August 22, 2026 · Reading time 12 min · By Logo China Pro

China Trademark Rejected? How to Respond to a CNIPA Office Action

1. The Refusal Landscape: What You Are Up Against

China trademark refusals are now the rule, not the exception. In 2024, CNIPA examined 6.675 million trademark applications with an average examination pendency of just four months. But speed comes with tradeoffs: with that volume, examiners rely heavily on automated comparison tools and tend toward the conservative side on borderline cases.

1.1 The Numbers That Matter

The 2025 data shows the system continuing its "quality over quantity" pivot. Total new registrations fell to 4.206 million (down 12% year-on-year), while valid registered trademarks grew to 49.877 million. Perhaps the most telling trend: requests for refusal review dropped by 20.38% year-on-year in January-November 2025. This does not mean fewer refusals -- it means applicants are getting smarter about which cases are worth fighting, as rejection standards harden and the cost-benefit math shifts.

Sources: CNIPA Annual Report 2024 (english.cnipa.gov.cn); industry data, Mar 2026.

Industry estimates put the overall applicant-facing rejection rate at roughly 34-38%, with significant variation by industry. E-commerce, consumer goods, and food & beverage categories see the highest rejection density because those classes are the most crowded. For foreign applicants filing in China for the first time, the risk is even higher: they often choose descriptive or laudatory English names that work at home but fail CNIPA's distinctiveness bar.

1.2 Why Refusals Are Rising

Three structural pressures are converging. First, register saturation: China now has over 49 million valid trademarks; common English words and short letter combinations in crowded classes (25, 35, 9) are largely spoken for. Second, examination standard tightening: Q1 2026 reportedly saw a 25%+ year-over-year increase in lack-of-distinctiveness refusals. Third, the bad-faith crackdown: applications that look like hoarding are flagged early, and examiners have broadened the interpretation of "deceptive" marks under Article 10.1.7.

1.3 Absolute vs. Relative Grounds

Absolute grounds mean the mark itself is fundamentally unregistrable -- Article 10 (prohibited content), Article 11 (lack of distinctiveness), Article 12 (functional shapes), or new Article 19 (applications without intent to use, effective Jan 1, 2027). Relative grounds mean the mark conflicts with earlier rights -- Article 30 (similarity to an earlier mark), Article 31 (first-to-file), or Article 32 (other prior rights). Relative-ground refusals account for roughly 68-72% of all cases and are the most winnable on review.

Sources: Sohu IP, June 2026 (sohu.com); Rouse / Mondaq, Jan 2026 (mondaq.com).

Here is the critical insight most applicants miss: the overall 35% success rate is misleading. For Article 10 cases, success is below 15%. For similarity cases where the cited mark is dormant (3+ years registered, not in use), success jumps to 75-80%. The strategic question is never "should an appeal be filed?" -- it is "which category applies, and what is the specific lever?"

2. The 15-Day Clock: Your Refusal Notice Explained

2.1 Anatomy of a Refusal Notice

A CNIPA refusal notice contains: applicant and application details; the full or partial refusal decision; the legal basis (specific articles cited); the examiner's reasoning; cited marks with registration numbers and owners (for relative grounds); and the 15-day deadline, calculated from receipt (date of service), not the issue date.

The date that matters is the date of service, stamped on the physical notice for domestic filings or the WIPO notification date for Madrid international registrations. Confirm this date with the agent immediately.

2.2 Full Refusal vs. Partial Refusal

A full refusal rejects the entire application; the only path forward is a review (or abandon and re-file). A partial refusal means some goods/services passed. A division application splits the approved portion into a new application (original filing date retained, proceeds to publication) while the refused portion proceeds to review. There is no extra official fee, but it must be filed within the same 15-day window and cannot be withdrawn.

2.3 The Timeline

Source: CNIPA Annual Report 2024 (english.cnipa.gov.cn); new Trademark Law Article 37 (effective Jan 1, 2027).

The 2024 average for review-on-rejection cases was 6.5 months. If the review is lost, there are 30 days to file an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court -- figure 6-12 more months and legal fees starting at $3,000-$5,000.

3. The 2027 New Trademark Law: What Changes

The fifth Trademark Law revision was passed on June 26, 2026 and takes effect January 1, 2027. Core mechanics stay the same (15 days to file, 9 months to decide, 30 days to appeal), but four changes matter.

3.1 Article 37: Same Deadline, Different Body

The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) is abolished; all review functions are consolidated within CNIPA. The same examiners do the same work; only the institutional structure changes.

3.2 Article 19: The Bad-Faith Sledgehammer

New Article 19 allows refusal of applications "filed without intent to use and clearly exceeding normal production or business operational needs," removing the subjective "bad faith" element and focusing on objective volume. Genuine brand filings are unaffected, but defensive multi-class filings without a credible business plan could be caught.

