The National People's Congress Releases Draft Amendment of the Trademark Law

Date: 27 December 2025

On 25 December, the 19th Session of the Standing Committee of the 14th National People's Congress (NPC) conducted group deliberations on The Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China (the Draft Amendment). The Draft Amendment was published on the NPC’s official website on 27 December seeking public comments within 45 days. The Draft Amendment comprises nine chapters with 84 articles. The main revisions are as follows:

1. Clarifies trademark registration requirements by adding a dedicated chapter to centrally regulate and refine previously scattered provisions:

• Includes a new rule prohibiting the use of trademarks identical or similar to the signs of the Communist Party of China (CPC), namely its name, flag, emblem and medals.
• Provides that a motion mark is an eligible element for trademark registration.
• Clarifies the registration requirements for non-traditional marks by prohibiting the registration of any sign consisting solely of colour combinations, sounds, dynamic effects, or other elements that are inherent to the nature of the goods themselves, necessary to achieve specific technical effects, or that endow the goods with substantive value.
• Specifies that no trademark shall be registered where the application is filed without intent to use the mark and obviously exceeds the needs of normal production and operation.
• Strengthens the protection of well-known trademarks by expanding the scope of the prohibition against bad-faith trademark squatting from ‘registered well-known trademarks’ to ‘both registered and unregistered well-known trademarks.’

2. Enhances trademark administration:

• Specifies three defined circumstances constituting malicious trademark registration and established an administrative penalty system with a cap of CNY 100,000 (approx. US$ 14,400).
• Improves the regulation of trademark misuse by stipulating that any act of using registered trademarks in a manner likely to mislead the public as to the source of goods or services may be subject to a fine of up to CNY 50,000 (approx. US$ 7,200) or cancellation of the trademark.
• Clarifies the management and use obligations of registrants of collective marks and certification marks, with violations subject to administrative penalties of up to CNY 100,000, depending on the severity of the circumstances.
• Introduces an ex officio trademark cancellation system administered by the trademark authority, primarily targeting trademarks that have become generic or have remained unused for three consecutive years without justifiable reasons.
• Strengthens oversight of trademark agencies by increasing the maximum fines for agencies from CNY 100,000 to CNY 200,000 (approx. US$ 14,400 to 28,800) and for directly responsible personnel from CNY 50,000 to CNY 100,000 (approx. US$ 7,200 to 14,400); serious violations may result in suspension of business acceptance.

Source: Website of the National People's Congress of China

http://www.npc.gov.cn/flcaw/userIndex.html?lid=ff8081819aedd494019b54ed2c6476f2

中国人大公布《中华人民共和国商标法（修订草案）》

日期：2025-12-27

12月25日，十四届全国人大常委会第十九次会议对《中华人民共和国商标法（修订草案）》（以下简称《修订草案》）进行了分组审议。12月27日，中国人大网公布《修订草案》并征求意见，征求意见期限为45日。《修订草案》共9章84条，主要修改内容如下：

1. 明确商标注册条件，增设专章将原来分散的注册条件予以集中规定并完善：

• 新增“中国共产党的名称、党旗、党徽、勋章” 不得作为商标使用的规定；
• 新增“动态标志” 作为可申请注册的商标要素；
• 新增“仅由商品自身的性质产生的、为获得技术效果而需有的或者使商品具有实质性价值的颜色组合、声音、动态效果等”不得注册为商标；
• 明确不以使用为目的、明显超出正常生产经营需要申请商标注册的，不予注册；
• 加强驰名商标保护，将禁止抢注的范围从“已注册驰名商标”扩大为“已注册及未注册驰名商标”；

