CHINA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Binxin Li, Sally Wang, Guangzhen Shang and Yue He, LeanWill Law Firm
on actual losses and compensation based on the infringer’s unlawful gains; and • introducing civil liability for malicious litigation, under which claimants may be subject not only to court-imposed sanctions but also to liability for losses caused to others. Judicial clarification: standards for trade mark criminal protection In April 2025, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate (SPP) jointly issued the Judicial Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Criminal Cases Involving Intellectual Property Infringe- ment. The Interpretation clarifies a number of key legal standards applicable to criminal IP cases. In particular, it: • specifies the criteria for determining “identical goods or services” and “identical trade marks” in criminal trade mark cases; • adopts an illegal-gains-based threshold for estab- lishing criminal liability in cases involving the coun- terfeiting of service trade marks; and • imposes stricter penalties on repeat offenders and those involved in the manufacture or distribution of counterfeit trade mark labels, thereby strengthen- ing criminal deterrence against serious trade mark infringements. Updated guidelines for three-year non-use trade mark cancellation On 26 May 2025, the Trademark Office of CNIPA issued revised guidelines on cancellation actions against trade marks that have not been used for three consecutive years without legitimate reasons. The revised guidelines further clarify the eviden- tiary requirements for initiating non-use cancellation actions and delineate the scope of preliminary evi- dence required to support a prima facie showing of non-use during the relevant three-year period. Such evidence may include materials reflecting the regis- trant’s business status, market research findings, and information obtained through online searches or on- site inspections.
Notably, examination practice since June 2025 indi- cates a more flexible approach to evidentiary stand- ards by the Trademark Office, except in cases involv- ing obvious abusive or bad-faith filings. In practice, this shift is manifested in fewer requests for supple- mentary evidence, a lower threshold for accepting preliminary submissions, and the removal of on-site investigation reports as a mandatory requirement in all non-use cancellation cases. Revised Regulations on the Protection of Trade Secrets (2026) Promulgated on 24 February 2026, and effective as of 1 June 2026, the revised Regulations on the Protec- tion of Trade Secrets replaced the 1998 administrative provisions on trade secret protection and represent a landmark upgrade to China’s trade secret protection legal regime. In particular, the revised Regulations: • further clarify and broaden the legal definition and protection scope of trade secrets; • update the confidentiality requirements for trade secret protection adapted to the digital scenario; • refine the categorisation of illegal acts of infringing trade secrets; and • enhance the enforcement against trade secret infringements by: (a) streamlining the case acceptance related requirements; (b) assigning technical trade secret infringement cases to higher-level market supervision and administration authorities; (c) introducing a shift of burden of proof similar to the one applied in related civil cases; (d) granting the law enforcement agency multiple investigation powers; (e) increasing the upper limit of fines from RMB200,000 to RMB5 million; and (f) introducing cross-border trade secret enforce- ment mechanisms. Judicial clarification: standards for patent infringement In December 2025, the SPC issued the Draft for Com- ments of Judicial Interpretation (III) on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Pat-
53 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook