1. Combating malicious registration and hoarding of trademarks.

Previous: Provisions were scattered and lacked targeted measures against malicious hoarding. 

Current: A new dedicated chapter has been added, explicitly stipulating that applications "not for use purposes and clearly exceeding normal business needs" shall be refused registration.

Summary: Cracking down on "squatting without using" for speculative resale. 

Example: A company that operates only in the catering sector files over a thousand trademark applications in unrelated classes (e.g.,clothing, electrical appliances) with the intent to resell at high prices. Under the new law, such filings will be directly rejected.

2. New registrable elements (dynamic marks). 

Previous: Only words, graphics, letters, numerals, three-dimensional signs, color combinations, and sounds were registrable. 

Current: "Dynamic marks" and combinations thereof have been added. Summary: Moving patterns can now be registered as trademarks. 

Example: A unique "animated flip effect" on a short-video app's startup screen, or a specific "headlight flashing rhythm" when a car brand starts up, may now be filed for trademark protection.

3. Severe penalties for deceptive marks and misleading use. 

Previous: Penalties for improper use of registered trademarks were relatively lenient. 

Current: High fines may be imposed for misleading the public through deceptive marks, and failure to rectify within the prescribed period will lead to direct revocation of the trademark. 

Summary: Wordplay or deliberate consumer misleading will result in cancellation. 

Example: An enterprise registers the mark "千禾0" but deliberately displays it as "千禾0添加" on product packaging, leading consumers to believe the product is additive-free. Under the new law,such deceptive practices will face heavy fines and possible revocation.

4. Upgraded protection for well-known trademarks (facilitating global expansion). 

Previous: Cross-class protection was mainly available for registered well-known marks; the term used was "recognition". 

Current: No distinction is made between registered and unregistered marks - both are protected against pre-emptive filings; the term is changed to "confirmation"; and for overseas enforcement, domestic authorities may issue official certificates confirming the mark's well-known status within China. 

Summary: Well-known trademark protection becomes more comprehensive, with official backing for overseas litigation. 

Example: A renowned domestic time-honored brand, well-known in China but not registered abroad, is pre-emptively registered by a foreign merchant. Now, the domestic trademark office can issue a "confirmation of well-known status in China" to strengthen the brand's case in overseas enforcement proceedings.

5. Ex officio revocation mechanism. 

Previous: Revocation for non-use for three consecutive years could only be requested by third parties (typically competitors). 

Current: The competent administrative authority (the State Council's trademark office) may ex officio revoke trademarks that are "registered but unused". 

Summary: The authority proactively cleans up "zombie marks", without waiting for third-party complaints. 

Example: A company registered a trademark a decade ago but has long abandoned its use. Previously, the mark would remain on the register unless challenged. Now, the office will periodically review and actively revoke such marks, freeing resources for genuine users.

6. Stricter regulation of trademark agency industry. 

Previous: Penalties for agency misconduct were relatively light, leading to widespread malpractices. 

Current: Agencies are required to file for recordal, with clear professional ethics rules; heavier sanctions are imposed for fraudulent solicitation, knowingly assisting in unlawful filings, and other violations. 

Summary: Tighter control over "unscrupulous intermediaries" - agencies cannot facilitate clients' illicit activities. 

Example: An agency knowingly files a trademark application that copies another's mark, merely to earn fees. Under the new law, both the agency and its responsible employees will face severe penalties.

7. Clarification of online use activities. 

Previous: The definition of trademark use on the Internet was unclear. 

Current: It is explicitly provided that trademark use carried out through information networks such as the Internet falls within the scope of the law. 

Summary: Online trademark use now counts as legally recognized use. 

Example: An online store prominently displays its trademark in product descriptions and on livestream studio backdrops - such activities are now statutorily defined as "trademark use" and may serve as evidence to maintain the validity of the registration.

8. Shortened opposition period for enhanced efficiency. 

Previous: The opposition period after preliminary approval was 3 months. 

Current: The opposition period is shortened to 2 months. 

Summary: Accelerating trademark finalization and reducing procedural delays, though rights holders must act more swiftly. 

Example: An applicant passes preliminary examination and faces an opposition period reduced from 3 to 2 months. If no opposition is filed, the registration certificate can be obtained one month earlier, enabling faster market entry. However, if a third party discovers a pre-emptive filing, they must file an opposition within the 2-month window, or risk losing the chance to challenge.