Dynamic Trademarks in China: 2026 Law Guide

Picture this. A European luxury house spends EUR 2 million developing a signature animated logo -- a silk scarf unfurling in slow motion, the brand monogram crystallizing at the end. It plays before every YouTube ad, every app launch screen, every in-store digital display. The brand team flies to Shanghai for a market launch meeting, confident that this motion mark is as protected as their wordmark.

Then their Chinese trademark attorney drops the bomb: "Your animated logo cannot be registered as a trademark in China."

Until June 26, 2026, that attorney would have been right. China's old Trademark Law listed specific registrable sign types -- words, graphics, letters, numbers, 3D marks, color combinations, and sound. Dynamic marks were conspicuously absent. No matter how distinctive your animated brand identifier was, CNIPA (China National Intellectual Property Administration) had no legal bucket to put it in.

That changed with the 2026 revision of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, which adds "dynamic marks" (dong-tai-biao-zhi) to the list of registrable signs under Article 14. This is the first comprehensive revision since the law's original enactment in 1982, and it fundamentally expands what brands can protect in the world's largest trademark jurisdiction by filing volume.

Here is what actually changed, what it means in practice, and where the traps are -- because the door is open, but it is narrower than most people think.

What Changed in the 2026 Trademark Law

The 2026 revision is not a minor patch. It is the most significant structural overhaul of China's trademark system in over a decade. The law expanded from 8 chapters and 73 articles to 9 chapters and 87 articles, with a brand-new chapter dedicated entirely to trademark registration conditions.

For non-traditional marks, the headline changes are in three articles.

Article 14 -- the new registrable sign types. The article now reads: any sign capable of distinguishing the goods of a natural person, legal person, or unincorporated organization from those of others -- including words, graphics, letters, numbers, three-dimensional marks, color combinations, sound, dynamic marks, and combinations thereof -- may be registered as a trademark.

That bolded addition is the game-changer. For the first time, animated logos, motion graphics, loading sequences, and other time-based brand identifiers have an explicit legal basis for trademark registration in China.

Article 18 -- the functionality exclusion. Here is where the counterweight kicks in. Article 18 extends the functionality doctrine -- previously applied only to 3D marks -- to all non-traditional mark types. It states that for applications involving 3D marks, color combinations, sound, or dynamic marks, any shape, color combination, sound, or dynamic effect that results exclusively from the nature of the goods, is necessary to achieve a technical result, or gives substantial value to the goods, shall not be registered.

This is the provision that will kill most careless applications. More on that below.

Article 36 -- shorter opposition window. The opposition period dropped from 3 months to 2 months. This matters for anyone filing a dynamic mark because it compresses the entire timeline and means competitors have less time to react. On the flip side, it also means you have less time to spot and oppose conflicting applications.

The new law takes effect on January 1, 2027 (per Article 87). Applications filed before that date under the old framework will continue to be examined under the old rules. If you are reading this before 2027, you have a window to prepare -- and potentially to file early under the new regime.

For context on how China's trademark registration system works for foreign applicants in general, Logo China Pro's step-by-step guide to registering a trademark in China covers the full process from search to certificate.

What Qualifies as a Dynamic Trademark

A dynamic trademark is any brand identifier that involves motion or change over time. Unlike a static logo, a dynamic mark unfolds as a sequence. Think of it as a mini-animation that consumers learn to associate with a specific commercial source.

In CNIPA practice, the types of dynamic marks that will likely qualify include:

Animated logos. The most obvious category. If your brand logo animates on screen -- letters assembling, a symbol morphing, colors shifting in a specific sequence -- that motion sequence can now be filed as a dynamic mark. The key is that the animation itself must function as a source identifier, not merely as decoration.

App launch screens and loading sequences. When you open certain apps, a brief animation plays before the interface loads. If that animation is distinctive enough and consistently tied to one brand, it is a candidate. Think of how recognizable certain tech companies' boot-up sequences are.

Motion graphics used in advertising. Brand-specific motion sequences used consistently across marketing channels -- like a particular way a product materializes on screen, or a signature transition effect -- could qualify, provided they function as source identifiers rather than pure creative content.

Film and video title sequences. Production studios and streaming platforms use distinctive animated title cards. These have traditionally been protected under copyright, but if they function as brand identifiers in commerce, they may also qualify as dynamic trademarks.

Holographic marks. While not explicitly named in the law, holograms that involve visual movement or transformation may fall within the dynamic mark category, depending on how CNIPA's examination guidelines develop.

