China Trademark Refusal for Deceptiveness: Why Proving Your Product Is Genuine May Not Be Enough

Why can a China trademark be refused as deceptive even when the product really has the claimed quality, ingredient, characteristic, or origin?

A trademark applicant may believe that a refusal based on “deceptiveness” should be relatively easy to overcome:

However, under China’s trademark examination system, proving that the underlying fact is true may not, by itself, be enough to overcome a deceptiveness refusal. This is particularly important for foreign brand owners applying for trademarks in China.

Under the current Article 10(1)(7) of the China Trademark Law, a mark may not be used as a trademark if it is deceptive and is likely to cause the public to misunderstand the quality or other characteristics of the goods or services, or their origin.

China’s revised Trademark Law was adopted on June 26, 2026 and will take effect on January 1, 2027. Under the revised law, the relevant provision is reorganized as Article 15(8) and expressly refers to characteristics such as quality, processing, raw materials and origin.

Official sources:

Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China (2019 Amendment)
Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China (2026 Revision)

1. What Is a “Deceptive” Trademark in China?

Under the current Trademark Law, Article 10(1)(7) prohibits marks that are deceptive and likely to cause the public to misunderstand the quality or other characteristics of goods or services, or their origin.

The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has also issued the Trademark General Illegal Determination Standards, which provide practical guidance on deceptive marks.

Official source:

CNIPA — Trademark General Illegal Determination Standards

The standards explain the concept of deceptiveness by focusing on representations concerning the quality, characteristics, or origin of goods or services that may go beyond the inherent situation or conflict with the facts and are likely to cause public misunderstanding. Importantly, the assessment also considers whether ordinary consumers, based on normal daily-life experience, would actually be misled.

This means the issue is not simply whether the applicant intended to deceive consumers. The legal question is more objective:

This is why a trademark can present a difficult registration issue even when the applicant genuinely believes that the statement contained in the mark is accurate.

2. Current Law vs. China’s Revised Trademark Law Effective in 2027

China’s revised Trademark Law was adopted on June 26, 2026 and will take effect on January 1, 2027. One important change is the restructuring of the provisions concerning prohibited marks.

Under the revised law, Article 15(8) addresses marks that are deceptive and likely to cause the public to misunderstand the quality, processing, raw materials or other characteristics of goods, or their origin. The revised law also retains a separate provision concerning marks that directly describe characteristics and lack distinctiveness.

Official sources:

Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China (2026 Revision)
Main Contents of the Revision of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China

Therefore, the distinction between deceptiveness and lack of distinctiveness is particularly important.

3. Why Can a Genuine Product Still Have a Deceptiveness Problem?

This is one of the most important practical issues for foreign applicants. Imagine that a company sells a product that really has a particular characteristic. For example:

The applicant may submit:

Trademark registration is not simply a certification that the applicant’s current product is genuine. The trademark right may exist for a long time, may be renewed repeatedly, and may eventually be transferred or licensed to another party. This is why the issue is broader than whether the applicant is telling the truth today.

4. Three Important Principles Explained in the 2026 CNIPA Trademark Office Presentation

A particularly important development for practitioners came from the 2026 annual centralized presentation of the CNIPA Trademark Office. The presentation explained why simply proving that the relevant product characteristic is currently true may not necessarily solve the registration problem. The reasoning can be understood through three principles.

Official source:

2026 Annual Centralized Trademark Presentation Held in Xiong’an

The following explanation should be understood as a summary of the principles discussed in that presentation, rather than as statutory wording.

4.1 The Responsibility of the Registration Authority Must Match Its Regulatory Power

The first principle can be summarized as: responsibilities and regulatory powers should correspond.

Trademark registration examination takes place at a particular point in time. The examination authority cannot continuously guarantee that a registered trademark will always remain consistent with the actual goods sold under it throughout the life of the registration.

If a mark is registered because the applicant proves that the product currently possesses a particular characteristic, what happens several years later if:

The registration authority does not necessarily have the same continuous regulatory mechanism as a product-quality regulator. Therefore, the question at registration cannot always be reduced to: “Is the statement true today?”

