Legal Framework

Patent protection in China is governed by the Patent Law of China, together with its Implementing Regulations, and the Guidelines for Patent Examination issued by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA).

Patentable Subject Matter

Invention creations that meet the statutory requirements of novelty, inventiveness, and practical applicability are patentable. Patentable subject matter includes new technical solutions for products, processes, or improvements thereof.

Exclusions

Certain subject matters are expressly excluded from patentability. These include scientific discoveries, rules and methods of mental activities, methods for diagnosis or treatment of diseases, animal or plant varieties, and substances obtained by means of nuclear transformation.

Software, business methods and AI-related inventions are eligible for patent protection in China if they meet certain requirements.

Utility Model

China also provides utility model protection for technical solutions relating to the shape and structure of a product. A utility model patent has a shorter protection term and less stringent requirements for inventive step than an invention patent.

Responsible Authority

The CNIPA is the sole authority for examining and granting patents in China.

Procedure and Timelines

• Invention Application: The application is subject to preliminary examination after filing, and the application is published after 18 months from the filing date/priority date. The request for substantive examination needs to be filed within three years from the filing date/priority date. Following substantive examination, the CNIPA will issue either a grant notification or a rejection decision. Generally, the estimated time from filing to grant is two to three years.
• Utility Model Applications: The application is subject to preliminary examination after filing, during which the novelty and inventive step may be examined. If no reasons for rejection are found, the CNIPA will issue a grant notification. Generally, the estimated time from filing to grant is 6-12 months.

Costs and Representation

Official fees include filing fees, examination fees, and annual fees once the patent is granted. For foreign applicants without a habitual residence or business office in China, it is mandatory to appoint a licensed patent agency to file and prosecute patent applications.

Exclusive Rights Conferred by a Patent

A granted patent confers the exclusive right to prevent others from making, using, selling, offering for sale or importing the patented product, or using the patented process without the authorisation of the patentee.

Term of Protection

The standard term of patent protection is 20 years for invention patent, and ten years for utility model patent, all counted from the CN filing date.

Maintenance Fees and Remedies

Annuities are mandatory to keep a patent right in force. The annuity needs to be paid annually before the filing date anniversary. If the annuity is not paid by the due date, a six-month grace period applies during which a surcharge shall be paid.

If the annuity remains unpaid after the grace period, a notification of termination will be issued. The patent right may be restored within two months from the date of that notification by filing a restoration request and paying the overdue fees and restoration fee. Failure to act within this period results in permanent termination.

Patent Term Extensions

Patent term adjustment (PTA) is available for an invention patent that is granted after four years from the date of filing and after three years from the date of requesting substantive examination.

Patent term extension (PTE) is available for a new drug-related patent to compensate for the time taken for review and approval of new drugs for marketing. The compensation term may not be more than five years, and the total patent term shall not exceed 14 years from the date of marketing approval.

Patent Ownership Eligibility

Any entity or individual can apply for a patent. The patent right is owned by the applicant. The inventor, as applicant, is entitled to apply for and own patents for non-service inventions.

Service Inventions

An invention made in the course of performing the employee’s job duties, or primarily using the employer’s resources, is deemed a service invention. For such inventions, the right to apply for a patent belongs to the employer. Once granted, the employer shall be the patentee.

Service Inventions Made at Universities

There are no special rules for inventions made at universities or educational institutions.

Assignments and Licences

The recordal of assignments and licences is not mandatory.

• requirement for assignment recordal – an assignment executed by both assignor and assignee, and a power of attorney from assignee; and
• requirement for licence recordal – a licence agreement (or notarised copy) with a Chinese translation, business certificates of both parties, powers of attorney from both parties, and – if recorded beyond three months from the effective date – a joint declaration confirming the continued validity of the agreement.

To be effective against third parties, both assignments and licences should be registered with the CNIPA. After recordal, both the assignment and licence are published in the patent gazette.

Under Chinese law, direct patent infringement generally includes, without authorisation, manufacturing, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing a patented product, or using a patented process and exploiting products directly obtained from that process. The scope of patent protection is determined primarily by the claims, as construed in light of the description and drawings. Infringement analysis applies the all-elements rule; the doctrine of equivalents may also apply where the accused feature uses substantially the same means, performs substantially the same function, achieves substantially the same result, and would have been readily conceivable by a person skilled in the art without inventive effort. Indirect infringement is generally addressed through the framework of joint tort liability. Article 1169 of the PRC Civil Code provides that a person who instigates or assists another in committing a tort shall bear joint and several liability with the primary actor. The Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation (II) on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Dispute Cases further clarifies that a person may be held liable for contributory infringement by knowingly providing materials, equipment, components, intermediates, or other items specially used for practising a patent to another for infringing activities, or for inducement by knowingly encouraging or inducing another to commit patent infringement. Common defences include prior art or prior design, prior use, exhaustion, experimental use, the Bolar exemption, lawful source, and, in SEP cases, FRAND-related defences.

In China, patent protection follows a dual-track system, under which judicial enforcement and administrative handling coexist. Civil patent infringement disputes are generally heard at first instance by a competent intermediate people’s court, an intellectual property court, or a designated intellectual property tribunal. Appeals in technically complex patent cases are, as a matter of principle, centralised before the Intellectual Property Tribunal of the Supreme People’s Court. As to territorial jurisdiction, such cases are generally heard by the court at the place where the infringement occurred or where the defendant is domiciled. The place of infringement includes the place where the alleged acts of manufacturing, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing took place, as well as the place where the result of the infringement occurred.

Patent infringement litigation and patent invalidation proceedings may proceed in parallel. Whether the court will stay the infringement action depends on the patent type, the procedural posture of the case, and the circumstances of the individual matter. In utility model and design patent cases, the court may also require the patentee to submit a patent evaluation report. Under Chinese law, both pre-action and in-action behaviour preservation measures are available, and in urgent circumstances the court shall issue a ruling within 48 hours. That said, in technically complex invention patent cases or other technical disputes involving difficult issues of claim construction, infringement comparison, or patent stability, obtaining such injunctive relief is often not easy in practice.

Available remedies include injunctions, damages, and reasonable expenses incurred by the right-holder for stopping the infringement. In cases of intentional infringement with serious circumstances, punitive damages of between one and five times the damages base may also be awarded. Recoverable reasonable expenses may include attorneys’ fees, notarisation fees, and appraisal fees, subject to the court’s review based on the supporting evidence.

Governing Laws

The main laws are the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China (2019 Revision) and Regulations for the Implementation of the Trademark Law.

Protectable Signs

According to Article 8 of the Chinese Trademark Law, any sign capable of distinguishing the goods or services of a natural person, legal person or any other organisation from those of other persons – including words, devices, letters, numerals, three-dimensional signs, combinations of colours, sounds, etc, as well as a combination of such signs – is eligible for application for registration as a trade mark. Scent marks are not registrable in China.