Here is what will NOT automatically qualify: generic loading spinners, commonplace transitions (like a simple fade-in), and animations that are purely functional (like a progress bar filling up). The animation must do what every trademark must do -- tell the consumer "this comes from that specific source."

This distinction is critical and is where many applicants will stumble. Many agents oversimplify this by telling clients "if it moves, you can register it." That is not how it works. The motion must be distinctive, non-functional, and serve a source-identifying function.

Article 18 Functionality Exclusion: The Three Bars

Article 18 is the provision that separates serious applications from doomed ones. It creates three independent grounds for refusal, any one of which is fatal:

Bar 1: Results exclusively from the nature of the goods. If the dynamic effect is an inherent property of the product itself, it cannot be registered. Example: a chocolate that naturally melts in a distinctive pattern -- that melting pattern results from the nature of the goods and is excluded.

Bar 2: Necessary to achieve a technical result. If the motion is there because it has to be -- because some technical function requires it -- it is excluded. A rotating gear icon that indicates a machine is processing data? That is functional. A loading animation that merely reflects a technical process cannot be monopolized as a trademark.

Bar 3: Gives substantial value to the goods. This is the most subtle and arguably the most important bar. If the dynamic effect is what makes the product valuable or desirable in the first place, it is excluded. A sophisticated light show built into a DJ controller that consumers buy specifically for the visual experience? That gives substantial value to the goods and would likely be refused.

In practice, these three bars create a "functionality ceiling" for all non-traditional marks in China. The EU IP Helpdesk's analysis of the 2026 revision describes it well: businesses seeking to register non-traditional marks need to demonstrate that the distinctive element does not arise from technical necessity or product value.

The practical takeaway: before spending money on a dynamic mark application, ask yourself whether the animation could be described as "necessary" or "valuable" independent of its brand-identifying function. If the answer is yes to either, you have a problem.

Sound Marks in China: Status and What Actually Works

Sound marks have been registrable in China since the 2013 amendment (effective 2014), but the track record is sobering. Between 2014 and 2023, approximately 885 sound mark applications were filed with CNIPA. Only about 39 were successfully registered -- a success rate of roughly 4.4%. For comparison, traditional word and device marks have registration rates above 50%.

Why so low? Because CNIPA examiners take an extremely conservative stance on sound mark distinctiveness. The default assumption is that sounds -- especially short, simple ones -- lack inherent distinctiveness. The burden falls heavily on the applicant to prove that the sound has acquired distinctiveness through long-term, extensive use in the Chinese market.

The Tencent QQ Case: China's Landmark Sound Mark

The most instructive case is Tencent's QQ notification sound -- the iconic "di-di-di-di-di-di" (di-di-di-di-di-di) that plays when a new message arrives on QQ.

Tencent filed the application on May 4, 2014 -- literally four days after the amended law took effect. The Trademark Office rejected it, calling it "simple and ordinary in nature." The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board agreed, saying it was "merely a sound identifying a software function" that could not distinguish service sources.

Tencent sued. The Beijing IP Court ruled in their favor at first instance, finding that while the sound used a single repeating element, the specific pattern of six high-pitched "di" sounds at short intervals created a "bright, continuous, staccato effect" with distinctive rhythm that was not commonly encountered in daily life.

The Beijing High Court's 2018 final judgment took a more nuanced approach. It agreed that the sound was, on its own, lacking in inherent distinctiveness -- after all, it is just a repeating beep. But the court found that through years of continuous, massive use -- QQ had hundreds of millions of users by that point -- the sound had acquired distinctiveness. Consumers had learned that "this specific sound = QQ new message." The court registered the mark for services including "information transmission, providing online forums, computer-assisted information and image transmission" and related telecommunications services.

Source: People's Daily Online coverage of the first sound trademark case

The lesson: Tencent won not because the sound was inherently distinctive, but because they could prove years of extensive use had created a stable consumer association. Most applicants cannot make that showing.

Intel's Bong: A Cross-Border Example

Intel's five-note "bong" sequence is one of the most recognized sound marks globally. It has been registered as a sound trademark in multiple jurisdictions. The key to its success is decades of consistent use in every single Intel advertisement, creating what practitioners call "cultural osmosis" -- consumers do not analyze the sound, they simply know it is Intel.

In China, Intel's sound mark faced similar distinctiveness challenges but benefited from massive global advertising spend that also reached Chinese audiences. The application succeeded because Intel could document extensive use and recognition in the Chinese market specifically -- not just globally.

