Keli ZONG
Chinese  Attorney-at-Law
Wei Chixue Law Firm

 
With the prosperity of China’s market economy and the general rise in awareness of intellectual property protection, the number of trademark registration applications has remained at a high level for a long time, reaching millions annually. Among these, a large number of bad-faith pre-emptive registrations, hoarding of trademarks, cross-class imitation, and other illicit acts have emerged, seriously disrupting the order of trademark registration and the environment of fair competition in the market. Through the 2019 revision of the Trademark Law, the promulgation of various normative documents, and judicial interpretations, China has stepped up its efforts to combat bad-faith registrations in trademark opposition, invalidation, and other examination and adjudication cases, achieving remarkable results. From the perspective of the application of legal provisions, Article 44(1) of the Trademark Law – “obtained by other improper means” – has always been an important weapon in regulating bad-faith pre-emptive registrations.

The author notes that in April this year, the Beijing High People’s Court published the 2025 Top Ten Judicial Protection Cases concerning Trademark Authorization and Affirmation¹, three of which focused on the application of the rule of “obtaining registration by other improper means.” The relevant judgments continue to send a strong signal of strict crackdown on bad-faith trademark registration, fully demonstrating the legislative intent of the Chinese government and judicial authorities to promote the return of the trademark registration system to its essential function of use and to maintain an honest and orderly market environment.

This article aims to sort out the legal origins and applicable elements of “other improper means” under Article 44(1), and to analyze the adjudicative standards and their evolution based on the latest judicial practice. In light of the relevant provisions of the newly revised 2026 Trademark Law, it further offers a prospective view of the subsequent application rules of this clause, thereby providing useful references for precisely curbing bad‑faith trademark registrations in practice.

1. Legal Origins and Applicable Elements

Article 44(1) of the current Trademark Law (as amended in 2019) provides: “A registered trademark that is in violation of the provisions of Articles 4, 10, 11, 12, and paragraph 4 of Article 19 of this Law, or that is obtained by deceptive means or other improper means, shall be declared invalid by the Trademark Office; any other entity or individual may request the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to declare such trademark invalid.”

Among them, the provision concerning “registration obtained by other improper means” has not undergone substantive amendment since the revision of the Trademark Law in 2013. Structurally, this provision is located in Chapter V, “Declaration of Invalidation of Trademark Registration,” and constitutes a legal basis that a party may invoke when initiating invalidation proceedings after a trademark has been registered. In this article, “registration obtained by other improper means” is listed alongside Article 10 (signs prohibited from use), Article 11 (signs prohibited from registration), etc., all of which are absolute grounds for declaring a trademark registration invalid. Moreover, the application of this provision is not subject to any time limit for filing the request.

Regarding the specific circumstances of “trademark registration obtained by improper means”, as early as 2010, the Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues concerning the Trial of Administrative Cases Involving Trademark Authorization and Affirmation [Court Published [2010] No. 12, hereinafter “2010 Judicial Opinions”] stipulated in Article 19: “When hearing administrative cases concerning the cancellation of registered trademarks, the people’s courts, in examining and determining whether the disputed trademark has been registered by other improper means, shall consider whether it falls within the scope of means other than deceptive means that disrupt the order of trademark registration, harm the public interest, improperly occupy public resources, or seek illegitimate benefits by other means.”

It further clarified the boundary of application: “Where only specific civil rights and interests are harmed, the provisions of Article 41(2), (3) of the Trademark Law and other corresponding provisions of the Trademark Law shall apply for examination and judgment.” In other words, if it merely harms the civil rights and interests of a specific party, the “other improper means” provision shall not apply; the party concerned should seek legal relief based on relative grounds. Article 24 of the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues concerning the Trial of Cases of Trademark Authorization and Affirmation [Court Published [2017] No. 2, amended in 2020] essentially followed the content of the 2010 Judicial Opinions. 