Unregistered/Common Law Trade Marks

China follows a registration-based system of trade mark protection. Unregistered trade marks may be protected if they have been used previously and have acquired a certain degree of influence, or if they qualify as unregistered well-known trade marks.

Essential Elements

Distinctiveness, lawfulness, non-functionality, no conflict with prior rights, and capability of distinguishing the source of goods or services are the essential elements.

Acquired Distinctiveness/Secondary Meaning

Acquired distinctiveness or secondary meaning can be established through long-term use, extensive promotion, market share, and recognition by the relevant public to indicate commercial origin.

Famous/Well-Known Marks

Well-known trade marks are protected regardless of registration. Unregistered well-known marks are protected on identical/similar goods; registered well-known marks are entitled to cross-class protection.

Registration Requirement

Exclusive trade mark rights are acquired by registration. Unregistered trade marks enjoy only limited protection.

Procedures, Timelines and Costs

Trade mark applications should be filed with the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA). It is normal and necessary to conduct a search for prior-filed or registered trade marks. The examination period is very short, and it is decreasing.

The official fee for filing an application for one trade mark in one class (within ten items of goods/services) is CNY270. If the number of items exceeds ten, there will be a CNY27 charge for each item over ten.

Multi-Class Applications

Multi-class applications are permitted under Chinese Trademark Law, with no statutory restriction on filing.

Term of Protection

A registered trade mark is valid for ten years from the date of registration.

Renewal

Renewal may be filed within 12 months before expiration; a six-month grace period is available with a surcharge. Each renewal extends the term by ten years.

Genuine use

Genuine use refers to the effective, commercial and true use of the trade mark in commerce. Specifically, the use of the trade mark shall meet the following requirements:

• it can show the registered trade mark;
• it can show that the trade mark is used on the designated goods or services;
• it can show the user of the trade mark (including the trade mark registrant itself, the person authorised by the registrant, etc);
• it can show the use date (within three years before the date of the cancellation application); and
• it can prove the use within the territory covered by the effect of the Trademark Law.

Consequences of Non-Use

If a registered trade mark is not used for three consecutive years without justifiable reasons, any unit or individual may apply to the CNIPA for cancellation of the registered trade mark. If the trade mark registrant fails to provide evidence of the use of the trade mark within the specified time limit, or the evidence provided is invalid and there is no justifiable reason, the CNIPA shall cancel its registered trade mark. If the evidence provided by the trade mark registrant can only prove that it has used the registered trade mark on some of the approved goods, the registration on those goods and the goods similar to those goods may be maintained, and the registration on other goods shall be cancelled.

Exclusive Rights Conferred

Registration confers the following exclusive rights:

• right to exclusive use on approved goods/services;
• right to prohibit others from using identical or similar marks on identical or similar goods without authorisation;
• right to license others to use the mark;
• right to assign or pledge the trade mark; and
• right to seek remedies for infringement.

Limitations and Defences

Limitations and defences include:

• use of descriptive terms, generic names, geographical indications, or functional features in good faith for purposes of identification or description;
• continued use of an identical/similar mark by a prior user with certain influence before the applied date;
• reselling of marketed goods bearing the trade mark without permission of the trade mark owner;
• legitimate use of one’s own name, firm name, or address in good faith; and
• use not as a source identifier but for information or reference.

Infringement, Dilution, Passing Off

• Infringement: Unauthorised use of identical/similar marks causing confusion, sale of infringing goods, forgery of marks and assisting infringement constitute infringement.
• Dilution: Blurring, tarnishing, or weakening well-known trade marks, or misappropriating their reputation may constitute dilution.
• Passing Off: Unauthorised use of unique packaging/decoration of famous goods causing confusion, governed by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, constitute passing off.

Competent Authorities

• Judicial cases are heard by intellectual property courts, intermediate people’s courts, and designated basic people’s courts.
• Administrative cases against CNIPA are heard by the Beijing IP Court and Beijing Higher People’s Court.

Remedies

• Civil remedies include injunction, destruction of infringing goods, damages (statutory damages up to CNY5 million).
• Administrative remedies include confiscation, fines, and orders to cease infringement.
• Criminal remedies apply to criminal liability for serious counterfeiting, including imprisonment and fines.

Customs remedies include recordal and seizure of infringing imports/exports.

In China, copyright protection is primarily governed by the Copyright Law and the relevant regulations. The Copyright Law defines the scope of copyright, the rights of copyright owners, and the limitations and exceptions to these rights. The law also outlines the procedures for copyright registration, enforcement, and dispute resolution.

Copyright protection in China extends to a wide range of creative works, including, but not limited to:

• written works, such as novels, poems, essays, reports, and other written works;
• oral works, such as impromptu speeches, lectures and court debates;
• musical works, dramatic works, quyi works, choreographic works, and acrobatic works, such as songs, plays, operas, ballets, and other performing arts which are mainly performed by recitation or singing, or by both;
• works of fine art and architecture, such as paintings, calligraphy, sculptures, and unique architectural designs, including buildings and structures;
• photographic works, created by recording images of objects on light-sensitive or other materials with the aid of devices, such as photographs;
• cinematographic works and works created by a process analogous to cinematography, such as films, television programs;
• graphic works and model works, such as engineering and product design drawings, maps and schematics;
• computer software, including the code and related documentation of computer programmes; and
• other intellectual achievements that meet the characteristics of works.

In China, industrial designs are primarily protected under the Patent Law through industrial design patents. However, certain aspects of industrial designs, particularly those with artistic or aesthetic elements that can be separated from their functional aspects, may also qualify for copyright protection. Applied artworks, which combine artistic creativity with practical functionality, are generally protected by copyright in China. The key criterion for copyright protection is that the artistic elements must be original and capable of existing independently of their functional purpose.

In China, copyright protection is based on the principle of automatic protection, meaning that works are automatically entitled to copyright upon completion without the need for any formalities.

The core requirements for copyright protection are originality and fixation.

• Originality: The work should be independently created by the author, reflecting their intellectual labour and personalised expression.
• Fixation: The work should be fixed in a tangible medium of expression (such as written text, audio recordings, video recordings, or digital formats) that allows it to be perceived, reproduced, or communicated.

Copyright registration is conducted voluntarily in China. In practice, when enforcing the copyright in China, the administrative authorities and the courts will require the copyright owner to provide evidence to prove its copyright. A copyright registration certificate serves as prima facie evidence of copyright ownership.

The natural person, legal entity, or unincorporated organisation whose name appears on a work shall, without contrary proof, be the author of the work.