The broader question is whether the trademark itself is appropriate for registration given the potential for public misunderstanding.

5. Trademark Rights Are Long-Term

The second principle concerns the long-term nature of trademark rights. A trademark registration does not exist only for one year. Trademark rights are granted for a statutory period and can be renewed for additional periods.

The trademark may continue to exist long after those circumstances change. Therefore, the examination authority cannot simply assume that the relationship between what the trademark says and what the goods actually are will remain unchanged indefinitely.

This is one reason why evidence proving the current truth of a product claim may not completely resolve a deceptiveness objection.

6. A Trademark Is Also Transferable Property

The third principle is particularly important. A trademark is not permanently tied to the original applicant. It can potentially be:

Suppose Company A obtains registration by demonstrating that its goods currently possess a particular characteristic. Several years later, the trademark is transferred to Company B. Company B may use the same trademark on goods that do not possess the original characteristic. The original applicant’s evidence or undertaking cannot necessarily control the future owner or licensee.

Therefore, the examination authority must consider the nature of the trademark right itself rather than simply relying on the current applicant’s promise. This helps explain why the registration examination may take a stricter view of marks that communicate potentially misleading factual claims.

7. Does This Mean Evidence Proving the Product Is Genuine Is Useless?

No. This distinction is extremely important. Truthfulness evidence is not necessarily useless. The problem is that it may not be sufficient if it is the applicant’s only or primary argument.

A stronger analysis asks: “What would an ordinary Chinese consumer understand when seeing this trademark used on these particular goods?” And: “Would that consumer actually form the specific mistaken understanding alleged by the examiner?”

This shifts the appeal from merely proving the factual proposition to examining consumer perception and the overall meaning of the mark.

8. A Practical Example: The “POTATO HUT” Case

9. The Importance of the Overall Meaning of the Trademark

Not every trademark containing a word that describes a product characteristic should automatically be considered deceptive. The overall impression of the mark matters. Consider the difference between:

The analysis may involve:

This is why a professional pre-filing assessment should examine the whole mark, not merely search for identical or similar prior trademarks. For help with the search process, see China Trademark Search & Assessment.

10. “NATURAL” Marks

11. “ORGANIC” Marks

12. “SWISS” and Other Geographic Expressions

13. “100%” and Absolute Product Claims

14. Article 10(1)(7) vs. Article 11: These Are Not the Same Problem

Foreign applicants frequently confuse deceptiveness with lack of distinctiveness. They should be analyzed separately.

Under the current law, Article 11(1)(2) concerns marks that only directly describe the quality, main raw materials, function, use, weight, quantity or other characteristics of goods. The revised law retains this concept in Article 17(1)(2).

Official sources:

Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China (2019 Amendment)
Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China (2026 Revision)

A mark can therefore present: (1) a deceptiveness problem; (2) a distinctiveness problem; (3) both problems; (4) or neither. These issues should not be treated as interchangeable.

15. What Evidence Is Actually Useful in a Deceptiveness Appeal?

A useful way to organize evidence is into three categories. Each category answers a different question — and they are not interchangeable.

16. Why Chinese Market Evidence Can Be Particularly Important

A deceptiveness analysis ultimately concerns potential misunderstanding by the relevant public. Evidence from the Chinese market can therefore address the central question more directly than evidence showing only that the brand is legitimate overseas.

The objective is not simply to prove “This company is legitimate.” It is to help establish “This is how the mark is actually presented and understood in the Chinese market.” That distinction can be highly relevant to a refusal review.

17. What About Trademark Registrations in the United States or Europe?

Overseas registrations can be useful. For example, an applicant may provide:

This evidence can help demonstrate:

However, an overseas registration does not automatically establish that the mark satisfies China’s trademark registration requirements. The legal and consumer-perception analysis in China remains important.

