ordered the transfer of these trademarks accordingly. This case, arising from a dispute between Chinese and foreign partners, centers on determining trademark ownership following the dissolution of their cooperation. It provides valuable guidance for many joint ventures and cooperative enterprises in China. Notably, this marks the Supreme Court first ruling requiring the transfer of trademarks to its legitimate owner in response to malicious trademark squatting. Judgement Initial Cooperation and Market Entry Heilongjiang Chuanfeng Co., Ltd., an import-export company specializing in border trade, discovered the popular Russian alcoholic brand Balizam, produced by Balizam Open Joint Stock Company of Ussuriysk

Introduction: Navigating a Commercial Paradox in China Retail Landscape In the bustling shopping centers of Shanghai and Beijing, consumers witness a unique intellectual property scenario unfolding firsthand. Two separate companies operate stores under the identical MUJI brand—Japan Ryohin Keikaku Co., Ltd. (Authentic MUJI) and Beijing Cottonfield Textile Co., Ltd. (Chinese MUJI)—located just meters apart yet entirely independent. In July 2025, the Supreme Court landmark ruling affirming Beijing Cottonfield Class 24 无印良品 trademark right (covering towels, textiles, and bedding) concludes a 24-year legal battle and highlights key insights into China evolving IP environment. The Japanese MUJI brand journey in China sets important precedents for international brands navigating China first-to-file trademark system, illustrating both the risks of delayed registration and the legal framework enabling brand coexistence. Overview of the complex 无印良品 Trademark Procedures The trademark conflict between two MUJIs over the “MUJI” trademark has spanned 24 years, involving three key stages: opposition,