In the case of a work created jointly by two or more co-authors, copyright in the work shall be enjoyed jointly by those co-authors. Co-authors shall exercise the copyright of a work of joint authorship upon consensus. In the situation that no consensus has been reached, and there is no justified reason, no party shall prevent another party from exercising rights other than transferring and permitting others’ exclusive use, and pledging, but the proceeds obtained shall be reasonably distributed to all co-authors. If a work of joint authorship can be separated into independent parts and exploited separately, each co-author shall be entitled to independent copyright in the parts that he/she has created, provided that the exercise of such copyright does not infringe upon the copyright in the joint work as a whole.

In the case of a work created by employees in the course of employment, authorship is determined as follows:

• Works of Employment in General: Copyright is held by the author, while the employer enjoys priority right to use the work within the scope of its business.
• Exceptions: The author only retains the right of authorship, with other rights held by the employer, in the following scenarios:
1. works of employment that are created primarily by using the material and technical conditions of employer and for which the said employer assumes responsibility, such as engineering design drawings, product design drawings, maps, schematic diagrams, and computer software;
2. works of employment created by the staff of newspapers, journals, news agencies, radio stations, or television stations; and
3. works of employment for which the copyright is enjoyed by the employer as provided by laws, regulations or contracts.

In the case of a work created under a contract with another party, authorship is determined by contract; if unspecified, copyright vests with the commissioned party (author).

Article 10 of the Copyright Law provides that copyright shall include the following moral rights and economic rights:

• personal rights:
1. the right of publication, that is, the right to decide whether to make a work available to the public;
2. the right of authorship, that is, the right to claim authorship and to have the author’s name mentioned in connection with the work;
3. the right of alteration, that is, the right to alter or authorise others to alter one’s work; and
4. the right of integrity, that is, the right to protect one’s work against distortion and mutilation;
• property rights:
1. the right of reproduction, that is, the right to produce one or more copies of the work by means of printing, Xeroxing, rubbing, sound recording, video recording, duplicating, re-shooting, or digitally, etc;
2. the right of distribution, that is, the right to provide the public with original copies or reproduced copies of works by means of selling or donating;
3. the right of lease, that is, the right to non-gratuitously permit others to temporarily use the original or copy of audiovisual works and computer software, unless the computer software is not the main object of lease;
4. the right of exhibition, that is, the right to publicly display the original copies or reproduced copies of works of fine art and cinematographic works;
5. the right of performance, that is, the right to publicly perform works, and to publicly transmit the performance of works by various means;
6. the right of projection, that is, the right to make works of fine art, photographic works, audiovisual works and the like reappear in public by means of projectors, episcopes and similar technical equipment;
7. the right of broadcasting, that is, the right to publicly broadcast or disseminate works by wired or wireless means, and to disseminate broadcast works to the public by audio amplifier or other similar instruments for transmission of signs, sounds or images, excluding the right as prescribed in the 12th bullet point of this paragraph;
8. The right of dissemination via information networks, that is, the right to provide works that may be obtained by the public at the time and place selected by the public by wired or wireless means;
9. the right of production, that is, the right to fix works onto the carrier of audiovisual works;
10. the right of adaptation, that is, the right to modify a work for the purpose of creating a new work of original creation;
11. the right of translation, that is, the right to transform the language of a work into another language;
12. the right of compilation, that is, the right to choose or edit some works or fragments of works so as to form a new work; and
13. other rights which shall be enjoyed by the copyright owners.

A copyright owner may wholly or partially transfer or permit others to exercise the above property rights. However, personal rights of the author cannot be transferred, deprived, restricted, or waived. Personal rights cannot be assigned. After the death of the author, the rights of authorship, alteration, and integrity shall be protected by the author’s successor or legatee.

Duration of Personal Rights Protection

• The rights of authorship, alteration, and integrity of an author shall be unlimited in time.
• Although the right of publication falls under personal rights, its duration of protection is the same as that of property rights.

Duration of Property Rights Protection

• In respect of a work created by a natural person, the duration of protection for property rights is the lifetime of the author plus 50 years after their death, ending on 31 December of the 50th year after the author’s death. For works of joint authorship, the term expires on 31 December of the 50th year after the death of the last surviving author.
• In respect of a work created by a legal entity or other organisation, or a work where the copyright is held by a legal entity or other organisation, the duration of protection for economic rights is 50 years, ending on 31 December of the 50th year after the work’s first publication. If the work is not published within 50 years after its creation, it is no longer protected by copyright law.

China’s Copyright Law does not explicitly provide for a right of reversion (ie, the author’s right to reclaim a work after it has been transferred or licensed for valid reasons). However, in certain circumstances, such as when a book is out of print and the publisher refuses to reprint or republish it, the author has the right to terminate the contract, which to some extent reflects the protection of the author’s rights and interests.

Statutory Exceptions (Fair Use)

Chinese copyright law provides a list of exceptions often known as “fair use” (Article 24). These exceptions permit the use of copyrighted works without the author’s permission under specific circumstances. Common examples include using works for personal study or research (private use), reasonable quotation for introducing or commenting on a work (quotation), reporting current events, and use by state organs for the purpose of executing official duties. However, parody is not explicitly listed in this Article.

The Three-Step Test

When assessing whether an exception applies, courts apply the “three-step test” derived from the Berne Convention. A use is only considered fair if it falls within one of the statutory exceptions, does not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work, and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the copyright owner. This test ensures that exceptions do not undermine the commercial value of the original work.

Judicial Assessment

Judges evaluate several practical factors to determine if a use qualifies as an exception. These include the purpose of the use – whether it is commercial or non-commercial – the proportion of the work used relative to the whole, and the impact on the potential market for the original work.

Forms of Infringement

Infringement occurs when a person exercises rights reserved to the copyright owner without authorisation. This includes acts such as reproducing, distributing, performing, or communicating works to the public via networks without permission. Plagiarism, the intentional circumvention of technological protection measures, and the production or sale of works bearing a false attribution of authorship also constitute infringement.

Civil Remedies

Rights-holders can pursue civil actions seeking several forms of relief. Courts regularly grant injunctions to order the cessation of infringing activities immediately. Damages are available in multiple forms: compensation based on the right-holder’s actual losses, the infringer’s illegal gains, or a reasonable royalty. If none of these amounts can be determined, statutory damages ranging from RMB500 to RMB5 million may be awarded. For intentional infringement with serious circumstances, punitive damages of up to five times the base amount may be awarded.

Administrative and Criminal Measures

Beyond civil litigation, copyright owners can seek administrative remedies. Authorities may impose fines, confiscate infringing copies, and order the cessation of activities that harm the public interest. In severe cases, copyright infringement may rise to the level of a criminal offence, leading to criminal liability, including imprisonment or fines. These parallel systems provide a layered approach to enforcement.

