What to Do If Your Madrid Designation for China Is Refused by CNIPA?

Many overseas companies, after designating China through the Madrid System and receiving a refusal notice from CNIPA (China National Intellectual Property Administration), react with confusion or anxiety:

• “My trademark has been successfully registered in a dozen countries, so why is China the only problem?”
• “Isn’t Madrid a one‑stop service? Why does my mark have to be re‑examined when it enters China?”

These questions touch on a core misunderstanding: Madrid is only a “channel”, not “protection”.

The reality is: the finish line you thought you had reached is actually the starting line. Madrid “delivers” your trademark application to China, but whether China accepts it depends on whether it complies with Chinese rules. If international trademark registration is like a video game, Madrid only brings you to the gate of the China level – CNIPA’s examination is the real first challenge.

Good news: receiving a refusal notice does NOT mean Game Over. It is simply an official review of your brand by the Chinese market. As long as you correctly interpret the refusal reasons and take the right follow‑up actions, Your trademark still has a chance of successful registration in China.

Part I: Why are Madrid designations for China more likely to be refused?

A common misconception among many overseas companies: “Entering China via Madrid = automatic protection.”

The opposite is true.

Looking at macro data, trademark refusal is the norm, not the exception. According to 2024 trademark filing statistics, the average refusal rate for national trademark applications was 31%, while the average success rate for refusal review was about 29%; the average success rate for invalidation applications was 59%, and for invalidation defense about 34%. Historically, the refusal rate in China rose from roughly 30‑40% in 2016 to unprecedented highs in recent years.

In 2024, total trademark applications reached over 6.96 million, and there were more than 120,000 opposition filings. CNIPA data show that refusal review cases account for 78% of all trademark review cases, and this share is still growing. [Source: CNIPA annual statistics; China Trademark Association publications, 2024]

The characteristics of the Madrid system entering China further amplify this trend:

• Unlike direct CNIPA filings, Madrid applications cannot be pre‑searched against the Chinese trademark database before submission.
• Madrid applications use the International Classification of Goods and Services, which may misalign with China’s own classification practice.
• Madrid applicants typically designate China through WIPO, and information delays can occur during the intermediate steps.

Moreover, statistics show that about 30% of all Madrid international applications face refusal in at least one designated country. In China, this proportion may be even higher due to strict examination on absolute grounds.

Part II: The most common reasons for CNIPA refusal (top 5 categories)

1. Likelihood of confusion with an earlier mark

China follows the first‑to‑file principle. Even if you have used your mark abroad for ten years, if someone else filed earlier in China, you come second. This accounts for over 90% of refusals, and relative‑ground refusals represent 68% to 72% of all refusal cases. [Source: CNIPA review statistics, 2019–2024]

2. Lack of distinctiveness / descriptiveness

English words like “BEST QUALITY” for goods or “BEAUTY” for cosmetics are directly deemed as merely describing product attributes and are refused. This is especially common for Madrid applications because of differences between the international classification and Chinese examination practice.

3. Violation of absolute grounds – the power of Articles 10 and 11 of the Chinese Trademark Law

This is the most dangerous minefield. According to data from the China Trademark Association, refusal review cases involving Article 10 (absolute prohibition) have grown rapidly over the past five years, reaching 38,611 cases in 2024, accounting for 14.8% of all refusal reviews. Among those, Article 10(1)(7) (deceptiveness) is the absolute hardest hit – involving 125,637 cases, or 57% of absolute‑ground reviews. The CNIPA support rate for refusal reviews under the deceptiveness clause over the five years was 13.1%, 11.3%, 7%, 8%, and 10.8% respectively – consistently below 10% and showing a declining trend. [Source: China Trademark Association, China Trademark journal, 2024 annual report]

Even more hidden trap: Absolute‑ground examination includes both Article 10 (deceptiveness, adverse moral influence, misleading geographical indication) and Article 11 (lack of distinctiveness). Many overseas companies overlook China’s strict requirement for “distinctiveness” and thus are refused for lack of distinctiveness.

4. Bad faith or no intent to use

CNIPA strictly cracks down on batch filings, squatting on others’ brands, etc. Examiners may scrutinize applications that designate China in large volumes through the Madrid system.

5. Missing Chinese counterpart (major hidden risk)

Many foreign companies register only an English name. But Chinese consumers will automatically “name you” – for example, by creating a Chinese name based on the pronunciation. If that unofficial Chinese name is squatted by someone else, it becomes a serious problem. Learn about more: Chinese Name Strategy for China Trademark Registration

Part III: Real case studies (typical scenarios)

Case 1: Brand “blocked” – a European clothing brand’s Madrid designation fails

A well‑known European clothing brand sought trademark protection in China via Madrid. Its English trademark itself was unobjectionable. However, the examiner cited a similar mark that had been pre‑registered by a local company.

