China’s 2026 Trademark Law Revision: What to Expect for Motion Mark Examination

China’s Trademark Law was revised in June 2026 (effective 1 January 2027), formally recognising motion marks (referred to in the Chinese text as “dynamic trademarks”) as a standalone registrable category and codifying a functionality examination for all non-traditional marks. The amendment responds to the digital economy, where brands increasingly rely on animated logos, app-opening sequences, and other moving identifiers. Yet the revision also signals that China will apply a rigorous, structured approach to these new marks—one shaped as much by the scale of China’s trademark system as by the inherent legal challenges that non-traditional marks present everywhere.

Non-Traditional Marks Face a High Bar Everywhere

Non-traditional trademark registration has long been an uphill battle in China. Sound marks illustrate this most clearly. Since their introduction under the 2013 Trademark Law (implemented in 2014), the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has received approximately 998 sound mark applications up to the end of August. Only 34 have proceeded to registration—a 3.4% approval rate that reflects the formidable threshold for the non-traditional mark protection.

This strictness, however, is not unique to China. Non-traditional marks remain comparatively rare across all major jurisdictions. In the United States, the European Union, Japan, and South Korea—jurisdictions that have accepted motion marks for years—cumulative filings for motion marks remain in the low hundreds. As a proportion of total trademark applications, non-traditional marks represent a marginal fraction everywhere. The difference lies in absolute scale: China receives millions of trademark applications annually, whereas the combined annual volume in the aforementioned jurisdictions is orders of magnitude smaller. When a system processes over seven million filings per year, even a small percentage of non-traditional applications translates into a volume that demands strict, standardized examination criteria to maintain orderly operations and consistent legal outcomes.

How China Will Likely Examine Motion Marks: A Forward-Looking View

Although the 2026 revision establishes motion marks as a statutory category, the implementing rules and examination guidelines are still forthcoming. Based on the legislative text, existing practice for other non-traditional marks, and the CNIPA’s established examination philosophy, we can anticipate a dual-layer test for motion marks: distinctiveness and non-functionality.

The Distinctiveness Layer: A Holistic Approach Borrowed from 3D Mark Practice

Under current CNIPA practice, non-traditional marks—including three-dimensional shapes, color combinations and sounds—are statutorily presumed to lack inherent distinctiveness. Applicants must submit comprehensive, continuous evidence of use in commerce to demonstrate acquired distinctiveness (secondary meaning) among relevant consumers.

For motion marks, this presumption will almost certainly apply with equal, if not greater, force. But the more instructive parallel is China’s examination logic for three-dimensional marks. In 3D mark practice, the CNIPA applies a strict holistic evaluation principle: the presence of distinctive planar elements (such as a word or graphic) on a three-dimensional product shape does not automatically confer distinctiveness on the mark as a whole. The examiner assesses whether the three-dimensional configuration itself, independent of any added word or device, functions as a source identifier.

We expect motion marks to be examined under an analogous framework. Static distinctive elements embedded within an animated sequence—such as a recognizable logo appearing at the end of a motion clip—will not, standing alone, support registration. Examiners will evaluate whether the overall dynamic presentation forms stable, unique, and distinguishable commercial features independent of its static components. Only when the motion as a whole possesses source-identifying capacity will the mark be deemed to have valid distinctiveness. Mere movement that draws attention to an otherwise conventional logo will likely be treated as insufficient.

The Functionality Layer: A Codified Second Hurdle

The 2026 revision introduces a functionality examination as a mandatory second dimension. Even if a motion sequence is found distinctive, examiners must assess whether its dynamic features serve functional, technical, or utilitarian purposes—for example, movement dictated by the nature of the product, movement necessary to achieve a technical result, or movement that gives substantial value to the goods. This mirrors the functionality doctrine well established in U.S. and EU law, but its codification in China means it will operate as a formal statutory bar rather than a discretionary ground.

Why the Strict Standard? Scale and Public-Resource Concerns

China’s rigorous approach is not an arbitrary regulatory constraint but a structural necessity. In our view, three factors underpin it.

First, operational scale. As noted, China’s trademark system operates at a volume unmatched elsewhere. A permissive standard for motion marks would generate a flood of filings that the examination infrastructure could not reasonably process without sacrificing consistency.

Second, public-resource protection. Chinese trademark theory treats dynamic sequences, colors, sounds, and common three-dimensional configurations as part of the public commercial domain. Unlike jurisdictions where refusal rests primarily on distinctiveness or functionality grounds, Chinese practice incorporates an additional policy concern: that exclusive rights should not monopolize basic tools of trade communication or aesthetic expression that competitors may reasonably need.

Third, enforcement clarity. Non-traditional marks have inherently ambiguous boundaries in infringement identification. Strict pre-registration review reduces subsequent legal uncertainty.

Alignment with the “Use-Oriented” Legislative Purpose

The anticipated examination criteria align with the revision’s central purpose: returning trademark protection to its essential attribute of commercial use. The revised law treats genuine use in commerce as the foundation for acquiring, maintaining, and enforcing rights, aiming to curb speculative behaviors such as bad-faith squatting and non-use registration.

The requirement that applicants prove acquired distinctiveness through real market use, combined with the new functionality examination, ensures that only marks with actual consumer recognition, stable source-identifying functions, and no public-resource monopoly risks obtain exclusive protection. This design unifies the examination standards for traditional and non-traditional marks alike, implementing the principle that trademark rights derive from commercial use rather than registration alone.

Conclusion

The formal recognition of motion marks is a welcomed development that opens a new avenue for brand protection in China. Brand owners with genuine, distinctive motion assets should not hesitate to file.