In the 2019 Guidelines for the Trial of Administrative Cases concerning Trademark Authorization and Affirmation by the Beijing High People’s Court” (hereinafter “Beijing High Court Guidelines”), Section 17.2 sets forth the following applicable elements:

- Subject of application: the registrant of the disputed trademark, and any other persons who have a specific relationship with the registrant and have a concurrence of will in the trademark registration act;

- Object of application: includes both registered trademarks and pending trademark applications (this expands beyond the literal meaning of the Trademark Law, extending the scope to pending applications based on the legislative spirit);

- Consequences of the act: disrupting the order of trademark registration, harming the public interest; or improperly occupying public resources, or seeking illegitimate benefits by other means;

- Boundary of application: does not merely harm specific civil rights and interests.

Article 17.3 further enumerates three specific circumstances to be considered from multiple dimensions, namely: (i) the applicant of the disputed trademark has filed applications for multiple trademarks identical with or similar to another party’s prior trademarks featuring distinct inherent distinctiveness or a high degree of reputation; (ii) the applicant has filed applications for multiple trademarks identical with or similar to another party’s trade names or other commercial identifiers; and (iii) the applicant's conduct, including offering the trademark for sale or instituting infringement litigation against the genuine right holder.

The 2021 Trademark Examination and Adjudication Guidelines concerning the application of “registration obtained by other improper means” are essentially the same as the circumstances specified in Article 17.3 of the Beijing High Court Guidelines. However, regarding the object of application, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) did not depart from the literal meaning of the Trademark Law, applying this provision only to trademarks that have been approved for registration, and not extending it to pending applications, which reflects a relatively conservative approach.

Particularly noteworthy is that the Beijing High Court Guidelines explicitly include “applications for trademarks of the same trademark owner on goods or services that are not similar or not identical” as an applicable circumstance. On its face, this rule produces the legal effect that ordinary trademarks may obtain cross‑class protection without having to be recognized as well‑known marks, but the jurisprudential foundations of the two regimes are fundamentally different.

The object of protection of Article 44(1) of the Trademark Law is the public order of trademark registration, and the target of regulation is bad-faith registration acts that disrupt the administrative order of trademark registration and violate public order and good morals. Its legislative intent is to implement the principle of public order and good morals, regulate the order of trademark registration and administration, and foster a sound market environment, rather than merely protecting the private goodwill and exclusive trademark rights of specific parties. The core criterion for the application of this provision lies in the subjective bad faith of the registrant of the disputed trademark and the harmfulness of the act to the registration order, and does not require that the prior trademark has a high degree of reputation or a likelihood of confusion.

Thus, the fact that an ordinary prior trademark can prevent another party from bad-faith cross-class pre-emptive registration on non-similar goods is not because the law grants ordinary trademarks the same cross-class exclusive private rights as well-known trademarks, but rather is an incidental effect produced by judicial authorities’ regulation of acts such as hoarding, imitation, and copying of trademarks that disrupt the public order of trademark registration. This is consistent with the legislative purpose of this provision to maintain the order of trademark registration and uphold the principle of good faith.

2. Adjudicative Standards and Recent Changes

In response to the frequent improper registration phenomena in recent years, such as hoarding and reselling of trademarks, bad-faith pre-emptive registrations, and free-riding on goodwill, the CNIPA and judicial authorities have made full use of the legal basis of “other improper means” under Article 44(1) of the Trademark Law in trademark authorization and affirmation cases, declaring a large number of bad-faith registrations invalid. This has effectively curbed the recurrence of improper applications and registrations, deterred unlawful entities attempting to seek illegitimate benefits through trademark registrations, maintained and purified the order of trademark registration, and played an important role in properly resolving China’s trademark issues during a specific period.

For example, in the “UL” trademark invalidation case², the disputed trademark was a bad-faith pre-emptive registration of “UL,” the lightweight down jacket brand of the well-known clothing brand Uniqlo. The registrant, Guangzhou Compass Exhibition Service Co., Ltd., and its affiliate Zhongwei Company had filed more than 2,600 trademark applications in total, and profited by selling trademarks through a trademark trading platform under their actual control. They demanded a sky-high assignment fee of RMB 8 million from the true owner, Fast Retailing Co., Ltd., and filed numerous bad-faith infringement lawsuits across the country. Ultimately, the CNIPA and judicial authorities successively determined that the registration of the trademark in question constituted “registration obtained by other improper means” and declared it invalid. This case is a classic example of disrupting the order of trademark registration and harming the public interest. The relevant rulings and judgments were welcomed by the public and provided important references and exemplary guidance for subsequent similar bad-faith pre-emptive registration cases.