The result was very typical: CNIPA directly refused the application.

Solutions:

• File a refusal review.
• Simultaneously file a non‑use cancellation action against the cited mark.
• But a key risk: CNIPA generally does not wait for the outcome of the non‑use action before deciding the review. Therefore, you must pursue review + non‑use cancellation in parallel – this is the core logic of the “combination punch”.

Case 2: OEM factory squatting – “manufacturing place becomes infringement place”

This is a classic Chinese IP risk scenario. A foreign brand uses a Chinese factory for OEM production. During the process, the factory obtains the brand information and, in turn, files a trademark registration in its own name in China.

This is completely legal in China (first‑to‑file system). Final result: The original brand itself becomes an infringer if it continues to sell in China, and is eventually forced to buy back the trademark from the factory at a high price.

Lesson: Before entering the Chinese market, trademark layout must come before product launch.Learn more about: Trademark Risks for OEM Manufacturing in China

Case 3: POTATO HUT – a real‑world battle against double absolute refusal

This is a high‑difficulty case we recently handled. The applied‑for trademark “POTATO HUT” was designated for use in Class 43 (restaurant and food services) and encountered a double absolute refusal:

1. Article 10(1)(7) (deceptiveness clause) – The examiner argued that “POTATO” might mislead the public as to the content of the services.
2. Article 11(1)(3) (lack of distinctiveness) – The examiner argued that the mark lacks distinctiveness as a trademark.

This is the most difficult combination. The deceptiveness clause accounts for the largest share of “fully refused” in refusal reviews, and its support rate has long been below 10%. Lack of distinctiveness has also become a key examination focus in recent years. Both paths are hard.

Breakthrough approach:

Step 1 – Refusal review: File a refusal review to preserve the 15‑day deadline.

Step 2 – Three‑pronged legal argument:

• Distinctiveness of the composite mark: Emphasise that “HUT” (small house) has no direct connection with restaurant services and is the core distinctive element of the mark. You cannot isolate “POTATO” from “HUT” and evaluate each in isolation. Cite the Supreme People’s Court “Tragedy of Lord George” case (2025), which established the overall‑judgment principle – distinctiveness must be assessed based on the mark as a whole, not by dissecting its components.
• Deceptiveness defence: Prove that the applicant’s restaurants actually serve potato‑based dishes (fries, baked potatoes, mashed potatoes, potato soup, etc.). Cite the Supreme People’s Court “Shen Yuan Chun Bing Tang Mi Ye” case (2019) Supreme Court Retrial No. 249 – if the applicant’s products actually contain the ingredients described in the mark, it is difficult to find deception. [Reference: China Judgements Online]
• Examination consistency principle: Cite other registered marks in Class 43 that contain “POTATO”, such as “POTATO TALK”, “POTATO LAND”, and argue that the applied‑for mark should be treated equally.

Practical experience: The key to double absolute refusal is not simply denying the refusal, but finding legal breakthrough points – for deceptiveness, “actual presence of the described ingredient”; for distinctiveness, “overall judgment, not dissection” plus “existing registrations in the same class”. Even if the review fails immediately, the facts and evidence fixed during the review process will lay the groundwork for subsequent administrative litigation.

Part IV: 4 real paths you can take after a refusal

✅ Option 1: Refusal review (most direct remedy)

When to use: You believe the examination was unreasonable, or you can provide evidence showing the mark is not confusingly similar, or to challenge a determination under Articles 10/11.

Critical deadline: The application must be filed with CNIPA within 15 calendar days from the date of service of the refusal notice – no extension.

What if you miss the deadline? You lose the opportunity for review permanently? Actually you can refile, but you will have to go through the entire examination process again, with significantly higher costs and time.

For absolute‑ground refusals, core strategies include:

• Prove inherent distinctiveness (Article 11) or acquired distinctiveness through use (Article 11(2) exception).
• For deceptiveness arguments under Article 10(1)(7), use the defence that “the public, based on everyday life experience, would not be misled” – cite Article 8.5 of the Beijing Higher People’s Court Guidelines for the Adjudication of Trademark Authorization and Verification Cases.
• For marks containing product ingredients (e.g., “POTATO HUT”), cite the Supreme Court’s rule in the “Shen Yuan Chun Bing Tang Mi Ye” case.

Average processing time: CNIPA has compressed the average refusal review period to 6.5 months. In special circumstances, it may be extended by up to 3 months, but no longer than 9 months in total. [Source: CNIPA procedural guidelines, updated 2025]

Success rate reference: For relative‑ground refusals (likelihood of confusion), review success rate is about 40%‑70%; for absolute‑ground refusals (lack of distinctiveness/deceptiveness), about 10%‑30%. For certain industries like e‑commerce/consumer goods, due to high trademark density, review success rates are around 35%‑50%.China Trademark Refusal Review: Complete Guide to Strategies, Process, Costs & Causes

✅ Option 2: Non‑use cancellation – has the cited mark “fallen asleep”?