CNIPA Requirements for Sound Mark Applications

Based on CNIPA's official guidelines at sbj.cnipa.gov.cn, the filing requirements for sound marks are specific:

1. Musical notation. You must describe the sound using staff notation (wu-xian-pu) or numbered musical notation (jian-pu), accompanied by written text. If the sound cannot be expressed in musical notation, a text description alone is acceptable -- but examiners prefer notation.

1. Audio sample. Must be submitted as a WAV or MP3 file, under 5MB, stored on a read-only disc (historically) or uploaded through CNIPA's online system. The audio must match the notation and description exactly.

1. Use description. You must specify how the sound is used in connection with the designated goods or services. For example, "played as a notification sound when a new message is received in the applicant's messaging software."

1. Consistency requirement. The audio sample, the musical notation, and the text description must all be internally consistent. Any mismatch triggers an office action.

This level of technical specificity is higher than what most foreign applicants expect. Many simply submit an audio file and a marketing-style description. That is not enough for CNIPA.

Practical Tips for Sound Mark Applications in China

Based on what actually works in CNIPA examination:

• Avoid simple, generic sounds. Single beeps, standard chimes, common ringtones -- these are presumptively non-distinctive. If your sound could be described as "a beep" or "a chime," it will be rejected.

• Complexity helps. Sounds with three or more distinct pitches or a recognizable melodic pattern have a better chance than single-note repetitions. The EU General Court's 2025 BVG decision (Berlin transport authority's two-second, four-note sound mark) signals a global trend toward accepting short but melodically distinctive sounds.

• Evidence of use in China is mandatory for most applicants. Unless your sound is so unusual and distinctive that it has inherent distinctiveness (rare), you need to prove acquired distinctiveness. This means advertising expenditure data in China, broadcast logs, consumer surveys conducted in mainland China, social media metrics from WeChat/Weibo/Douyin, and market share reports specific to the Chinese market.

• Global fame alone is not enough. CNIPA examiners specifically look for China-specific evidence. A Sound trademark application that only provides evidence of use in the US or EU will be rejected, no matter how famous the mark is internationally.

Scent Marks: Theoretically Possible, Practically Nightmare

Let me be direct: if you are considering registering a scent as a trademark in China, you should understand that this is at the far frontier of trademark law, and the odds are heavily stacked against you.

China's 2026 Trademark Law uses an open-ended list in Article 14 -- "and other elements" -- which means the law does not explicitly exclude scent marks. Some commentators have argued this leaves the door open.

Here is why that door is effectively locked in practice:

No representation standard. CNIPA has not issued examination guidelines for how to represent a scent mark graphically. For sound marks, you submit notation and audio. For color marks, you submit color samples with Pantone codes. For scent marks, there is no accepted method. Chemical formula? Insufficient. Written description of the smell? Too subjective. Actual scent sample? CNIPA has no protocol for storing, evaluating, or comparing olfactory samples.

No examination precedent. As of the date of this article, CNIPA has never registered a scent trademark. There is zero case law. There is no body of examiner practice to draw from. You would be asking CNIPA to create an entirely new examination category from scratch.

Distinctiveness is nearly impossible to prove. Even in jurisdictions with more mature scent mark jurisprudence -- like the United States, where the Play-Doh vanilla scent was registered in 2022 after decades of use -- the evidentiary bar is extraordinarily high. Chinese consumers are not accustomed to identifying product sources by smell. Proving that Chinese consumers associate a specific scent with a specific commercial source would require extensive consumer survey evidence conducted across multiple Chinese cities, with methodology that would satisfy academic scrutiny.

Functional exclusion under Article 18 adds another barrier. Many scents serve a functional purpose -- perfumes mask unpleasant odors, vanilla scent makes modeling compound appealing to children, fresh linen scent in cleaning products signals cleanliness. If the scent provides any functional benefit, Article 18 would block registration.

The honest assessment: a scent mark application in China today would almost certainly be rejected. If CNIPA eventually develops examination guidelines for olfactory marks, the situation may change. But that development is years away, at minimum.

How to Apply: CNIPA Filing Process for Dynamic and Non-Traditional Marks

For foreign applicants, the process follows the same general framework as any trademark application in China, with additional requirements specific to the mark type. For a deeper dive on the overall process, see Logo China Pro's guide on how to register a trademark in China.

Step 1: Pre-filing search

Before filing, conduct a comprehensive search of the CNIPA database at sbj.cnipa.gov.cn. For dynamic marks, this is more complex than for word marks -- you need to check not just the final frame of your animation but the overall sequence for similarities with existing marks. CNIPA's search system is primarily designed for static marks, so manual review of potentially similar dynamic marks may be necessary.

