At the end of 2025, to regulate trademark use, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) issued the Notice on Strengthening the Management of Trademark Use (hereinafter referred to as the "Notice") along with its interpretations (hereinafter referred to as the "Interpretation"). The Notice focuses on regulating the following seven types of illegal or non-compliant trademark use, clarifying that local law enforcement authorities may impose corresponding administrative penalties under the Trademark Law for such acts:
1. Using unregistered trademarks that are deceptive or otherwise prohibited;
2. Deceptive use of registered trademarks;
3. Using unregistered trademarks as registered trademarks;
4. Failure to use a registered trademark where use is required;
5. Prominently displaying the words "Well-known Trademark" in commercial activities;
6. Improper use of collective marks or certification marks;
7. Illegal agency activities by trademark agencies.
In the CNIPA's Interpretation, the "BPXYD" trademark infringement case, represented by LexField Law Offices, was included as an example for "deceptive use of registered trademarks". It signifies that the path of seeking immediate cessation of infringement through administrative complaints against such free-riding behaviors, characterized by "lawful registration but illegal use," has received authoritative confirmation.
This article, referencing the cases in the CNIPA's Interpretation, introduces the connotations and current enforcement trends concerning two types of trademark use violations that are of great concern to enterprises.
I. Deceptive Use of Registered Trademarks
This type of illegal act includes two scenarios: where the actual use of a registered trademark causes the public to be misled about the quality of goods, and where it constitutes free-riding on the rights of another proprietor.
1. Misleading as to the Quality of Goods
This primarily refers to situations where a registered trademark is used in combination with product names, advertising slogans, packaging, or get-up, or where other misleading terms are added during use, leading the public to misunderstand specific characteristics of the goods, such as quality, origin, or production process.
For example, using a registered trademark "鲜土" (fresh soil) on egg products (a mark later declared invalid by the CNIPA) in the actual form "农家鮮土鸡蛋" (farm fresh soil eggs, when translated in Chinese means that the eggs laid by chicken that are not ed in a factory but are fed in a farm with more spaces to move around) caused the public to mistakenly believe the eggs were farm eggs.
2. Altering the Use of a Registered Trademark to Free-ride on Other Proprietors’ Trademark (A common scenario in practice)
LexField's Case as an Example:
A petroleum company registered the trademark "BPXYD" for lubricating oil products but altered its use in practice to the form "BPXYD", intending to free-ride on the well-known "BP" trademark of the rights holder.
While simultaneously filing an invalidation request against the "BPXYD" mark, LexField lawyers filed a complaint with law enforcement authorities to quickly stop the infringement, primarily based on Article 49, Paragraph 1 of the Trademark Law (unauthorized alteration of a registered trademark). The enforcement authority accepted LexField’s petition, issued administrative penalties including a fine, thereby swiftly stopping the infringement.
II. Use of Unregistered Trademarks that are Deceptive or Otherwise Prohibited
According to the Interpretation, enforcement authorities primarily focus on the following three categories of misconduct:
1. Using unregistered trademarks containing terms like "exclusive supply", "special supply", "superior", or "national", which mislead the public regarding the supply channel or quality of the goods;
2. Using unregistered trademarks containing terms like "selenium-rich", "organic", "zero additives", or "100%," where the actual attributes of the designated goods do not match the meaning of these terms, misleading the public regarding the main ingredients, composition, or other characteristics of the goods;
3. Using unregistered trademarks containing place names, years, or terms like "handmade" or "hand-beaten," which mislead the public regarding the origin, production time, production process, or other characteristics of the goods.
LexField's Comments:
1. When naming products or advertising, enterprises should proactively avoid using the terms mentioned in point 1 above.
2. For the terms mentioned in points 2 and 3, or other trademarks rejected due to "misleading" provisions, even if the trademark application is rejected, the risk associated with its use is relatively low, provided that in actual use, the product's quality and other characteristics genuinely correspond to the meaning of the terms used.