Provisional Measures

To prevent imminent harm or preserve evidence, the law permits provisional measures. Right-holders may apply for preliminary injunctions, asset preservation, or evidence preservation before formally filing a lawsuit. These tools are particularly useful in stopping ongoing infringement quickly, especially in the digital environment. Blocking orders are also available for online infringements, and courts may order network service providers to disconnect links or delete content as part of preliminary injunctions.

The Foundational Test

Courts generally apply the “access plus substantial similarity” test to determine infringement. The first prong, “access”, requires evidence that the alleged infringer had a reasonable opportunity to view or learn about the copyrighted work before creating the allegedly infringing work. The second prong, “substantial similarity”, focuses on whether the protected expression in the original work has been copied to a significant extent.

Assessing Substantial Similarity

The assessment of “substantial similarity” is qualitative rather than purely quantitative. Courts consider whether the copied portion constitutes the core or essence of the original work or whether the extraction constitutes the heart of the original work, regardless of its literal size. If the elements taken are the most creative or commercially valuable parts of the work, a smaller portion may still be deemed substantial.

Non-Literal Copying, Particularly for Software

Non-literal copying of computer software – such as copying the structure, sequence, or organisation (SSO) – may be actionable. When conducting the “substantial similarity” test, the courts adopt a layered analysis: first filtering out ideas, functions, public-domain elements, and expression merged with functionality (merger doctrine), then comparing only the author’s original expression. Factors such as module architecture and data flow can be considered, provided they reflect creative choices rather than functional constraints or standard programming practices. This balanced approach protects genuine originality in software without allowing copyright to monopolise basic functions or algorithms.       

Role and Operation of Collective Management Organisations

Collective management organisations in China operate as non-profit entities. They are established with approval from the national copyright authority and represent a broad base of rights-holders. These organisations enter into licensing agreements with users (such as broadcasters, online platforms, and businesses) on behalf of their members and collect and distribute royalties accordingly. They also have the standing to initiate litigation in their own name to enforce the rights they manage.

Tariff Setting and Regulation

The collective management organisations shall consider the following factors when setting the tariffs: (i) the time, manner, and geographical scope of the use of works, sound recordings, video recordings, etc; (ii) the types of rights involved; and (iii) the complexity of the work in concluding licence agreements and collecting fees. Furthermore, the collective management organisations shall negotiate tariffs with representatives of user industries. If negotiation fails, the matter can be submitted to the national copyright authority for adjudication, or the parties may seek resolution through the courts.

Compulsory Licensing Schemes

China Copyright Law does NOT have provisions on compulsory licence. Meanwhile, the Copyright Law lists several specific scenarios of statutory licences, under which the user does not need prior permission but must pay remuneration.

Typical examples of statutory licence include the re-publication of articles by newspapers and periodicals (unless the author expressly prohibits it), the use of previously recorded musical works for making new sound recordings, and the use of works for compiling compulsory education textbooks.

Resolution of Disputes

Disputes over royalties or licensing terms can be resolved through several channels. The parties may engage in direct negotiation or seek mediation. If an agreement cannot be reached, the dispute may be submitted to the copyright administrative authority for adjudication, or a party may file a civil lawsuit directly in court. The courts typically evaluate the fairness of the proposed tariffs based on industry standards, the scope of use, and the nature of the work.

Governing Laws

Industrial designs are governed by Patent Law. Under Article 2.4 of the Patent Law, a design is defined as “a new design of the shape, pattern, or their combination, or the combination of colour with the shape or pattern of a product as a whole or in part, which creates an aesthetic feeling and is fit for industrial application”. Thus, the aspects of product appearance include the shape, pattern, or their combination, or the combination of colour with the shape or pattern of a product as a whole or in part.

Trade dress protection in China falls primarily under Article 7 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. This provision prohibits the unauthorised use of packaging or decoration that belongs to another party and has acquired a certain level of market recognition.

Aspects of Product Appearance That Can Be Protected

Protectable trade dress includes any element of product presentation that serves as a source identifier. This can cover product shapes, container configurations, packaging designs, colour combinations, patterns, the arrangement of words, and the overall look created by combining these elements.

Requirement for Protection

For industrial design, its registration and protection are regulated under Patent Law, which requires:

• Industrial Applicability: The design must be capable of being reproduced in industrial production.
• Novelty.
• Distinctive Character/Individual Character: The design must have obvious differences compared to any prior design or combination of prior design features.
• Non-Functionality.
• Legality: The design must not conflict with prior legitimate rights such as prior trade marks, copyrights, etc, and must not violate laws or social ethics (public order and good morals).
• Clarity: The design has been clearly shown with the drawings filed.

For trade dress to be protected, it must have become influential among relevant consumers through actual use in the Chinese market. This means the packaging or decoration has been used continuously and extensively, so that the public associates it with a specific product/service provider. No registration is required, but the right-holder must provide evidence of use, advertising expenditure, market share, awards, or any other proof of reputation.

Unregistered Rights

For industrial design, China follows a strict registration system. There is no unregistered design patent right. Protection depends upon the grant of the design patent.

For trade dress, rights may arise automatically from commercial use, not from registration. As long as the packaging or decoration has gained a certain level of influence through actual use, an enforceable right exists under the Anti‑Unfair Competition Law.

Industrial Designs

Procedures for registering industrial design include filing, formality examination, grant, registration, publication and paying annuities for maintenance.

Costs for registering industrial designs include an official fee of CNY1,305 and an attorney fee of several thousand CNY, which varies firm-by-firm.

The duration of protection is 15 years, with annuities required to be paid for maintenance, but with no renewals.

What Constitutes Infringement

For industrial design, acts constituting infringement include “manufacturing, offering for sale, selling, or importing products incorporating the patented design without authorisation”.

“Using” is not an infringing act of industrial design patent rights in China.

Design infringement requires (i) the same or similar category of products and (ii) the same or similar design. The assessment of infringement follows the “overall observation, comprehensive judgement” rule.

For trade dress, infringement occurs when a person, without permission, uses packaging or decoration that is identical or similar to another’s influential trade dress on the same or similar goods, causing consumer confusion as to source. The test focuses on the overall visual impression – even without exact copying, if the look is sufficiently similar to mislead buyers, infringement exists.

Civil Remedies

Right-holders may bring civil lawsuits seeking civil remedies, including injunctions (an order to stop the infringing use), monetary damages and elimination of negative effects. Damages are calculated based on the right-holder’s actual losses or the infringer’s illegal gains. If those amounts are difficult to determine, statutory damages apply. Statutory damage is from CNY30,000 up to CNY5 million for industrial design, and up to CNY5 million for trade dress.

Punitive damages are available in the case of industrial designs, but not trade dress.