This is the most overlooked path for overseas brands, especially when the cited mark has been registered for more than three years but is not actually being used in China.

“Non‑use cancellation” (cancellation for non‑use for three consecutive years) is a unique Chinese mechanism to clean up deadwood. If the owner of the cited mark cannot provide valid evidence of use, the cited mark will be cancelled.

New requirements as of 2025: According to the latest CNIPA filing guidelines, the applicant must explain the circumstances of non‑use for three consecutive years and attach preliminary investigation evidence, such as internet search results, market survey reports, etc. Mere speculation is insufficient.

Key timing: A non‑use cancellation application can only be filed 3 years after the registration date of the cited mark.

Success rate data: In relative‑ground cases, if the prior obstacle is removed via non‑use cancellation, the review success rate can jump to about 85%.

✅ Option 3: Invalidation

When to use: To fight bad‑faith squatting, or squatting by a partner (e.g., an OEM factory squatting on the brand).

Success factors: The chain of evidence is critical – contracts, emails, business records during the cooperation must be complete.

Deadline: Must be filed within five years from the registration date of the target mark.

Success rate: Data shows the average success rate for invalidation applications is about 59%, and for invalidation defense about 34%.

For OEM factory squatting, Article 15(2) of the Trademark Law specifically regulates the registration by a related party of another’s prior‑used mark. “Related party” refers to contractual or business relationships other than agent/representative relationships. If you can prove that the other party knowingly filed in bad faith due to the business relationship, you can file an invalidation under this provision.

✅ Option 4: Refiling – the most underrated strategy

Many people mistakenly think: “If I was refused once, a new application will get the same result.”

But the actual strategy often is: Refiling a modified version + keeping the original application = giving the trademark a “facelift”.

• Method 1: After a word‑only mark is refused, redesign it as a “word + device” composite mark. Because the visual difference is more obvious, the likelihood of overcoming refusal can increase by about 40% compared to a word‑only mark.
• Method 2: Adjust the wording of goods/services to avoid examination issues in certain categories.
• Method 3: Narrow the list of goods to avoid conflicts.

⚠️ Careful judgment: If the refusal reason is completely insurmountable (e.g., the mark contains an absolutely prohibited element, or there is no room to avoid a prior mark), repeatedly refiling may lead to a record of multiple refusals and affect the applicant’s good‑faith record.

👉Legal Remedies & Step-by-Step Actions for Foreign Companies.

Part V: Key practical strategies (most important section)

✅ Strategy 1: The 3‑step combination punch (highest success rate)

Not a single choice, but a combination. Practical recommended combination:

• Refusal review (main attack, preserve the deadline)
• Simultaneously file non‑use cancellation (clear prior obstacles, initiate within the 3‑month supplementary window)
• Assess whether to refile a redesigned mark (if the refusal is insurmountable, redesign to enhance distinctiveness)

✅ Strategy 2: Perform a China‑specific search (not just a global one)

Pain point: Many brands succeed in the US/EU but face many conflicts in China – because China’s prior trademark database is independent and huge.

Solution:

• Before filing a Madrid designation, hire a professional agent to conduct a dedicated search of the Chinese trademark database.
• Focus on registrability under absolute grounds, not just similarity.

✅ Strategy 3: Register a Chinese counterpart at the same time

Hidden risk: Foreign companies register only an English name, then Chinese consumers “name you” – eventually someone else squats the Chinese name, or the mark is deemed similar due to the unofficial Chinese name.

Recommendations:

• When filing the English trademark, also plan a transliterated or literal‑translation Chinese trademark.
• Manage trademark authorisation for Chinese agents/distributors in advance.
• Even if the Chinese mark is not yet used, file it early to reserve the right.
• This effectively prevents the market from “defining your Chinese name” without your control.

✅ Strategy 4: Switch from “single mode” to “combined mode”

Advantages of Madrid: Low cost, easy management, full use of priority.

Fatal disadvantages of Madrid:

• After entering China, you cannot flexibly adjust the list of goods as you can with a direct filing.
• The post‑refusal procedure is relatively rigid.
• “Central attack” risk (see below).

Therefore:

• For strategic markets (e.g., China, EU, US), consider filing direct national applications with each trademark office at the appropriate time as the ultimate protection.
• Keep Madrid for its benefits, but after a refusal in China, combine it with a national application to fill the gaps – this is often the safest final registration path.

👉 Direct CNIPA Application or Madrid System? A Strategic Guide to Choosing Your China Trademark Path

Part VI: Hidden risks you must know

⚠️ Risk 1: Extremely short deadline – 15 days wait for no one

Refusal review: Must be filed within 15 calendar days from the date of service of the refusal notice. The day you receive the notice counts as day 1. Weekends and holidays are not excluded – if the 15th day falls on a Saturday or Sunday, it does not automatically extend to the next business day.