2. 强化商标管理：

• 明确恶意申请商标注册的三类具体情形，新增行政处罚并明确幅度为“十万元以下的罚款”；
• 规制商标不当使用，新增“以误导公众的方式使用注册商标可处以五万元以下的罚款、撤销该商标”的规定；
• 明确集体商标、证明商标注册人的管理、使用义务，法律责任方面根据情节轻重将面临最高十万元的行政处罚；
• 新增商标管理部门可以主动撤销的规定，即国务院商标管理部门可以撤销成为通用名称或连续三年无正当理由不使用的注册商标；
• 加强商标代理监管，将商标代理机构的的罚款上限从十万元提高至二十万元，将直接负责的主管人员和其他直接责任人员的罚款上限从五万元提高至十万元，情节严重的可停止受理业务。

资料来源：中国人大网  2025-12-27

新闻链接：http://www.npc.gov.cn/flcaw/userIndex.html?lid=ff8081819aedd494019b54ed2c6476f2

CNIPA Issues Decision on Amending Patent Examination Guidelines

Date: 13 November 2025

The revised Patent Examination Guidelines will take effect on 1 January, 2026. The amendments primarily focus on strengthening protection for emerging technologies, refining examination standards, and codifying mature examination practices.

First, the revisions enhance legal protection for emerging sectors and innovative business models. They clarify the legal definition of plant varieties, expand patent eligibility to further align the patent system with the plant variety protection regime, thereby strengthening intellectual property protection for the seed industry. In addition, the Guidelines reinforce ethical considerations in the examination of artificial intelligence–related inventions and provide illustrative examination examples to clarify requirements for drafting application documents. Specialized provisions are also introduced for the examination of bitstream-related patent applications, specifying the conditions under which such inventions may be granted patent protection.

Second, the revisions optimize examination standards and procedural rules. With respect to same‑day filings of both an invention and a utility model application for the same subject matter, the Guidelines clarify that an invention patent may be granted only after the corresponding utility model patent has been abandoned. They also refine the assessment of inventive step by emphasizing that claim features which do not contribute to solving the technical problem generally do not support a finding of inventiveness, improving examination efficiency and patent quality. In addition, the Guidelines specify that invalidation requests lacking the requester’s genuine intent will not be accepted, thereby curbing malicious invalidation practices.

Finally, the revisions consolidate a number of mature examination practices. They stress the principle of ‘examination upon request,’ along with the applicable rules on accelerated examination. The Guidelines also specify examination rules for divisional applications where no priority is claimed, in order to safeguard applicants’ rights to claim priority. Furthermore, they clarify the requirements for submitting proof of priority right transfer, helping applicants better understand and comply with the relevant examination standards.

Source: CNIPA

https://www.cnipa.gov.cn/art/2025/11/13/art_74_202560.html

国知局发布关于修改《专利审查指南》的决定

日期：2025-11-13

修改后的《专利审查指南》将于2026年1月1日起施行，本次修改的主要内容包括：

健全新领域新业态的保护制度：（1）明确植物品种定义，扩大专利可授权客体范围，与植物新品种制度形成合理有效衔接，加强种业知识产权保护。（2）增加对人工智能伦理的考虑和判断，给出创造性审查示例，明确申请文件撰写要求。（3）增加比特流专利申请审查专门规定，明确可授予专利权的情形。

优化审查标准和规则：（1）完善同日申请处理方式，仅允许通过放弃实用新型专利权的方式获得发明专利授权。（2）根据创造性条款的法律内涵和本质要求，明确权利要求中对技术问题的解决没有作出贡献的特征，通常不会给技术方案带来创造性，以提高审查效率，提升专利申请质量。（3）明确无效宣告请求的提出并非请求人真实意思表示时将不予受理，规制恶意无效行为。

固化审查实践成熟做法：（1）明确按需审查理念及快速审查相关规定。（2）明确分案申请未声明优先权时相关审查规则，保障分案申请人要求优先权的权利。（3）明确优先权转让证明文件提交要求，便于申请人理解审查标准。

资料来源：国知局  2025-11-13

新闻链接：https://www.cnipa.gov.cn/art/2025/11/13/art_74_202560.html

Sichuan High People's Court Concludes Salomon Brand Shoe Decoration Infringement Case, Ordering Three Infringers to Pay CNY 3.39 Million in Joint Compensation

Date: 24 November 2025

The Plaintiff, Amer Sports, authorized licensor of the Salomon brand found that the Defendants were selling footwear products on Taobao, highly similar to its branded products. It brought an action under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, claiming that the mountain-shaped zigzag lines, strap decorations, and eyelet design of the Salomon XT-QUEST sneaker series constituted ‘trade dress with certain degree of influence’ and that, in using a similar trade dress, the Defendants were causing market confusion. It sought an order against the three Defendants to cease the infringement and pay compensation of CNY 4 million (approx. US$ 575,000).