Interim Relief (Preliminary Injunctions)

For both industrial designs and trade dress, interim relief in civil proceedings is governed by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law. The threshold for obtaining interim relief is high. In the case of a preliminary injunction, for example, the rights-holder must demonstrate at least (i) an urgent necessity, meaning that irreparable harm is likely to occur without immediate relief, and (ii) a likelihood of success on the merits of the case. The applicant is also usually required to provide security or a bond.

Border Measures

As for the border measures, the right-holder may register design patents with the General Administration of Customs (GACC) for a ten-year term, which is renewable. However, it should be noted that patent recordals are less common than trade marks because of the complexity involved in comparing designs. Once a patent has been recorded, detention mechanisms may be available, including both application-based detention and ex officio detention.

Border measures are not available for trade dress in China.

Design features that are dictated predominantly by their technical function are regarded as having no impact on the overall visual effect of a design. In practice, the term “predominantly” gives rise to more debate than “solely” when determining whether a feature is function-driven, since most features, even those alleged to be functionally dictated, are in fact hybrids of functional and aesthetic considerations. Nevertheless, where it can be shown that multiple alternative designs are capable of achieving the same technical function, the feature in question will generally not be regarded as functionally dictated.

China amended its Patent Law in 2020 to permit partial designs. Excluded from protection are (i) pure patterns that are not attached to a product, (ii) purely functional components, and (iii) indeterminate portions of a design.

A design may be refused registration or subsequently invalidated on the grounds of technical necessity.

Trade secret protection in China is governed primarily by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, together with the Civil Code, the Labour Contract Law, the Company Law, the Civil Procedure Law, the Criminal Law, and the Supreme People’s Court’s judicial interpretation on civil trade secret cases.

Under Chinese law, a “trade secret” generally means commercial information, technical information, or other business information that is not known to the public, has commercial value, and for which the rights-holder has taken corresponding confidentiality measures. Protectable information may therefore include technical know-how, formulas, processes, designs, source code, algorithms, data, customer information, supplier information, pricing, marketing plans, and other operational information, provided the statutory elements are met.

To obtain protection, the claimant must in substance establish three core elements: secrecy, commercial value, and reasonable confidentiality measures. In litigation, Chinese courts also expect the claimant to identify the alleged trade secret with sufficient specificity, so that the court can distinguish the protected information from public-domain knowledge and from the claimant’s general business materials.

The owner must take confidentiality measures that are reasonable under the circumstances. Chinese practice does not require absolute secrecy, but it does require measures showing a genuine intention to keep the information confidential and restricting access in a meaningful way. Typical measures include confidentiality agreements, confidentiality clauses in employment and commercial contracts, internal policies and training, confidentiality markings, access controls, password protection, document classification, visitor controls, limits on copying and downloading, and exit procedures for departing employees.

Disclosure to employees does not automatically destroy trade secret status, provided access is limited on a need-to-know basis and the employer imposes confidentiality obligations through contract, policy, or other management measures. Likewise, disclosure to licensees, suppliers, joint venture partners, or other third parties does not necessarily defeat protection if the disclosure is controlled and subject to confidentiality restrictions. By contrast, public disclosure, or disclosure without meaningful confidentiality controls, may destroy secrecy and therefore protection.

Accidental disclosure is not automatically fatal in every case, but the rights-holder should act quickly to contain the disclosure, demand confidentiality undertakings where possible, and prevent further dissemination. The practical question is whether, after the disclosure event, the information still remains “not known to the public”.

Under Article 10 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, misappropriation includes acquiring a trade secret by theft, bribery, fraud, coercion, electronic intrusion, or other improper means; disclosing, using, or allowing others to use a trade secret obtained by such means; and disclosing, using, or allowing others to use a trade secret in breach of a confidentiality obligation or the rights-holder’s confidentiality requirements. The law also expressly covers inducing, encouraging, or helping another person to breach a confidentiality obligation or the rights-holder’s confidentiality requirements.

Employee disputes are a common form of trade secret litigation in China. A departing employee who takes confidential files, customer data, technical documents, source code, or manufacturing know-how to a new employer may face both contract-based claims and trade secret claims. The new employer may also be liable if it knew, or should have known, that the information came from improper acquisition or breach of confidence.

The same legal framework generally applies to disputes involving competitors, distributors, suppliers, and joint venture or co-operation partners. The key issues are whether the information qualifies as a trade secret, whether reasonable confidentiality measures existed, how the defendant obtained the information, and whether the defendant’s use or disclosure was unauthorised. China also recognises defences such as independent development and reverse engineering, although reverse engineering will not help a defendant who first obtained access through improper means or breach of confidentiality.

Trade secret protection in China has no fixed statutory term. It lasts as long as the information continues to satisfy the legal requirements for trade secret status, especially secrecy and commercial value, and as long as the owner continues to maintain reasonable confidentiality measures.

Protection is lost when the information ceases to be secret, for example because it becomes publicly known through publication, unrestricted disclosure, market disclosure, or other public dissemination. Authorised disclosure under an NDA or other controlled confidentiality arrangement does not by itself terminate protection. The decisive issue is whether the information remains outside the public domain and under effective confidentiality control.

Civil remedies are available. A trade secret owner may seek an injunction to stop disclosure, use, or further misappropriation, and may also seek damages. Damages may be calculated based on the rights-holder’s actual loss, the infringer’s gain, or, where those are difficult to prove, statutory damages within the range provided by law. For malicious infringement in serious circumstances, punitive damages may also be available under Chinese law. Reasonable enforcement expenses, such as investigation, notarisation, appraisal, and attorney fees where supportable, may also be claimed.

Criminal sanctions are also available for serious trade secret theft. The Criminal Law provides criminal liability where trade secrets are obtained through improper means or disclosed or used in violation of confidentiality obligations, if the circumstances meet the criminal threshold. In practice, serious cases involving substantial losses or grave consequences may trigger criminal investigation and prosecution.

Chinese procedure also contains mechanisms to preserve confidentiality during litigation. Courts may order evidence preservation and conduct confidentiality-sensitive handling of evidence. Under the Supreme People’s Court’s trade secret judicial interpretation, where evidence involves trade secrets or other confidential business information, the court must require relevant litigation participants to sign confidentiality undertakings before they access the evidence. If a participant breaches that undertaking, the court may impose sanctions according to law. In addition, trade secret cases are commonly handled in a manner that limits public disclosure of sensitive information, including non-public hearings where appropriate.

Chinese law does not generally define “know-how” as a fully autonomous legal category in the same way some jurisdictions do. In practice, the closest concepts are “technological know-how” in contract law and “technical secrets” within trade secrets. The Civil Code expressly contemplates technology transfer and technology licensing involving “technological know-how”, while the Anti-Unfair Competition Law protects non-public technical and business information that has commercial value and is subject to reasonable confidentiality measures. As a result, know-how in China is usually analysed either as contractual technology or, if secrecy requirements are met, as a trade secret or technical secret.