3.3 Administrative Penalties

Bad-faith filing conduct causing "negative influence" can now draw a warning and/or fine up to RMB 100,000 (~$14,880) under Article 54. Previously, the worst outcome was just losing the application.

3.4 Other Notable Changes

• Opposition period shortened from 3 months to 2 months.
• Motion marks newly registrable.
• Agencies face fines up to RMB 200,000 for knowingly filing prohibited applications.

Sources: CNIPA official announcement, June 26, 2026 (cnipa.gov.cn); Mayer Brown / Mondaq, Aug 2026 (mondaq.com).

4. Strategy Playbook: How to Fight by Refusal Type

4.1 Relative Grounds (Similarity): The Most Winnable Category

Article 30 refusals are the most common (68-72%) and offer four main weapons.

1. Argue non-similarity. CNIPA evaluates visual, phonetic, and conceptual dimensions plus overall commercial impression. For foreign brands, phonetic similarity (how the English name sounds in Chinese pronunciation) is often the trickiest. Pure "not similar" arguments succeed about 43% of the time on their own.
2. The Chesan combo (three-year non-use cancellation). If the cited mark is 3+ years registered and not genuinely used, file a cancellation (撤销三年不使用). If the owner cannot prove use, the mark cancels and the obstacle disappears.

The playbook: file the refusal review first (preserve the 15-day deadline), then file Chesan separately and request consolidation so the review is not decided before the cancellation outcome. Official Chesan fee is RMB 500 per class.

3. Invalidation for bad faith. For cited marks under 3 years old (not yet Chesan-eligible) that are clear squatter copies, file an invalidation declaration. The March 2026 Supreme Court Reckitt Benckiser decision clarified that extensive cross-class filing, copying of well-known brands, and public trademark-for-sale offers all constitute bad faith.
4. Coexistence / consent agreement. Negotiate a consent letter with the cited owner. Works when industries or geographies differ, but is unpredictable and price-dependent.

4.2 Absolute Grounds -- Lack of Distinctiveness (Article 11)

Success is 20-30% at review, rising to 50%+ with strong acquired-distinctiveness evidence. Main strategies: argue the mark is suggestive rather than descriptive; prove secondary meaning through sales, advertising spend, and media coverage across multiple Chinese cities; narrow the goods list; add a distinctive element and refile; or disclaim the descriptive portion of a composite mark.

4.3 Absolute Grounds -- Deceptiveness (Article 10.1.7)

Approximately 88% of Article 10.1.7 appeals are upheld. CNIPA has expanded "deceptive" to cover marks containing "国" (nation), "华" (China), and even neutral terms like "CORE."

Worth fighting only when: the mark contains an ingredient actually used (Supreme Court "Shen Yuan Chun Bing Tang Mi Ye" precedent); massive market recognition exists (the ZEEKR case: "极毘" was refused over "毘" as a chemical element, but the Beijing High Court reversed given Geely's market reality); or examination consistency can be shown through similar approved marks.

Sources: Rouse / Mondaq, Jan 2026 (mondaq.com); SPC public decisions, Apr 2026.

5. Real Cases: What Success and Failure Look Like

5.1 Australian Industrial Brand -- Phonetic Similarity Overturned

An Australian filtration equipment manufacturer's English brand was refused for phonetic similarity to a 2019 Chinese registration. Prior overseas use (over ten years) was irrelevant under first-to-file. The review stressed visual and structural differences (stylized lettering plus device mark) and submitted overseas-use evidence. Outcome: refusal overturned after nine months. Takeaway: phonetic refusals of shorter foreign names are common, but meaningful visual/structural differences make review worthwhile.

5.2 POTATO HUT -- Double Absolute Refusal

A Class 43 restaurant mark was hit with both Article 10.1.7 (deceptiveness) and Article 11 (distinctiveness). The review argued composite distinctiveness ("HUT" as the dominant element), actual potato-based service (SPC ingredient precedent), and examination consistency with other "POTATO" Class 43 registrations. Takeaway: arguments exist even in the hardest cases, but double absolute refusals are long shots.

5.3 ZEEKR -- Courts Overturn Article 10.1.7

Geely's "极毘" (Zeekr) EV brand was initially refused because "毘" is a chemical element. The Beijing High Court reversed on the fabricated-word nature, product-context argument, and overwhelming market recognition showing no consumer deception. Takeaway: Article 10.1.7 is not hopeless at the court level, but only for genuinely big brands with substantial evidence.

5.4 MUJI -- The Cost of Getting China Wrong

After 24 years of litigation, MUJI lost its battle over "无印良品" for Class 24 textiles when the Supreme People's Court rejected retrial in June 2025, upholding a Chinese company's registration. MUJI entered China early but failed to register its Chinese name across all relevant classes. Takeaway: a refusal is a setback; losing a brand name in the world's largest consumer market is catastrophic.