Product design of Salomon XT-QUEST sneaker

The Court held that the elements referred to by the Plaintiff constitute a design pattern rather than a specific product shape necessary to achieve a technical effect. Through long‑term use, they had acquired distinctiveness and served to identify the source of the brand. The Court further noted that, although the Plaintiff’s design patent for the product had expired, the Anti‑Unfair Competition Law protects subject matter different from that covered by design patents. Accordingly, where the use of such decoration is likely to cause public confusion or misidentification, it may still constitute unfair competition. On this basis, the Court found that unfair competition had been established. As the Defendants refused to produce financial records, the Court calculated the infringing profits by reference to the minimum gross profit margin (41.4%) of listed companies in the same industry. It ordered the Defendants to immediately cease the manufacture and sale of the products in question and to pay CNY 3.39 million (approx. US$ 489,000) in damages to Amer Sports on a joint and several liability basis.

Source: IPhouse

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/VEsIp6GXSNuubDmE4cbFzA

四川高院审结萨洛蒙品牌鞋装潢遭仿冒案，判令三侵权人连带赔偿339万

日期：2025-11-24

本案原告亚玛芬体育公司系萨洛蒙品牌授权方，其发现被告尉某、温某某、赵某某通过淘宝店铺销售与品牌高度相似的鞋类产品。原告认为，萨洛蒙XT-QUEST系列运动鞋的山形折线、带状装饰与鞋带孔等特征构成“有一定影响的商品装潢”，应受《反不正当竞争法》保护，被告的行为构成市场混淆。遂诉至法院，要求三被告停止侵权并赔偿 400 万元。

萨洛蒙XT-Quest产品装潢

法院认定，案涉装潢为图案类设计，并非实现技术效果必需的商品形状，且经长期使用已具备识别商品来源品牌的显著性；此外，虽然原告曾就该产品外观拥有的外观设计专利现已过期，但反不正当竞争法与外观设计保护不同客体，若使用行为足以引发公众混淆或误认，仍可构成不正当竞争。最终认定不正当竞争行为成立。在计算侵权获利时，因侵权人拒不提供财务资料，故参考同行业上市公司最低毛利率 41.4%计算侵权获利，最终认定三侵权人立即停止生产、销售侵权产品，连带赔偿亚玛芬体育公司共计 339万元。

资料来源：知产宝  2025-11-24

新闻链接：https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/VEsIp6GXSNuubDmE4cbFzA

Huangpu Primary People's Court, Shanghai Concludes the Municipality's First Copyright Infringement Case Involving AI Prompts

Date: 6 November 2025

The Plaintiff in this case is a company engaged in artistic creation. In 2022, it composed, organized and input six sets of prompt words.  Following the prompts, which dealt with artistic style, subject elements, material details, and composition requirements, AI generated artworks on the Midjourney platform, and the Plaintiff subsequently published the artworks on social media platforms such as Xiaohongshu. Examples of the prompts include ‘Art Nouveau style illustration of Aquamarines Stygiomedusa gigantea’ ‘by Alphonse Maria Mucha’ and ‘Complex and delicate jellyfish texture’ among others.

The Plaintiff discovered that two Defendants had used substantially similar artworks in their publications and on social media platforms. After conducting a search on the Midjourney platform, the Plaintiff found that the artworks published by the two Defendants had been generated using the Plaintiff’s prompt words. The Plaintiff claimed that the prompt words constituted independently created literary works and that the Defendants’ unauthorised use of those works to generate and disseminate images infringed the Plaintiff’s right of reproduction, right of distribution, right of dissemination via information networks, and right of authorship. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brought an action before the Huangpu Primary People’s Court of Shanghai, seeking an order requiring the two Defendants to cease the infringement and to compensate it for the reasonable expenses incurred in safeguarding its rights.