Step 2: Prepare the representation

For dynamic marks, you will need to submit a representation that clearly captures the motion sequence. This typically means a video file showing the complete animation. CNIPA's specific format requirements for dynamic mark representations will be detailed in implementing regulations -- watch for updates from CNIPA before the January 1, 2027 effective date. Based on practice with sound marks, expect requirements for:

• A video file in a standard format (likely MP4)
• A written description of each frame or key stage of the animation
• A description of the duration and timing of the motion sequence
• Evidence of how the mark is used in commerce

For sound marks, follow the requirements detailed above: musical notation, written description, and audio sample.

Step 3: File through a licensed agent

Foreign applicants without a business address in mainland China must file through a licensed Chinese trademark agency. This is a legal requirement, not optional. You cannot file directly with CNIPA from overseas. The application must be submitted in Chinese, with all supporting documents translated.

Step 4: CNIPA examination

CNIPA has 9 months from receiving the application to complete examination (Article 32). The examination includes both formality review (are the documents complete and correctly formatted?) and substantive review (is the mark distinctive? Does it conflict with prior marks? Does it fall under any exclusion?).

For non-traditional marks, expect the substantive examination to be more rigorous than for standard word marks. CNIPA examiners are still developing expertise in evaluating dynamic and sound marks. Office actions requesting additional clarification or evidence are common for first-in-category applications.

Step 5: Publication and opposition

If the mark passes examination, it enters a 2-month publication period (under the 2026 law). Any third party may oppose registration during this window. The shortened opposition period (down from 3 months) means faster registration if unopposed, but also less time to detect and challenge conflicting applications.

Step 6: Registration

If no opposition is filed (or if an opposition is resolved in your favor), CNIPA issues the registration certificate. The registration is valid for 10 years and renewable indefinitely.

Cost Breakdown: What It Actually Costs

Here is a realistic cost estimate for registering a non-traditional trademark in China, based on 2026 pricing:

Exchange rate: 1 USD ~ 6.69 CNY (2026-10-14 market rate).

The wide range reflects the reality that non-traditional mark applications are significantly more complex than standard filings. The biggest variable is whether you need to prove acquired distinctiveness. If your dynamic mark is inherently distinctive (a genuinely unique animation that has no functional purpose), you may not need extensive evidence. If you need to prove acquired distinctiveness, expect to spend significantly on consumer surveys, advertising records compilation, and expert reports.

Compare this to the cost of a standard trademark registration, which typically runs $300-500 all-in for a straightforward word mark filing. Non-traditional marks are a premium category, and the costs reflect that.

Common Pitfalls: Why Most Non-Traditional Mark Applications Fail

After reviewing the data and CNIPA examination patterns, here are the most common reasons for rejection:

1. Treating the mark as decoration, not a trademark. The single biggest mistake. CNIPA examiners will refuse any mark where the motion, sound, or visual effect appears to serve a decorative, entertaining, or functional purpose rather than a source-identifying one. Your animated logo needs to function like a trademark -- consumers need to see it and immediately think "this is from Company X." If the animation is just "cool," it is not a trademark. It is content.

2. Insufficient China-specific evidence. For marks that lack inherent distinctiveness (which is most sound marks and many dynamic marks), you need evidence of use in the Chinese market specifically. Global advertising spend does not count. YouTube views do not count unless you can demonstrate they are from Chinese viewers. You need WeChat engagement data, Douyin metrics, advertising contracts with Chinese media outlets, sales figures from Chinese transactions, and consumer surveys conducted in mainland China.

3. Mismatch between representation and description. For sound marks, the audio sample must match the musical notation exactly. For dynamic marks, the video must match the written frame-by-frame description. Any inconsistency gives the examiner grounds for an office action, and potentially for refusal.

4. Overbroad goods/services designation. Some applicants try to register their dynamic mark across all 45 Nice classes. This signals bad faith and also invites examination on multiple fronts. File in the classes where you actually use the mark, or have a genuine intention to use it.

5. Ignoring the functionality exclusion. If your animation is a loading sequence for an app, the examiner will likely argue it is "necessary to achieve a technical result" under Article 18. If your sound is a standard notification chime, it will be considered functional. The mark must be something that could be removed without affecting the product's function -- that is the test.