At the same time, in order to severely combat bad-faith registrations, the application of “other improper means” in some cases exhibited extreme phenomena such as “sheer quantity-based” approach. Because this provision is not subject to the five-year limitation for filing invalidation, nor to the restriction of goods/services classes, there have even been instances where competitors filed invalidation actions against trademarks that had long been registered and actually used³, resulting in many previously stable trademark rights being easily declared invalid. This not only harmed the registrant’s legitimate reliance interests in administrative law, but also, to some extent, impacted the normal and stable order of trademark registration and administration.

Based on the author’s observations, recent cases show new trends. An analysis is provided below from two aspects, with reference to specific cases.

2.1 Number of Trademark Applications Filed by the Applicant of the Disputed Trademark

The Beijing High Court Guidelines and the Trademark Examination and Adjudication Guidelines only use expressions such as “multiple trademarks,” “large-scale or batch applications,” etc., without setting an absolute quantitative standard for the number of applications. In practice, it is common to consider that the registrant holding dozens or even hundreds of trademarks may fall within the relevant circumstances. However, does an application quantity of several hundred necessarily constitute “registration obtained by other improper means”? Conversely, does a small number of applications necessarily exclude such a finding?

In the “Zhaocai Mao” (Lucky Cat) trademark invalidation case⁴, the court of second instance found that the registrant, Shaanxi Zhongyan Company, had applied for more than 300 trademarks in various classes, exceeding normal business needs, disrupting the order of trademark registration and administration, and therefore constituted “registration obtained by other improper means.” However, the Supreme People’s Court, in its retrial judgment, vacated the second-instance judgment.

The Supreme Court pointed out: “Where the number of trademark applications filed by the applicant reaches a certain scale, it is not appropriate to determine solely on the basis of quantity that its application act constitutes ‘registration by other improper means’; rather, it is necessary to consider, in light of its actual production and operation circumstances, whether the applications have a genuine intention to use and whether they are reasonable or justified. If the applicant can prove that its applications have a genuine intention to use or that the trademarks have actually been put into commercial use, it is not appropriate to find that its application act falls within the circumstances prescribed in Article 44(1) of the 2013 Trademark Law.”

The Supreme Court, taking into account the scale and actual production and operation of Shaanxi Zhongyan Company, determined that its overall number of trademark applications and the designated classes (mainly tobacco products and ancillary goods or services used for publicity) were consistent with its actual business needs and were reasonable and justified. In addition, the disputed trademark had been continuously used on the designated goods “cigarettes” since its registration in 2016, with market sales reaching as high as RMB 2.8 billion, and it had received multiple awards. Therefore, the Court ultimately found that the registration of the disputed trademark was reasonable and justified, and maintained its validity.

In contrast, in the “SK-II” trademark invalidation case⁵, the registrant Dong and its affiliated companies applied for 15 trademarks, the signs of which were highly similar to others’ trademarks with certain reputation, such as “SK-Ⅱ,” “MOONY,” “ABC,” etc., and Dong had not actually used the vast majority of the trademarks, nor could he/she prove that the applications were for normal production and operation needs. Ultimately, the Supreme Court found that this constituted “registration obtained by other improper means.” This case has been included in the People’s Courts Case Database.

Similarly, in an invalidation case handled by the author⁶, the sign of the disputed trademark was highly similar to the prior trademark registered in China by a Japanese company. According to the Classification of Goods and Services, the goods of the parties were not similar. The total number of trademark applications filed by the registrant was not large, and the filing dates were relatively scattered. The other trademarks imitated by the registrant were mostly domestic niche brands spanning various industries.