18. Should You Appeal a China Trademark Refusal for Deceptiveness?

There is no universal answer. A practical preliminary assessment can be organized into four risk levels:

The key is to avoid treating a refusal appeal as a simple document-submission exercise. A successful strategy begins with identifying why the examiner believes consumers may be misled. Then the response should directly address that reasoning.

flowchart TD
    A["Deceptiveness refusal / pre-filing risk"] --> B{"What factual message does the mark communicate?"}
    B --> C{"Would the relevant Chinese public be misled?"}
    C -- "No" --> D["Lower risk - filing or appeal may be viable"]
    C -- "Yes" --> E{"Does the mark have a stronger overall meaning?"}
    E -- "No" --> F["Higher risk"]
    E -- "Yes" --> G{"Is there evidence of Chinese consumer perception?"}
    G -- "Yes" --> H["Appeal may be worth considering"]
    G -- "No" --> I["Only overseas evidence - supporting evidence only"]

19. Why the 2027 Trademark Law Matters

The 2026 revision is important not simply because the article number changes. It restructures and strengthens the framework for deceptive marks — and expressly identifies new categories of relevant characteristics.

The revised law was adopted on June 26, 2026 and takes effect on January 1, 2027.

Official sources:

Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China (2026 Revision)
Main Contents of the Revision of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China

As of October 2026, CNIPA has also published draft implementation materials for public consultation concerning the implementation of the revised Trademark Law. These are draft consultation documents, not final rules, and should not be treated as final law.

CNIPA Notice on Public Consultation for the Draft Trademark Examination and Adjudication Guidelines
CNIPA Notice on Public Consultation for the Draft Measures for Handling Trademark Matters under the Revised Trademark Law

For foreign businesses preparing new China trademark applications, this makes pre-filing risk analysis increasingly important.

20. Five Questions to Ask Before Filing a Potentially Sensitive Trademark in China

Before filing, work through these five questions. Click each one to expand.

Conclusion

A China trademark can face a deceptiveness refusal even when the applicant genuinely sells products possessing the characteristic suggested by the trademark. The reason is that trademark registration is not simply a certification of the applicant’s current factual statement.

Therefore, the examination system must consider the broader relationship between the message conveyed by the trademark and the potential understanding of the public.

The practical lesson for foreign brand owners is simple: Do not rely only on proving that your product is genuine. For potentially sensitive trademarks, a stronger strategy is to analyze:

the wording + the goods/services + the overall meaning + Chinese consumer perception + the nature of the claimed characteristic + the available evidence.

This is particularly important for marks containing expressions relating to:

If a trademark is likely to raise an Article 10(1)(7) issue under the current law, or an Article 15(8) issue after January 1, 2027, professional risk analysis before filing may be significantly more valuable than trying to repair the problem after a refusal. For help with pre-filing risk assessment, see Foreign Brand China Entry Legal Risk Series.

Frequently Asked Questions

Official Sources and Further Reading

For readers who want to verify the legal framework discussed in this article, the following official sources are recommended.

1. Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China (2019 Amendment)

China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA)

2. CNIPA Notice on Issuing the Standards for Determining General Trademark Violations

China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA)

3. Understanding and Application of the Standards for Determining General Trademark Violations (Part II)

China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA)

4. Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China (2026 Revision)

China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA)

5. Main Contents of the Revision of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China

China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA)

6. 2026 Annual Centralized Trademark Presentation Held in Xiong’an

CNIPA Trademark Office

This is the source referred to in this article when discussing:

These principles should be described as points explained in the 2026 annual centralized presentation, rather than as independent statutory provisions.

7. CNIPA Notice on Public Consultation for the Draft Trademark Examination and Adjudication Guidelines

CNIPA — Draft for Public Comment

Note: This is a consultation draft and should not be treated as final law.

8. CNIPA Notice on Public Consultation for the Draft Measures for Handling Trademark Matters under the Revised Trademark Law

CNIPA — Draft for Public Comment

Note: This is a consultation draft and should not be treated as final law.

For additional support and resources for international IP professionals, see China Trademark Support for International IP Professionals.

By: CTMAA Expert Team

CNIPA-registered trademark professionals and cross‑border IP specialists with extensive experience advising baby product, infant care, and regulated consumer goods companies — including the cases mentioned above.

Reviewed: Kevin Kang Founder & Trademark Strategy Lead – 15+ years in China trademark strategy for foreign brands.

View Full Team → Kevin Kang