6. Failing to account for the first-to-file system. China's first-to-file system means that if someone else files a similar dynamic mark before you, even if you used it first, they get priority. This is exactly the same principle that applies to word marks -- see Logo China Pro's analysis of China's first-to-file trademark system for the broader implications.

Strategic Recommendations for Foreign Brands

Based on the above, here is what foreign brand owners should actually do:

If you have an animated logo or motion-based brand identity

Start preparing now, before January 1, 2027. The new law creates a first-mover advantage: the first party to file a dynamic mark at CNIPA establishes priority. If your animated logo is already in use globally, you should be among the first to file when the system opens.

Document everything. Keep detailed records of when and where the animation is used, including screenshots, video captures, and timestamps. This evidence will be critical if you need to prove acquired distinctiveness.

Separate the animation from the functional elements. If your app has a loading animation, ask whether the animation could be changed without affecting the app's function. If yes, good -- that supports non-functionality. If the animation is the only way to achieve a particular technical effect, you have a problem.

Consider filing both the static and dynamic versions. Register your standard logo as a word/device mark (the traditional approach) and also file the animated version as a dynamic mark. This gives you two layers of protection.

If you want to register a sound mark

Be realistic about the timeline and cost. Sound mark applications in China take longer and cost more than standard filings, with a much lower success rate. Budget for the possibility of rejection and appeal.

Invest in China-specific evidence before filing. Commission a consumer recognition survey in mainland China. Compile advertising records from Chinese platforms. The stronger your evidence package at the time of filing, the better your chances.

Design your sound for distinctiveness. If you are creating a new brand sound for the Chinese market, work with audio professionals to create something that is not just pleasant but genuinely distinctive -- a melody with multiple distinct notes, an unusual sound texture, or a combination of elements that would not occur naturally.

If you are considering a scent mark

Do not file yet. Wait for CNIPA to develop examination guidelines for olfactory marks. Filing now would be expensive, slow, and almost certainly unsuccessful. Monitor CNIPA publications and industry updates. If and when examination guidelines are published, reassess.

General strategic principles

File early. Under China's first-to-file system, every day you wait is a day someone else could file first. This applies with even greater force to new mark categories, where the CNIPA database has fewer prior marks to block your application -- but also where competitors are watching closely.

Think about the broader IP strategy. Dynamic marks, sound marks, and other non-traditional marks do not exist in isolation. Your animated logo may also be protected under copyright. Your brand sound may be protectable as a copyright work. Layer your IP protections -- do not rely on a single legal theory.

Monitor the opposition period. The new 2-month opposition window means you need active trademark monitoring. Set up alerts for marks similar to yours in your class. The shorter window gives you less time to react, but it also means fewer frivolous oppositions from competitors trying to delay your registration.

Prepare for the statutory damages leverage. Under Article 77 of the 2026 law, statutory damages for trademark infringement can reach up to RMB 5,000,000 (approximately USD 747,000 at the October 2026 exchange rate of 6.69 CNY per USD). This is a meaningful deterrent against infringement and makes your registered non-traditional mark a more valuable enforcement asset once obtained.

What This Means for the Broader Brand Protection Landscape

The addition of dynamic marks to China's Trademark Law is not just a technical amendment. It reflects a fundamental recognition that brand identity in the digital age is not static.

Consumers today encounter brands through screens -- smartphones, tablets, digital displays, smartwatches. The brand experience is increasingly temporal and dynamic. A logo that animates, a sound that plays at app launch, a motion sequence that introduces a video -- these are not gimmicks. For many digitally-native brands, they are the primary brand experience.

China's trademark system is catching up to this reality. The 2026 revision also explicitly recognizes that trademark use includes use via the internet and information networks (Article 2), further aligning the legal framework with digital commerce.

For foreign brands entering or operating in China, this creates both an opportunity and an obligation. The opportunity: you can now protect the full spectrum of your brand identity in the world's largest trademark jurisdiction. The obligation: you must act. Under the first-to-file system, rights belong to whoever files first, regardless of who created or used the mark first. The risks of not filing early are measured in lost market access, enforcement costs, and potential brand damage.

Frequently Asked Questions

Protect Your Non-Traditional Brand Identity in China

Sources:

• Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (2026 Revision) -- CNIPA official text
• Main Changes of the Revised Trademark Law -- CNIPA official summary
• EU IP Helpdesk: 10 Changes Reshaping Brand Protection
• CNIPA Trademark Application FAQ (Sound Marks)
• Tencent QQ Sound Trademark Case -- People's Daily
• Trademark Law of the PRC (NPC) -- China National People's Congress