The CNIPA and the court of first instance both held that the disputed trademark did not constitute “registration obtained by other improper means.” However, in the second instance, the court adopted our arguments, and upon review found that within two years before and after the filing date of the disputed trademark, the applicant had filed 80 trademark applications covering almost all classes of goods and services in the Classification of Goods and Services, and in addition to the disputed trademark, it also filed applications in other classes for multiple signs that were highly similar to the signs of others of relatively higher distinctiveness. Such conduct exceeded normal production and operation needs, and accordingly it was presumed that the subjective intent of the applicant in filing the disputed trademark was not legitimate, ultimately finding that the disputed trademark constituted “registration obtained by other improper means.”

Thus, the number of trademark applications is not an absolute quantitative standard for determining “registration obtained by other improper means,” but merely one of the factors to be considered in the case. On the one hand, a relatively large number of trademark applications do not necessarily constitute improper means. In practice, market players in sectors such as technology, internet, food and health, and multi-category operations often need to file trademark applications in batches for brand portfolio purposes. For brands with high reputation, proprietors may also engage in reasonable defensive registrations to prevent others from maliciously free-riding on their goodwill on non-similar goods. If the applicant can prove that its registrations are supported by a genuine intention to use, or actual use, and do not involve free-riding on others’ prior rights, and do not disrupt the order of trademark registration, the registration act should not be deemed as improper means⁷. On the other hand, even a small number of applications may constitute improper registration. In specific cases, a reasonable judgment should be made based on the four elements specified in the Beijing High Court Guidelines, and in addition to the quantity, it should also consider the degree of similarity between the sign of the disputed trademark and others’ prior commercial signs, the subjective intent of the registrant, and other factors comprehensively.

2.2 Whether Good-faith Assignment of the Disputed Trademark Changes Its Nature

From the literal wording of Article 44(1) of the Trademark Law, the focus is to regulate the impropriety of the registration means, i.e., at the time of “trademark registration,” the registration act adopted means that disrupt the order of trademark registration, harm the public interest, improperly occupy public resources, or seek illegitimate benefits. Therefore, the conduct and subjective intent of the registrant “at the time of registration” are crucial.

For example, in the “Yuhuashi” (Rain Flower Pebble) trademark invalidation case⁸, the original registrant of the disputed trademark had filed applications in various classes for multiple marks identical or similar to well-known brands of others, and one of its shareholders had admitted in public reports to engaging in pre-emptive registrations. After the disputed trademark was assigned to Newbecca Company, China Tobacco filed an invalidation application against it. Both the first and second instance courts, based on the conduct of the original registrant, found that the registration of the disputed trademark constituted “registration obtained by other improper means.” The assignee Newbecca Company filed a retrial application, but was ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court clearly stated that Newbecca Company, as the assignee, “should bear the legal consequences arising from the improper registration application of the disputed trademark,” reflecting a clear judicial position.

The adjudicative rationale of this case represents the mainstream view in judicial practice over the years. Because the source of the trademark registration itself entails conduct that disrupts the order of trademark registration and administration, its bad faith nature cannot be eliminated by assignment – this is a classic “fruit of the poisonous tree.”

However, in reality, many good-faith assignees, after obtaining the trademark, continuously put it to commercial use, operate in good faith, and gradually build up a certain brand reputation. Later, they are suddenly confronted with an invalidation action filed by a third party on the ground that the original registrant’s conduct was improper, facing a fatal blow. For instance, in the “Beaba” trademark invalidation case⁹, the current registrant, Jieqiao Company, after acquiring the trademark from the original registrant Chen, had used and promoted the mark for many years, establishing a high market reputation and a stable association with the relevant public. However, because the original registrant Chen’s registration act constituted “registration obtained by other improper means,” both the first and second instance courts ultimately declared the disputed trademark invalid. The courts explicitly stated that “Jieqiao Company’s use cannot change the impropriety of the registration of the disputed trademark.”

In such disputes, judicial practice tends to adopt a “one-size-fits-all” approach, aiming to prevent hoarded trademarks from circulating in the market, reduce the space for illegitimate actors to profit from trademark assignments, and curb the chaos of trademark hoarding at the source. However, from the perspective of a good-faith assignee, who has paid full consideration, gone through the statutory assignment procedures, and after approval by the CNIPA, relied on administrative reliance interests to use the trademark and invested substantial time, effort, and resources, the ultimate invalidation of the trademark due to the “original sin” of the registration means a total loss of years of business investment and accumulated goodwill – a “bolt from the blue.”

