Securing trademark registration in China has become increasingly challenging in recent years, with absolute grounds for refusal under Articles 10.1.7 and 10.1.8 of China’s Trademark Law posing formidable obstacles.
Article 10.1.7 bans marks that could mislead the public about certain characteristics of the goods (eg, quality or origin). Article 10.1.8 prohibits marks that could negatively influence socialist morals, public order or societal values.
Both provisions are broad and evolving, and have become central to refusals and enforcement actions against marks that reference health claims, national pride and military terms.
China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) data indicates a sharp increase in absolute ground refusals since 2022, with deceptiveness becoming a major focus. In 2024, over 26,000 appeals involving trademarks refused for being misleading (based on Article 10.1.7) were filed, and approximately 88% (more than 23,000) of those refusals were upheld.
Terms that previously passed examination without issue are increasingly scrutinised.
For instance, the term “CORE”, once considered neutral, has recently faced a growing number of refusals. Between 2023 and 2025, multiple applications containing “CORE” (eg, SINOCORE, AIRCORE, SOLIDCORE, DS CORE CARE, IONEX CORE and CORE COMBI) were refused under Article 10.1.8 on the grounds that the term could create a negative social influence.
Similar marks were approved before 2022, suggesting a shift in interpretation.
In our experience, once a mark is refused on absolute grounds, securing registration through refusal appeals is extremely difficult.
If a trademark has been refused, can it still be used?
In late 2021, the CNIPA issued “Standards for Determining General Trademark Violations”, which outline when and how enforcement may occur. Technically, using a mark that violates Article 10 of China’s Trademark Law may result in administrative penalties (eg, a fine and cease of use) imposed by local market supervision administrations (MSAs).
Between 2019 and 2025, fewer than 200 enforcement cases based on Articles 10.1.7 and/or 10.1.8 were recorded nationwide, with a noticeable concentration in the Yangtze River Delta region.
In 2024, there was a spike in activity, driven largely by marks relating to national pride, the military and public health.
Enforcement under Articles 10.1.7 and 10.1.8 remains selective, but the scope is widening. Cases range from misleading health claims in pharmaceutical marks to marks exploiting national symbols and controversial social events.
Despite the low volume, this trend suggests heightened scrutiny and a growing readiness among the authorities to act when trademarks are considered misleading or socially negative, particularly in sectors such as food, medicine, children’s toys, household appliances and tobacco.
Tea brand TWG TEA used multiple elements in its mark (eg, 1837 and THE FINEST TEAS OF THE WORLD) and French phrases (eg, MILLESIMES D’EXCEPTION), which suggested superior quality, a long history and global prestige. The local MSA decided that this combination exaggerated the product’s attributes and misled consumers. Therefore, the mark was misleading and in violation of Article 10.1.7.
A gold retailer prominently used the term “中国金行” ("China gold bank") in its storefront, creating the impression of a state-backed or government-authorised institution. The local MSA found this misleading to consumers, who may assume that the business had official status or special oversight. The use of “China” was considered misleading and damaging to public trust, in violation of Articles 10.1.7 and 10.1.8.
A coconut juice product prominently featured the term “特种兵” ("special forces") along with military-style imagery, including soldier silhouettes. The local MSA ruled that these elements created improper associations with China’s armed forces and military supplies; therefore, they had a negative social influence and were in violation of Article 10.1.8.
A pharmaceutical company used the term “健脾胃” ("strengthen the spleen and stomach") as a trademark on medicinal products, implying therapeutic effects. The mark was found to be misleading under Article 10.1.7, as it suggested unverified health benefits and misleading medical efficacy.
In response to the increasing risk of trademark refusal on absolute grounds, brand owners should begin by asking the right questions. These questions will lay the groundwork for a practical strategy to manage absolute ground refusals and prohibitions.
This involves blending legal insight with real-world tactics by assessing risks early, planning alternatives, and understanding how enforcement trends could impact the mark.
Before filing, assess the mark’s purpose and risk profile. Is it for short-term use (eg, a campaign) or for long-term brand identity? Is the potentially problematic element (eg, product ingredients, health claims and geographic names), which may trigger absolute ground refusals, truly essential? If not, can it be removed or replaced?
Early assessment helps to avoid unnecessary refusals and allows time to prepare evidence or explore alternatives.
Conducting a thorough clearance search to identify similar refusals or registrations can be helpful.
CNIPA examiners typically do not specify the underlying issues relating to absolute ground refusals. Therefore, local counsel’s case experience is especially critical at the pre-filing stage.
If your mark is expected to be refused for being misleading, narrow the scope of goods in your application so that the mark corresponds more precisely to the nature and characteristics of the goods. This not only helps to address concerns relating to Article 10.1.7, but also demonstrates to examiners that you are acting in good faith and willing to clarify the intended use.
In some cases, this can make the difference between a refusal and a successful registration.
Not every refusal is worth contesting. Once a mark is refused, take a step back and assess on a case-by-case basis: is the mark critical to your brand strategy? What are the chances of success in an appeal, given the CNIPA’s high refusal rates on absolute grounds and infrequent successful appeals?
Note that the CNIPA is entitled to raise additional absolute grounds during refusal appeals, which could further complicate matters.
Also consider the visibility of your case; trademark refusal appeal decisions are public in China, and an unsuccessful appeal could attract unwanted attention or set a precedent.
If the mark is not essential, it may be wiser to change course early. However, if you do appeal, prepare thoroughly by gathering strong evidence, legal precedents and expert support to maximise your chances.
Some businesses opt to use marks without registration, especially for short-term campaigns. However, this approach requires caution. Can the words in a mark be used descriptively, decoratively or as a product name, without functioning as a source identifier and without the ™ symbol?
Also, stay informed. Enforcement is more active in certain regions (for now, in the Yangtze River Delta) and tends to target misleading or socially sensitive marks. While use without registration is not risk-free, it can be a viable way forward if managed carefully.
Not every trademark will make it through China’s strict examination process, so prepare alternatives. Can the mark be tweaked to eliminate problematic elements (eg, product ingredients, health claims or geographic names)? Even minor changes can improve your chances.
Do you already have a backup mark registered that could serve the same branding purpose? If not, consider filing one in parallel.
A flexible, layered strategy ensures that you are not left empty-handed if your first-choice mark faces legal challenges.
Chinese authorities are increasingly approaching legal compliance through the lens of absolute grounds, and these shifting priorities are reshaping trademark decisions beyond traditional legal frameworks.
Businesses are responding by becoming more strategic, evidence-driven and agile. The most forward-thinking brands are not just reacting to refusals; they are anticipating them, planning proactively and building resilience into their IP strategies.
The key is not to panic, but to plan. A refused trademark is not the end. Rather, it can be the beginning of a smarter, more adaptive strategy.
The article was first published by WTR in Dec 2025.