Know-how is therefore not usually treated as a standalone absolute property right in the same sense as a patent. It is more accurate to say that it has transferable and licensable economic value, and is protected through a combination of contract law, anti-unfair competition law, civil law principles, and, in serious cases, criminal law. Chinese law also recognises “assignment of technical secrets” in the technology import and export context, which reinforces that know-how can be the object of commercial transactions even though its core protection mechanism remains contract plus anti-unfair competition law rather than a separate registration-based IP right.

The main statutory bases relevant to know-how protection are therefore the Civil Code provisions on technology transfer and technology licensing, the Anti-Unfair Competition Law provisions on trade secrets, the Labour Contract Law provisions on confidentiality and post-employment restrictions for relevant employees, and the Criminal Law where the conduct amounts to serious trade secret theft or misuse.

In practice, protectable know-how in China commonly includes technical processes, manufacturing methods, formulas, process parameters, production techniques, testing methods, source code, algorithms, technical data, product specifications, and similar technical materials. If the information also meets the statutory test for a trade secret, it may receive the stronger benefit of trade secret protection under unfair competition law. Customer-related and business-operational information can also be protected, but those items are usually discussed as trade secrets or confidential business information rather than “know-how” in the narrow technical sense.

Chinese law does not require know-how to be “novel” in the patent-law sense. The more important questions are whether the information is identifiable, whether it has practical or commercial value, and whether it is kept confidential. If the claimant is relying on Anti-unfair Competition Law, secrecy is essential: the information must not be known to the public, it must have commercial value, and the rights-holder must have taken corresponding confidentiality measures. Mere usefulness without secrecy will not qualify as a trade secret, although it may still have contractual value between parties.

So the best way to distinguish the layers is this: know-how as such can be commercially exploitable technical knowledge; trade secret know-how is know-how that is non-public, valuable, and protected by reasonable confidentiality measures; and ordinary confidential information may fall short of full trade secret status but can still be protected by contract.

Chinese law does not provide a single universal ownership rule for all employee-created know-how equivalent to the patent “service invention” rule. In practice, ownership of non-patented know-how created by employees is usually determined by contract, internal rules, the nature of the employment duties, and whether the information was generated using the employer’s resources and within the scope of the employee’s work. Chinese law clearly imposes confidentiality obligations on employees, and courts are prepared to treat employee misuse of trade secrets or technical secrets as infringement.

Where the creation concerns patentable output, the Patent Law’s service invention rules are clearer: inventions made in the course of performing duties or mainly using the employer’s material and technical conditions belong to the employer for patent application purposes. That patent rule does not automatically answer every know-how ownership dispute, but it strongly influences how Chinese practice views employee-generated technical achievements connected with employment.

For contractors, consultants, and joint development partners, ownership should be allocated expressly by contract. The Civil Code distinguishes commissioned development and co-operative development contracts, and written agreements are central in determining who owns resulting technology and who may use or commercialise it. Without clear drafting, disputes can become fact-intensive and difficult, particularly where one side later patents technology allegedly derived from another party’s technical secret. Chinese courts have recognised claims in which the holder of a technical secret challenges another party’s patent application or patent ownership on the ground that the patent used that technical secret without permission.

Employees do have at least implied duties to preserve confidential technical information, and those duties become much stronger when reinforced by labour contracts, confidentiality agreements, handbooks, access-control policies, and exit procedures. The Labour Contract Law expressly permits confidentiality obligations and, for appropriate personnel, competition restrictions coupled with compensation. It also provides liability where an employee breaches confidentiality obligations and causes losses to the employer.

The most common contractual tools are standalone NDAs, confidentiality clauses in employment contracts, confidentiality clauses in service, supply, development, manufacturing, and joint venture agreements, non-use and non-disclosure provisions, access restrictions, return-or-destruction obligations on termination, audit rights, and liquidated damages or damages clauses where enforceable. In China, these contractual protections are particularly important because they help establish both the parties’ obligations and the “reasonable confidentiality measures” needed for trade secret protection.

For employees, confidentiality clauses are often paired with post-employment non-compete clauses for senior managers, senior technical personnel, and others with confidentiality obligations, subject to the Labour Contract Law’s requirements, including compensation during the restricted period and a maximum term of two years. These mechanisms are not substitutes for good internal controls, but they materially strengthen the employer’s position in later litigation.

In commercial technology arrangements, parties also commonly define the know-how, restrict the permitted field of use, allocate improvement rights, regulate sublicensing, impose confidentiality obligations on affiliates and subcontractors, and specify what happens upon expiry or termination. Those terms matter because Chinese law treats technology transfer and technology licensing largely as contract-driven structures.

Know-how can be licensed or assigned separately from patents in China. The Civil Code expressly recognises technology transfer contracts and technology licensing contracts involving technological know-how, and the Regulations on Technology Import and Export Administration expressly refer to “assignment of technical secrets” as one form of technology import or export. This means that, as a matter of Chinese law, know-how is independently transactable even without an accompanying patent.

As to formalities, the key point is that the arrangement should be clearly documented in writing. The Civil Code expressly requires technology development contracts to be in writing, and in practice written drafting is essential for know-how licences and assignments as well, especially to define the technical package, confidentiality obligations, field of use, improvements, infringement allocation, and payment structure. Chinese law does not appear, under the authorities reviewed here, to impose a general notarisation requirement for ordinary domestic know-how assignments or licences. However, cross-border technology import or export can trigger separate regulatory requirements under the technology import/export regulations, especially where restricted technologies are involved.

The Civil Code also contemplates royalties tied to the exploitation of technological know-how, and imposes obligations on both sides in know-how transfer and know-how licensing arrangements, including the licensee’s or transferee’s obligation to exploit the technology, pay fees, and perform confidentiality obligations, and the transferor’s or licensor’s obligation to warrant lawful ownership and provide the agreed materials and guidance.

As a general rule, reverse engineering is lawful in China and is recognised as a defence in trade secret disputes, especially where the product has been lawfully obtained from the market and the information is discovered through independent technical analysis rather than through improper acquisition or breach of confidence. That point is important because Chinese law protects secrecy, not monopoly over information that can be legitimately uncovered from publicly available products.

That said, reverse engineering will not rescue a party that first obtained access through theft, bribery, electronic intrusion, breach of confidentiality, or other improper means. Chinese law focuses heavily on how the defendant acquired the information. If access was tainted at the outset, a later reverse-engineering argument is much weaker.

Contractual restrictions on reverse engineering are commonly used in technology, software, manufacturing, and supply agreements. Chinese law is generally receptive to confidentiality and technology-use restrictions, but enforceability will still depend on the clause’s wording, the contractual context, and whether the restriction conflicts with mandatory law or public policy. A useful caution from SPC guidance is that a unilateral label on a product, by itself, is not enough to impose confidentiality obligations on unrelated third parties who are not already bound by agreement. In other words, reverse-engineering restrictions are strongest when grounded in a real contract, not merely in a notice attached to a product.

