In recent years, CNIPA’s most visible actions under Article 44 have frequently focused on high-profile bad-faith squatting tied to significant events and hot terms. The January 7, 2026, CNIPA work report, however, explicitly adds governance of ‘misleading wordplay trademarks’ to the agenda, signaling a broader compliance lens that is likely to extend beyond event-term squatting to consumer-misleading brands. This new policy shift introduces stricter scrutiny of trademark designs that may deceive consumers through misleading product claims, marking a significant expansion beyond simply addressing trademark hoarding and bad-faith filings. Companies will ensure that their trademarks do not inadvertently suggest product qualities or origins that are unfounded.

For brand owners, exporters, importers, and e-commerce sellers, the main risk is not just having a trademark, but how it is designed and used. If consumers see the mark as a factual claim, like “0 additives,” “authentic origin,” “free-from,” or “heritage,” when the product does not have that quality, it can cause problems.

What are “misleading wordplay trademarks”

Misleading wordplay trademarks are designed to look like a product feature or quality claim when shown on packaging or listings. This is often done by:

- Splitting/spacing tricks (so the eye reads a “claim” rather than a brand),

- Ambiguous combination of trademark + product name,

- Blurry or subordinated disclosure that the “claim” is actually the mark,

- Inflated or suggestive wording that implies a regulated attribute.

For example, a seller might register a mark with an attribute-like term, such as “cage-free” or “pure juice,” and display it so that consumers think it describes the product’s ingredient, quality, or origin, not the brand.

2) Why This Is More Than Marketing: It Can Affect Registration and Enforcement

China’s Trademark Law contains an absolute bar on deceptive signs that are likely to mislead the public as to characteristics such as quality, origin, or other features.

In practice, this risk can come up in two ways:

1. At filing/examination (refusal where deceptiveness is apparent), and/or

2. post-registration (invalidation or administrative enforcement where real-world use shows consumer deception risk).

The January 7, 2026, CNIPA work report makes it clear that authorities will take action against violations of good faith, such as trademark hoarding, bad-faith filings, and the use of misleading wordplay trademarks.

3) Why Are Terms Like “West Lake Longjing” or “Wi-Fi” Treated Differently?

A common question is: “Why can some terms that look descriptive be registered without misleading consumers?” The answer depends on the type of mark:

a) Ordinary trademarks primarily indicate commercial source; the trademark owner is not institutionally certifying that the goods meet defined standards.

b) Certification marks / collective marks are structured to certify defined characteristics (origin, materials, method, quality) under published rules and supervision.

China’s system recognizes certification marks and collective marks with specific regulatory requirements. WIPO’s definition similarly frames certification marks as indicating that goods/services meet standards set by the certifier. In the case of certification marks, the attribute signal is not a marketing tactic. It is the legal purpose of the mark, backed by specific rules.

Practical Steps to Take:

1) Set up “claim-like mark” monitoring

Monitor new trademark filings and marketplace listings that include or suggest product attributes, such as “pure” or “authentic.” Also, look out for typography or spacing that makes a mark appear to be a product claim.

2) Build an internal pre-launch gate

Before launching any packaging or listing, do a quick check: What will consumers think the words mean? Can you back up any implied claims? Is the trademark clearly different from product claims or descriptions?

3) Have an actionable playbook

If a competitor uses a mark as an implied claim, gather evidence such as screenshots, packaging photos, and timestamps. Then consider the factors involved in choosing the appropriate course of action:

a) Opt for invalidation when the trademark itself can be deemed invalid due to non-compliance with legal standards.

b) Choose administrative enforcement if there is a need to address ongoing deceptive practices immediately and obtain a swift regulatory response.

c) Pursue unfair competition claims when the focus is on market practices and consumer impact beyond the trademark use itself.

d) Evaluate the situation carefully to determine the best fit for your strategic and legal goals.

If you are managing trademarks in China, whether for clearance and filing, portfolio optimization, enforcement against bad-faith filings or confusingly similar marks, takedowns on e-commerce platforms, administrative actions, or dispute strategy; Jiaquan IP Law can provide a practical, business-focused assessment and recommended next steps. 

Contact us to discuss your trademark matter and arrange a short introductory call.