The Huangpu Primary People’s Court held that the six sets of prompt words consisted of elements relating to artistic style, subject matter, material details, and compositional requirements, and in substance constituted descriptive instructions issued by the user to an AI system for image generation. Although the prompt words contained multiple elements, they were merely simple listings of such elements, without any grammatical or logical relationships. The keywords were combined in a disordered manner, lacking hierarchical structure or narrative sequencing. From the perspective of originality, the prompt words failed to reflect the author’s personalised characteristics, as the selected artistic styles and material details were common expressions within the field and did not demonstrate any unique aesthetic perspective or artistic judgement. Moreover, the prompt words represented only abstract creative ideas and collections of instructions, the essence of which lay in the listing and description of elements, artistic styles, and forms of presentation, and therefore fell within the realm of ideas.

In conclusion, the Huangpu Primary People’s Court found that the prompt words did not embody the author’s personalised intellectual contribution at the level of expression and should not be recognised as ‘works’ under the Copyright Law. Consequently, the Plaintiff had no basis for claiming copyright infringement. The Huangpu District Court therefore rendered a first‑instance judgment dismissing all of the Plaintiff’s claims.

Source: Shanghai High People’s Court

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/qjoCLmWtjb7wxZ0FYt_iSA

上海黄浦法院审结上海市首例涉AI提示词著作权侵权案

日期：2025-11-06

本案原告是一家从事美术创作的公司。2022年，原告撰写并整理了六组提示词，内容涵盖画作的艺术风格、主体元素、材质细节与构图要求，如Art Nouveau style illustration of Aquamarines Stygiomedusa gigantea（对应中文：新艺术风格插图——巨型海蓝宝石冥河水母），by Alphonse Maria Mucha（对应中文：阿尔丰斯·穆夏的创作风格），Complex and delicate jellyfish texture（对应中文：复杂细腻的水母质感）等。原告使用上述提示词在Midjourney平台生成系列艺术作品，并发表于小红书等社媒平台。

原告发现，两被告在出版物及社交平台上使用的画作与其生成作品高度近似，原告在Midjourney平台搜索，发现二被告发表的画作是使用原告撰写的涉案提示词在该平台生成。原告认为，涉案提示词系其独立创作完成的文字作品，二被告擅自使用该文字作品生成图片并进行传播，侵犯了原告对提示词享有的复制权、发行权、信息网络传播权及署名权，遂诉至上海黄浦法院，请求判令两被告停止侵权并赔偿维权合理开支。

黄浦法院认为，涉案六组提示词的结构包括艺术风格、主体元素、材质细节与构图要求，本质是用户对AI系统发出的描述性指令，用于生成特定图片。尽管提示词包含多类要素，但从形式上来看，各要素间仅为简单罗列，缺乏语法逻辑关系，且关键词组无序组合，既无层次递进，也无场景化叙事顺序。从独创性角度看，提示词缺乏作者的个性化特征，所选用的艺术风格、材质细节等均属该领域常规表达，未体现作者独特的审美视角或艺术判断。此外，涉案提示词仅体现抽象的创作想法和指令集合，核心是对画面元素、艺术风格、呈现形式等的罗列与描述，属于思想范畴。

综上，黄浦法院认定涉案提示词没有体现出作者在表达层面的个性化智力投入，不应认定为著作权法意义上的作品，故原告无权主张著作权侵权。最终，黄浦法院一审判决驳回原告的全部诉讼请求。

资料来源：上海高院  2025-11-06

新闻链接：https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/qjoCLmWtjb7wxZ0FYt_iSA

TAGS

• China
• trade mark
• Patent Examination
• Salomon
• Copyright
• AI
• Artificial Intelligence