China does not currently recognise an EU-style sui generis database right. Datasets and databases are mainly protected through copyright, contract, unfair competition law, and personal information protection rules. The Supreme People’s Court’s 2025 guiding cases on data rights also reflect this composite protection approach rather than the recognition of an independent database-exclusive right.

If a database shows originality in its selection or arrangement, it may be protected as a compilation work under copyright law. That protection, however, generally does not extend to the underlying factual data itself.

As for scraping, crawling, and data extraction, Chinese law does not treat them as automatically unlawful in all cases. If a party, without authorisation, extracts platform data and creates a substantial substitute for the original platform’s service, harms the platform’s commercial interests, or disrupts competition order, the conduct may constitute unfair competition. By contrast, where a party, with user authorisation, assists users within a reasonable scope in transferring data they are legally entitled to process, the conduct is not necessarily unfair competition. If personal information is involved, compliance with the Personal Information Protection Law and the Data Security Law is also required.

China currently takes a cautious, case-by-case approach to the copyrightability of AI-generated content. If the final output reflects sufficient human intellectual input and personalised expression, a court may find that it constitutes a protected work. If, however, there is insufficient human creative contribution, the prospect of copyright protection remains uncertain. The author would generally still be the natural person, or other legally recognised rights-holder, who made the substantive creative contribution, rather than the AI itself.

In the patent context, China’s current position is clearer. The Patent Examination Guidelines issued by CNIPA in 2025 and effective from 1 January 2026, expressly state that an inventor must be a natural person, and that an artificial intelligence name may not be listed as the inventor. Accordingly, AI cannot be named as an inventor in China. In practice, businesses typically designate the natural person who made the inventive contribution as the inventor, while allocating application rights and ownership through employment, commissioned development, or co-operative development agreements.

In China, the use of copyrighted works in training datasets gives rise to a real copyright infringement risk. Current regulatory rules already require providers of generative AI services to use data and base models with a lawful source in pre-training and optimisation training activities, and not to infringe the intellectual property rights of others.

China currently has no clear general statutory TDM exception. It is therefore not safe to assume that “training” is automatically exempt. If a training dataset includes trade secrets, and those secrets entered the dataset through theft, breach of contract, unauthorised access, or similar misconduct, liability may also arise under unfair competition law and, in serious cases, criminal law.

As to remedies, a rights-holder may in principle seek cessation of infringement, damages, conduct preservation orders, and evidence preservation. Regulators may also require rectification by generative AI service providers. As for disclosure of complete training datasets in litigation, China does not yet have a mature and uniform special disclosure regime; courts generally still rely on case-specific evidence preservation measures, allocation of burden of proof, and court-directed evidence collection.

China already has legal mechanisms for pursuing infringement carried out through generative AI. Public judicial practice shows that courts have already applied existing copyright rules, personality rights rules, and related doctrines to AI-related disputes, including cases involving AI-generated images and AI-synthesised voices.

Where AI is involved, courts generally still focus on traditional legal questions, such as whether the output is sufficiently similar to the protected subject matter, whether the platform had control over the generated result, whether complaint and takedown mechanisms were in place, and whether necessary measures were taken despite actual or constructive knowledge of risk. Platforms and tool providers may face secondary liability or comparable liability, but this usually depends on their degree of control, whether they fulfilled their duty of care, and the connection between their conduct and the alleged harm. Chinese courts have not adopted a blanket strict-liability approach.

Under Chinese legal practice, IP right-holders may sometimes face a choice among different avenues for IP protection. While there is no fixed ranking between these options, right-holders may, depending on the specific circumstances, flexibly select the most suitable form of protection.

Various factors influence this choice, but they generally fall into three categories: the boundary of the rights, the nature of the infringing acts, and the availability of defences.

Below are illustrative scenarios where a specific form of IP protection may be prioritised. Please note that these examples are not exhaustive, and the optimal strategy should always be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Copyright

For products with a limited life cycle – eg, fast fashion apparel – copyright may be preferred. In such cases, the product’s packaging and decoration may not yet have acquired sufficient influence to gain protection. If a design patent application were pursued, the examination period would be comparatively long over the product’s life cycle. Therefore, copyright, which arises upon creation/design and does not require registration, holds a comparative advantage.

Furthermore, copyright can sometimes serve as an effective supplementary form of protection where a sign or logo is difficult to register as a trade mark. For instance, if a product’s packaging does not qualify for registration as a three-dimensional trade mark, the right-holder may consider protecting the packaging’s appearance as a work under copyright law.

Registered Trade Mark

Registered trade mark rights offer the distinct advantage of ease of proof and the potential for indefinite renewal. Consequently, provided that a sign or logo affixed to a product meets the criteria for registration, seeking protection via trade mark rights is generally the preferred strategy.

Patent (Invention and Utility Model)

Generally, patent protection is prioritised over trade secret protection when maintaining confidentiality is impractical. For example, the product structure that can be readily ascertained through disassembly or reverse engineering once the product is publicly launched; pharmaceutical compositions that must be disclosed during regulatory review or in drug labelling; product and process are that are possible to be achieved through independent innovation by others.

Industrial Design

For products that are particularly susceptible to imitation – especially those sold at scale through online channels – right-holders often need to present formal proof of rights in order to move forward with enforcement actions, such as requesting that an e-commerce platform take down infringing listings. A design patent certificate provides considerable convenience in this regard.

Another advantage of industrial design is partial design. If a right-holder anticipates that a particular portion of a design is likely to be copied, they may file a design patent application as partial design, thereby securing targeted protection for the core elements of the design.

Trade Dress

Trade dress protection offers a distinct advantage for packaging and decoration that have acquired significant distinctiveness through long-term use, particularly where the statutory term of a design patent (ie, 15 years in China) has expired.

Under China’s intellectual property regime, it is possible for the same subject matter to be eligible for protection under multiple forms of IP rights simultaneously. For example, a single product appearance may qualify for protection as both a design patent and a copyrighted work. Chinese law contains no express provision addressing whether such cumulative protection of intellectual property rights is permitted. In judicial practice, Chinese courts have adopted varying approaches depending on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.

When Multiple IP Rights Inhere in the Same Carrier and Are Inseparable

When multiple forms of intellectual property rights subsist in a single carrier – for example, a given graphic design that serves simultaneously as a registered trade mark and as a copyrightable work – it is apparent that the various IP rights cannot be separated from the carrier (the design) itself.