Miss it = permanent loss of the review opportunity. Chinese law provides no grace period.

⚠️ Risk 2: The notice may be sent directly to you

Underlying reason: At the end of 2025, CNIPA changed its delivery practice for Madrid notifications – it no longer automatically copies the Chinese local agent. The notice will be sent only to the agent recorded with WIPO, or if none, directly to the address registered by the applicant.

Consequences: If the agent’s contact information is wrong, or emails are not checked, or you neglect paper mail, the 15‑day review window may slip away without you noticing.

⚠️ Risk 3: “Central attack” – the hidden landmine of the 5‑year dependency period

Under the Madrid system, for five years from the date of international registration, the international registration is entirely dependent on the basic mark.

Consequences: If the basic mark is cancelled in the country of origin, the entire international registration (including the China designation) will also be cancelled – this “all‑lose” link persists for five years.

⚠️ Risk 4: Inconsistency between applicant name and actual operating entity

Many Madrid applicants designating China are individual brand founders rather than the operating company (e.g., in the POTATO HUT case, the applicant was an individual, while the actual operating entity was Potato Hut Ltd).

Hidden impact: The examiner may question the relevance of overseas use evidence (store photos, contracts) submitted by the applicant if the applicant is not the actual commercial operator.

Solutions:

• Submit a declaration from the applicant as the brand founder.
• Obtain a written confirmation from the operating entity confirming the applicant has the right to file the trademark application and that the use evidence is consistent.
• Submit documents proving the relationship between the applicant and the operating entity.

⚠️ Risk 5: CNIPA online system instability & offline original‑document requirement

What happened in a real case (April 2025):

On April 28, we attempted to submit the refusal review application through the CNIPA online system. However, the system rejected the submission, indicating that the official document number (GJZCG1878471BHYW01) was incorrect.

After carefully verifying the number and confirming its accuracy, we contacted CNIPA and were advised to try again on April 29. Unfortunately, the submission was still unsuccessful.

Given the strict deadline for filing the appeal, we proceeded with an offline (paper) submission directly to CNIPA to ensure the case was filed in time.

What makes this risk particularly dangerous:

1. No warning before the system failure. The online system may reject a valid document number without explanation, even when all data is correct. This can easily consume 1–2 precious days out of your 15‑day window.
2. Offline submission requires original documents — copies are only a temporary substitute. CNIPA accepts copies as a placeholder for offline filing, but the original signed document must follow. Without the original, the filing will not be considered complete.
3. International courier delays can push you past the deadline. If the original signed document must travel from overseas, the timeline becomes extremely tight. Any delay in dispatching the original can jeopardise the entire refusal review.

Practical recommendations based on this experience:

• Attempt online submission as early as possible — do not wait until the last 2‑3 days. If the system fails, you still have time to switch to the offline paper channel.
• Have the original signed Power of Attorney (PoA) or relevant authorisation documents ready before the 15‑day window even starts. Once the refusal notice arrives, the clock is already ticking.
• If you are an overseas applicant, coordinate with Chinese agent in advance to confirm the offline backup plan. Know the exact CNIPA mailing address, the required document checklist, and the courier timeline.
• Keep a record of the system rejection (screenshot, error log, and any communication with CNIPA support). This can serve as evidence if you ever need to explain why the filing was delayed.

Part VII: Summary

Key timelines – numbers you must remember

Conclusion

If your Madrid trademark is refused in China, remember – this is not a failure, but the official “examination pass” issued by the Chinese market.

Three musts:

• Must act within 15 days – the refusal review window is irreversible.
• Must identify the refusal reason – absolute grounds (Articles 10/11) vs. relative grounds (likelihood of confusion) determines your action path.
• Must choose a combination strategy – a single strategy is no longer strong enough in China’s 21st‑century trademark battlefield.

Madrid is just a “channel”. Real protection starts with the choice you make after receiving the refusal notice: to stop or to begin.

FAQ – Frequently Asked Questions

By: CTMAA Expert Team

CNIPA-registered trademark professionals and cross‑border IP specialists with extensive experience advising US and EU companies — including the cases mentioned above.

Reviewed: Kevin Kang Founder & Trademark Strategy Lead – 15+ years in China trademark strategy for foreign brands, personally involved in the 2022 German supplement case.

View Full Team → Kevin Kang

Note: The industry data cited in this article come from publicly available CNIPA reports, China Trademark Association publications (China Trademark, China Intellectual Property News, IPRdaily etc.), analyses by professional law firms (Guozheng Law Firm, Beijing Weiqixue Law Firm, etc.), and public government data. The information is current as of April 2026. Specific practice should follow the latest announcements of the China National Intellectual Property Administration.