Recently, the second-instance judgment in the “Hualing” trademark invalidation case¹⁰ has drawn significant attention in the industry, and considered as a “breakthrough in the evaluation of the legality of trademark assignment¹¹”. In that case, the original registrant of the disputed trademark “Hualing” had applied for multiple well-known domestic and international brands. Midea Group, as the prior rights holder of the “Hualing” brand, had previously filed an opposition against the disputed trademark. During the review of the opposition, the parties reached a settlement, and Midea Group acquired the trademark through assignment, and the CNIPA ultimately approved its registration. Later, a Guangzhou company filed an invalidation request against the mark on the ground that the original registrant had obtained the registration by “other improper means.” The CNIPA found the invalidation grounds established and declared the registration invalid.

In the litigation phase, the court of first instance held that Midea Group, as the true owner of the “Hualing” brand, had acquired the disputed trademark through assignment and used it without harming the public interest. Moreover, the Guangzhou company had applied for trademarks that free-rided on Midea Group’s “Hualing” brand goodwill, and a prior civil judgment had already found that it constituted unfair competition against Midea Group. Therefore, the court held that the disputed trademark should not be declared invalid. The court of second instance affirmed the first-instance judgment and further affirmed that Midea Group’s purpose in acquiring the disputed trademark was to protect its own brand interests, and did not fall within the conduct regulated by Article 44 of the Trademark Law, i.e., “disrupting the order of trademark registration, harming the public interest, improperly occupying public resources, or seeking illegitimate benefits.” Moreover, the court gave positive consideration to Midea Group’s use of the trademark after acquisition through assignment, finding that it had a genuine intention to use and actual use, and that it was not appropriate to deny the registrability of the disputed trademark solely on the basis of the original registrant’s other trademark applications.

In the more recent “Shuguang” (Dawn) trademark invalidation case¹² (first-instance judgment date: 28 April 2026) and the “Yeguo Shijia” (Coconut Fruit Family) trademark invalidation case¹³ (second-instance judgment date: 25 March 2026), the judgments of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court and the Beijing High Court both reflected the same adjudicative rationale as in the above-mentioned “Hualing” case.

Trademarks, as intangible property rights, have dual attributes of public and private law protection. When a trademark that should not have been approved for registration but obtained registration and subsequently assigned to another party, how to balance public regulation and private right protection is an important issue. Some commentators argue that under the system of public notice and reliance, the interests of a good-faith assignee should be given necessary protection during and after the assignment process¹⁴. It is also argued that mechanically declaring a trademark registration invalid merely on account of the original registrant’s bad faith at the time of filing, while completely disregarding the bona fides of the current right holder and the objectively stable market landscape that has already taken shape, will not only sever the brand association built between the brand and the current right holder and disrupt the established market order, but also impair public interests and market order¹⁵.

The author agrees with the above views. In particular, where, after assignment, a trademark has, through continuous use by a good-faith assignee, stably performed its source-identification function in the market, its continued existence should be justified. The increase in such judgments reflects the judiciary’s appropriate respect for the private law attributes of trademarks, and is conducive to enhancing market participants’ stable expectations of administrative affirmation acts and upholding the principle of reliance protection in administrative law.

3. Prospects from the Perspective of the New Law

In June 2026, the National People’s Congress passed the newly revised Trademark Law, which will take effect on 1 January 2027. In the new Trademark Law, the provision concerning “other improper means” remains, reflecting China’s consistent stance on continuing to combat bad-faith registrations and maintain the order of trademark registration and administration and public order and good morals.

Structurally, however, this provision has been moved from the original Chapter V “Declaration of Invalidation of Trademark Registration” to Chapter II “Conditions for Trademark Registration,” and merged with Article 4 of the current Law (registration not for the purpose of use) into a new Article 19, which reads as follows:

Article 19

Where trademark registration is applied for not for the purpose of use, and manifestly exceeds normal production and operation needs, it shall not be registered.

