Deceptive Trademarks in China

Home | China Law Blog | Deceptive Trademarks in China Deceptive trademarks may not be registered in China, according to Article 10(7) of the Trademark Law. While the reasoning behind this prohibition makes sense, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) sometimes interprets the statute in questionable ways. To avoid issues, brands registering their trademarks in China should avoid using any marks that may be considered deceptive, in whole or in part, under CNIPA's low threshold. Article 10(7) stipulates that trademarks that "are deceptive and are likely to mislead the public in terms of the quality, place of production or other characteristics of the goods" may not be registered. U.S. trademark law has a similar provision, barring the registration of trademarks that consist of "deceptive" matter (15 U.S.C. § 1052(a)). One hypothetical example of a deceptive trademark is "Rum 151", if used in connection with rum that is not, in fact, 151 proof. Alcohol content is one of rum's characteristics; use of "151" on 80 proof rum is likely to mislead the public. Under circumstances such as these, CNIPA's refusal to register arguably serves a valuable function: No one should be duped into preparing a weaker Cuba Libre. At times, however, CNIPA's interpretation of Article 10(7) can be unduly broad. Recently, CNIPA rejected an English-language mark that is something like "Top World Products". (This is a case we're handling, so we cannot tell you what the actual mark is, sorry!) CNIPA's rejection notice did not specify exactly why the mark was deceptive, or even which part of the mark was considered deceptive, but it appears that the beef was with the word "top". Apparently, the public might be "misled" as to the quality of the goods associated with the trademark if they are described as "top". CNIPA seems to take a dim view of Chinese consumers. Do they really think that they will assume that Top World Products are in fact the "highest in position, rank, or degree" in the market, just because the brand name includes the word "top"? Not to mention that those members of the Chinese public who understand the English words on the trademark might also pick up on the fact that "top" modifies "world", not "products". The fact that a trademark is in a foreign language may help prod CNIPA into finding that the same is deceptive, given concerns that Chinese consumers might not understand certain linguistic nuances. But CNIPA appears to have issues with the Chinese term "最好" ("best") as well, with applications that include that word generally denied. It's hard to believe that CNIPA is really concerned over actual deception in these cases. A more plausible explanation is that CNIPA does not want the trademark registration process to enshrine a particular brand's superlative claims. After all, if one brand got to register "Spiciest Chili Sauce", no other brand would get to make the same claim, at least in the form of a trademark (for what it's worth, CNIPA has not registered any marks with the term "最辣" in connection with actual foodstuffs). In any case, CNIPA's approach is unnecessarily crimping the creativity of brands and making it harder to avoid trademark similarity, without any actual benefit to the public. Ultimately, though, that is irrelevant to trademark applicants in China. Knowing how strict CNIPA is, what trademark applicants need to do is ensure that their marks cannot be considered deceptive in any way, based on CNIPA's peculiar understanding of that term. Check Out Our China Law Services Share Twitter Facebook LinkedIn E-mail Comment Fred Rocafort Fred leads Harris Sliwoski’s intellectual property practice and is the coordinator of the firm’s international team. Much of Fred’s practice consists of helping cannabis businesses protect their brands. He also works with entrepreneurs and companies entering the Web3 space, a new frontier for IP law. Prior to joining Harris Sliwoski, Fred worked overseas for more than a decade, in both government and private sector roles. Fred is a regular contributor to the award-winning China Law Blog and Canna Law Blog. Fred began his career overseas as a U.S. consular officer in Guangzhou, China, where he advocated for fairer treatment of American companies and citizens in China and for stronger intellectual property rights enforcement. After entering the private sector, Fred worked at a Shanghai law firm as a foreign legal advisor and later joined one of the oldest American law firms in China, helping foreign companies navigate the Chinese legal environment. He also led the legal team at a Hong Kong-based brand protection consultancy, spending most of his time out in the field, protecting clients against counterfeiters and fraudsters in Greater China, Southeast Asia and Latin America. In addition to his IP work, as a native Spanish speaker, Fred works closely with different Harris Sliwoski teams on Latin America and Spain matters. Fred also provides advice to cannabis industry participants and other businesses on import and export transactions. Fred is an ardent supporter of FC Barcelona—and would be even in the absence of Catalan forebears who immigrated to Puerto Rico in the mid-1800s. Harris Sliwoski Attorney Read more posts [email protected] Read More Intellectual Property (IP) Related Posts September 15, 2026 Your AI-Drafted China Contract Says It Needs a Lawyer. Listen to It. September 11, 2026 Forensic Accountants in China Business Litigation: How True Numbers Can Tell the Wrong Story September 4, 2026 China NNN Agreement or Trademark Registration? You Usually Need Both September 1, 2026 AI Didn't Replace Lawyers. It Gave Us the 48-Page Contract. August 27, 2026 Do I Need a China NNN Agreement or a China Manufacturing Agreement? Usually Both. August 26, 2026 China’s New Overseas Investment Rules: Can Your Chinese Investor Actually Get the Money Out? August 24, 2026 International IP Protection for Startups: What to Protect and Where August 19, 2026 The Documents Are the International Deal August 19, 2026 China Supplier Fraud in Yiwu: Why We Recommended the Police, Not a Lawsuit August 17, 2026 China Trademark Registration: Why U.S. Companies Need More Than a Filing Agent August 10, 2026 Buying Expensive Equipment from China: Seven Questions to Answer Before You Pay August 7, 2026 DDP Shipping Risks: What Boise Cascade’s Guilty Plea Means for U.S. Buyers August 6, 2026 Protecting Your Artwork Internationally: What Artists Need to Do Before the Work Travels August 5, 2026 Your China Employee Signed the Vacation Policy. You Can Still Lose. July 29, 2026 The RedNote Contract Lesson for Companies Doing Business in China Leave a comment Cancel reply