● China IP News: 2026 No. 007

In August 2024, a Foshan-based company instructed Jiaquan to seek invalidation of the registered Chinese trademark OU NUO SEN. The case was difficult from the outset: the disputed registration had already been on the register for more than five years.

A truly robust trademark strategy requires a three-dimensional approach: diversifying mark types, defining classes of goods and services, and targeting key filing jurisdictions. Here is how enterprises can systematically structure their trademark filings.

A geographical indication application requires more than proof of origin or local reputation.

The CNIPA’s guidance on trademark refusal review highlights seven core evidentiary elements for GI collective and certification marks in China.

Part II of our series examines Questions 13–20 of the CNIPA’s Q&A on key evidentiary issues in trademark refusal review cases, with a focus on geographical indication collective and certification marks.

Jiaquan represented a leading home-furnishings company throughout the invalidation and judicial review proceedings in a dispute over a utility model for a connection structure.

Patent reexamination is a review process initiated when an applicant disagrees with a rejection decision issued during substantive examination. It is conducted by a reexamination panel from the Patent Reexamination and Invalidation Department of the CNIPA, who were not involved in the initial rejection.

In the rapidly evolving landscape of Artificial Intelligence, defining the demarcation between "mathematical algorithms" and "patentable technical solutions" has become a cornerstone of global IP strategy. By comparing recent invalidation decisions from the China National Intellectual Property Administration, specifically Cases No. 586065, 584244, and 588362, with the U.S. Federal Circuit’s ruling in Recentive Analytics v. Fox Corp., we can discern critical jurisdictional nuances in how the validity of AI patents is adjudicated.

The SPC's ruling establishes that while the Patent Office can verify priority ex officio, it cannot use "secrecy" to bypass due process. This decision serves as a critical precedent for practitioners, signaling that any evidence used to strip a party of their IP rights must be brought "into the light" through formal cross-examination.

This article reviews and analyzes the key clause-level changes between the two administration regulations, with the aim of providing practical reference for rightsholders in building and maintaining robust trade secret protection systems.