No trademark application may be filed by deceptive or other improper means.

The new law incorporates the judicial adjudicative view of Section 17.2 of the Beijing High Court Guidelines, upgrading the rule of “registration obtained by other improper means” at the legislative level, and breaking through the limitation of the current law to only registered trademarks by extending the object of application to both registered and pending trademarks. This will enable the provision to apply uniformly throughout the entire process of trademark authorization and affirmation, including examination, opposition, and review of refusal, invalidation, and related litigation. This signifies that the legislative purpose of curbing bad-faith registrations and maintaining the order of trademark registration will be legitimately and properly implemented throughout the whole process of trademark application examination, approval, authorization, affirmation, and corresponding litigation, aligning the standards of administrative examination and judicial adjudication, and strengthening the institutional defense of the public order of trademark registration.

After the new law comes into effect, this provision will become an important regulatory tool to curb improper acts such as bad-faith hoarding and cross-class pre-emptive registrations, and will further exert its powerful effect. The synergy between administrative supervision and judicial regulation will be significantly enhanced. In judicial practice, it remains necessary to uphold the concept of balancing interests, comprehensively considering multiple factors such as the substantive ownership of trademark rights, the stability of market order, administrative reliance interests, and the subjective intent of the parties, and to precisely grasp the boundaries of application of the law. In this way, we can both severely regulate bad-faith trademark registration acts and prudently safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of market entities, truly achieving a harmonious integration of legislative intent and substantive justice in individual cases.
 
——————————————————————————————————————————

¹2025 Top Ten Judicial Protection Cases concerning Intellectual Property and Top Ten Judicial Protection Cases concerning Trademark Authorization and Affirmation released by Beijing High Court–WeChat official account “Jingfa Wangshi”, 24 April 2026.
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/TOetVXhiBPL2eJarFK1gXA
 
²Second-instance Judgment regarding Uniqlo “UL” Trademark Invalidation (2017) Jing Administrative Final No. 5603
 
³Kong Xiangjun, “Correction and Abolition of the Application of ‘Other Improper Means’ under the Trademark Law,” WeChat official account “Zhichan Qianyan,” 12 September 2025.
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/YWoNMmFb7nPK2uOg4orKTQ
 
⁴Invalidation Case regarding trademark “Zhaocai Mao” (2024) SPC Administrative Retrial No. 88
 
⁵Invalidation Case regarding trademark “SK-II”, People’s Courts Case Database, (2021) Administrative Ruling SPC Administrative Retrial No. 577
 
⁶Invalidation Case regarding trademark F (2025) Jing Administrative Final No. 11738
 
⁷Li Hui, Zhou Di, “An Analysis of the Application of ‘Registration Obtained by Other Improper Means’ under Article 44(1) of the Trademark Law,” China Trademark Magazine, Issue 6, 2026
 
⁸Invalidation Case regarding trademark “Yuhuashi” (2024) SPC Administrative Retrial No. 4895
 
⁹Invalidation Case regarding trademark “Beaba” (2022) Jing Administrative Final No. 4726
 
¹⁰Invalidation Case regarding trademark “Hualing” (2025) Jing Administrative Final No. 2669
 
¹¹IPHouse, “Beijing High Court: Breakthrough in the Evaluation of Legality of Trademark Assignment,” 8 September 2025.
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/9hqO3_CBP4RFAR8JLwbFXg
 
¹²Invalidation Case regarding trademark “Shuguang” (2025) Jing 73 Administrative First No. 24183
 
¹³Invalidation Case regarding trademark “Yeguo Shijia” (2025) Jing Administrative Final No. 11710
 
¹⁴Yuan Yuan, Wang Lu, “Reflections on the Impact of Bad Faith Trademark Hoarding by Assignors on Good-faith Assignees,” China Trademark magazine, Issue 5, 2025
 
¹⁵Xia Xu, Yang Kai, “Balance of Interests and Boundary Exploration of the ‘Other Improper Means’ Clause under Article 44(1) of the Trademark Law – From the Perspective of the ‘Hualing’ Case,” China Trademark magazine, Issue 2, 2026