Cases sourced from SPC public decisions and industry reports.

6. What It Costs: Fee Breakdown

6.1 Official Fees

Source: CNIPA official fee schedule (sbj.cnipa.gov.cn); CNIPA Official Q&A, Jul 2023. USD at 1 USD = 6.72 CNY (Aug 2026).

6.2 Professional Fees

Source: Industry pricing data, Apr 2026. Ranges are indicative; actual quotes vary by complexity.

6.3 Logo China Pro Pricing

For a single-class refusal review with Chesan strategy, Logo China Pro coordinates the full process through specialist partners at transparent flat rates, typically 30-50% below the industry ranges above. The studio handles evidence organization, argument drafting, filing, and status updates -- all communication in English. (Get in touch)

For the pre-filing stage, the $297 Trademark Filing Package includes a clearance check that catches most conflicts before they become refusals. (See filing packages)

7. Appeal or Walk Away?

An honest decision framework.

7.1 Fight If...

• It is a relative-ground refusal and the cited mark is 3+ years old with no visible China use -- Chesan success is 75%+.
• Strong visual/conceptual differences exist, especially with a design element.
• It is an Article 11 refusal with substantial China market use evidence.
• The mark is strategically critical and budget allows 6-9 months.
• The refusal is partial and division can protect the approved portion immediately.

7.2 Walk Away If...

• It is an Article 10.1.7 refusal without massive market recognition (88% uphold rate).
• It is an Article 10 refusal on social-morality or national-symbol grounds -- nearly impossible to overturn.
• Fighting costs exceed rebranding and re-filing (a new filing is $297 vs. $1,000-$2,000 for a low-odds appeal).
• The mark is descriptive with no acquired-distinctiveness evidence.
• The 15-day deadline was missed -- the refusal is final.

7.3 The 72-Hour Action Plan

1. Day 0: Confirm date of service and mark the 15-day deadline.
2. Day 1: Professionally translate the notice; identify absolute vs. relative ground.
3. Day 2: For relative grounds, pull cited-mark details and assess 3+ year dormancy.
4. Day 2-3: Get a professional odds assessment (Logo China Pro offers a free 48-hour assessment -- request one).
5. Day 3-5: Decide -- fight (review + possible Chesan), accept with division, or rebrand.
6. Day 5-14: Execute; do not wait until day 14.

8. Frequently Asked Questions

What percentage of Chinese trademarks are rejected?

CNIPA 2024 data: 53.9% pass outright, 32% partial refusal, 14.1% full refusal. Combined, 46.1% hit a refusal wall. Crowded classes (25, 35, 9) see higher density.

How long is the response window for a CNIPA office action?

Exactly 15 calendar days from date of receipt (service), not the notice date. Non-extendable. Miss it and the refusal becomes final with loss of filing date. For Madrid registrations, the clock starts at WIPO notification.

What is the success rate of a China trademark refusal review?

Overall 30-35%, but category-dependent: similarity cases 35-45% (75%+ with Chesan); Article 11 cases 20-30% (50%+ with strong acquired distinctiveness); Article 10.1.7 around 12%.

How much does a CNIPA refusal review cost?

Official fee RMB 675 (~$100) per class online. Professional fees $446-$1,190 for a basic review; combined review + Chesan $1,190-$2,232. Beijing IP Court appeals start at $2,976+.

What is Chesan and how does it help with a refusal?

Chesan (撤销三年不使用) is a three-year non-use cancellation. If a blocking cited mark is 3+ years registered and the owner cannot prove genuine China use, CNIPA cancels it. In parallel with a review, it removes the obstacle -- 33% of successful 2025 reviews were won this way. Official fee RMB 500 per class.

Can the trademark still be used if it is refused?

Use during review is generally allowed, except under Article 10 (prohibited/deceptive), where use can draw administrative penalties up to 20% of related turnover. For other grounds, use is permitted but unenforceable against infringers until registration.

What is a partial refusal and should the application be divided?

Partial refusal means some goods/services passed. A division splits the approved portion into a new application proceeding directly to publication, while the refused portion stays under review. Always divide when appealing -- it prevents the approved goods from sitting in limbo. No extra official fee; file within the same 15-day window; irreversible.

How does the 2027 new Trademark Law affect refusal reviews?

Mechanics unchanged (15 days, 9 months, 30-day appeal). Key changes: TRAB abolished (consolidated into CNIPA); Article 19 refuses excess-volume applications without "bad faith"; bad-faith filings draw fines up to RMB 100,000; opposition period shortens 3 to 2 months. Effective January 1, 2027.