In such circumstances, Chinese courts generally regard the situation as one involving concurrent claims and will require the rights-holder to elect a single form of IP right upon which to base the action. The underlying rationale is that recognising cumulative protection of multiple IP rights in this context could result in double recovery for the rights-holder and, correspondingly, double liability for the infringer, which are inconsistent with the fundamental principles of Chinese civil law.

When Multiple IP Carriers Exist and the Respective Rights Are Separable

When there are multiple carriers of intellectual property rights and the rights are separable from one another, Chinese courts generally permit rights-holders to claim separate protections under multiple forms of IP. For example, a single product may embody both trade mark rights and patent rights. Although both rights reside within the same product, they attach to distinct carriers – the trade mark is borne by a graphic design on the product’s surface, whereas the patent relates to a particular technical feature within the product itself – and are therefore capable of being separated. Should the product be counterfeited in its entirety, the IP rights-holder would be fully entitled to assert claims for both patent infringement and trade mark infringement before the court in a single action.

It should be noted, however, that while the rights-holder may in such circumstances assert claims under both forms of IP protection simultaneously, this does not mean the court will award double the damages that would be recoverable under a single IP right. Rather, the court will determine the amount of damages based on factors such as the actual losses suffered by the rights-holder or the profits gained by the infringer through the unlawful act, as well as the contributory value of each of the IP rights claimed, so as to ensure that the IP holder is made whole without thereby reaping a windfall.

Confidential know-how and technical information can be protected as a trade secret before filing the same as a patent, since filing a patent does not disclose such information. However, the publication of a patent application fundamentally destroys trade secret protection for anything disclosed within the document. Once a patent expires or is invalidated, the disclosed technology enters the public domain. It cannot “revert” to being a trade secret because the requirement of secrecy was permanently destroyed upon its initial publication.

For a comparison between trade dress and industrial design, please refer to 4 Industrial Designs and Trade Dress.

Under China’s Trademark Law, any sign that can distinguish the goods of a natural person, legal entity, or other organisation from those of others may be applied for registration as a trade mark. Such signs include words, designs, letters, numerals, three-dimensional symbols, combinations of colours, and sounds, as well as any combination of these elements. To be registered, a trade mark must be distinctive and be capable of identifying the source of the goods.

While trade marks typically constitute registered rights and trade dress often relies on unregistered protection, both serve the identical fundamental function of identifying the commercial source of goods.

Product shapes or packaging can be protected simultaneously as trade marks and industrial designs. China’s Trademark Law permits the registration of three-dimensional trade marks. Accordingly, if a rights-holder succeeds in registering a product’s appearance as a three-dimensional trade mark, that appearance will enjoy protection under the Trademark Law. In practice, however, registering a three-dimensional trade mark in China remains relatively difficult, and the number of successful registrations is not large.

Additionally, trade dress protection is also available to product shapes or packaging, which become commercial indicia that possess distinctive features capable of distinguishing the source of goods and that have attained a certain degree of influence.

Under Chinese legal practice, logos, artistic elements, and branding may enjoy protection under both copyright and trade mark law, provided they qualify as “works” under the Copyright Law and satisfy the registrability criteria under the Trademark Law.

Based on the discussion under 3.2 Requirements for Copyright Protection, for logos, artistic elements, or branding, the most critical requirement is originality. In practice, cases in which logos and artistic elements are protected through copyright are not rare. The bar for logos, artistic elements and branding to be registered as trade mark is comparatively higher. The core requirements include being distinctive, lawful and not conflicting with prior rights of others.

Limitations Between Trade Mark Rights and Copyright

Given that China’s trade mark and copyright laws function as distinct, parallel legal regimes, there are relatively few direct limitations imposed by one upon the other.

A critical intersection, however, concerns the requirement that a trade mark must not conflict with prior existing rights, including prior copyrights. If a copyright owner can demonstrate that: (i) the design qualifies as a protectable “work” under copyright law; (ii) the subsequent trade mark applicant had access to said work; and (iii) the subsequent trade mark is substantially similar to the prior work, the copyright owner may seek to have the later trade mark declared invalid.

China permits claims based on different intellectual property rights to be asserted in a single proceeding. A set of rules issued by the Supreme People’s Court already allows a single lawsuit to involve two or more legal relationships. In judicial practice, however, individual courts may respond differently depending on the particular circumstances of each case.

Proceedings

For example, where a defendant’s counterfeiting of a particular product infringes trade mark rights while simultaneously constituting unfair competition through the use of similar packaging or decoration – Chinese courts will generally consolidate such claims and hear them together in a single proceeding.

Where claims arise from distinct acts of intellectual property infringement, courts generally prefer to docket such cases separately. It is worth noting, however, when the claims are of the same type – for instance, where an infringer has posted different works owned by the same rights-holder online without authorisation, giving rise to multiple claims under copyright law – courts typically assign each claim a separate case number while nevertheless hearing them together at a single trial. This results in a form of de facto consolidation.

Remedies

Under Chinese law, remedies for IP infringement are categorised into civil, administrative, and criminal measures. This discussion focuses exclusively on civil remedies.

The primary civil remedies for IP infringement include injunctive relief (ordering the cessation of the infringing act), the elimination of adverse effects, and monetary damages. In cases where a single product infringes upon multiple overlapping IP rights, Chinese courts will issue an injunction covering all such rights.

However, when calculating monetary damages, courts strictly prohibit double recovery. Grounded in the foundational compensatory principle of Chinese civil law (often referred to as the “make-whole” principle), baseline damages are designed solely to compensate the aggrieved party for their actual losses or to disgorge the infringer’s unlawful profits.

To enforce this limitation and avoid overcompensation – particularly in complex, multi-component products – courts increasingly apply the concept of an “IP contribution rate”. This metric isolates the specific economic value that the infringed IP adds to the product’s overall profit. Because a product’s total profit is generated by a combination of multiple IP rights, unpatented technologies, manufacturing capabilities, and marketing efforts, the theoretical sum of the contribution rates for all IP embodied in a single product will always be less than 100%.

Among critical considerations in modern cross-border IP litigation, one recent development in China is the Regulations on the Settlement of Foreign-Related Intellectual Property Disputes, promulgated by China’s State Council in 2025. 

This Regulation represents China’s strategic response to the increasing complexity of global IP conflicts amid the country’s expanding international business presence. The framework provides Chinese enterprises and authorities with stronger tools to navigate cross-border IP challenges while asserting China’s position in international IP governance.

The Regulations are structured around two primary pillars: the provision of co-ordinated services and support for cross-border disputes, and the establishment of rules, countermeasures, and legal frameworks governing such disputes.

One example concerns the disclosure of evidence for overseas IP litigation and investigations. According to the Regulation, when companies need to provide evidence or related materials to foreign countries in overseas IP litigation or investigations, they must conduct compliance checks covering various laws relating to state secrets, data security, personal information protection, technology export management, and judicial assistance.