- Administrative complaints to local IP offices are the fastest and cheapest first strike against infringement.
向地方知识产权局行政投诉，是对侵权最快、成本最低的第一击。- The 2027 Trademark Law extends cross-class well-known-mark protection to unregistered famous marks.
2027年《商标法》将驰名商标跨类保护扩展至未注册的驰名商标。- Punitive damages of one to five times apply for intentional and serious infringement, with a statutory ceiling of RMB 5 million.
故意且情节严重的侵权适用一至五倍惩罚性赔偿，法定上限为500万元。- Counterfeiting can trigger criminal liability, with imprisonment of up to ten years where thresholds are met.
假冒行为可触发刑事责任，达到门槛者最高可处十年有期徒刑。- Customs recordal acts as the front door of the wider enforcement chain, feeding evidence to administrative and criminal tracks.
海关备案是更广阔执法链条的前门，将证据输送至行政与刑事路径。- The revised law adds a public complaint channel and new penalties for misleading “trick” marks.
修订法新增公众举报渠道，并对误导性”心机商标”设置处罚。- A coordinated playbook — monitor, administer, litigate, prosecute, and border-protect — maximizes leverage.
监测、行政、诉讼、刑事、边境五位一体的协同组合拳，方能最大化维权效能。
Enforcing Your Trademark in China: From Administrative Complaints to Well-Known Mark Protection | 商标注册后的维权之路：从行政投诉到驰名商标保护
Overview
Securing a trademark registration with CNIPA is only the first half of brand protection. Once a foreign brand operates in China, it must defend that right against counterfeiters, parallel importers and local operators who free-ride on its reputation. China provides a layered enforcement toolkit: fast administrative action by market regulators, civil litigation with punitive damages, criminal prosecution for counterfeiting, and Customs border measures. The revised Trademark Law, adopted on 26 June 2026 and effective 1 January 2027, strengthens each route and is the key change foreign owners should understand. This article maps the post-registration landscape and the enforcement playbook.
Administrative enforcement
The quickest, lowest-cost route is an administrative complaint to the local market regulation administration (the IP office within the SAMR system). Under Article 60, where infringement is found the authority orders the infringer to stop and may confiscate and destroy infringing goods and the main tools used to make them.
Fines are substantial: illegal turnover above RMB 50,000 draws a fine up to five times that turnover; with no or sub-RMB 50,000 turnover, a fine up to RMB 250,000 applies. Repeat infringers within five years, or those with other serious circumstances, face heavier punishment. A seller who neither knew nor should have known, and who proves a lawful source, is merely ordered to stop selling.
Regulators act proactively: SAMR publishes representative cases. In early 2026, local offices handled SKF bearing counterfeits, Mercedes-Benz parts, and a clothing ring spanning Max Mara, Dior, LV and Chanel worth over RMB 60 million, several referred to police. A useful feature: any unit or person may now report misleading use of a registered mark, lowering the trigger threshold.
Well-known trademark protection
For a strong brand, the most powerful tool is cross-class protection of a well-known mark (驰名商标). Under Article 13(3), a mark well known to the relevant public can block registration and use of a copy, imitation or translation on dissimilar goods where this would mislead the public and risk harming the owner’s interests (anti-dilution).
The 2027 revision helps foreign brands directly: previously this defence applied only to marks registered in China. The revised Article 13 removes the “registered in China” limit, so an unregistered mark genuinely well known to the relevant Chinese public can also block preemptive registration or use on unrelated goods.
Well-known status is confirmed case-by-case and passively; the revised law even replaces “认定” (determination) with “确认” (confirmation) to curb trophy-seeking. CNIPA may confirm it in opposition, invalidation or enforcement proceedings, and a designated People’s Court may do so in unfair-competition cases. Evidence covers degree of recognition, duration and geography of use, promotion scale, prior protection records and economic indicators such as sales and market share.
Civil litigation & damages
When administration is insufficient, civil litigation recovers money. Under Article 63, damages follow this order: the right holder’s actual loss, the infringer’s unlawful gain, or a reasonable multiple of the licence fee; where none is provable, statutory damages apply.
Punitive damages of up to five times the base apply to “intentional” and “serious” infringement. The Supreme People’s Court’s 2026 interpretation (法释〔2026〕7号, effective 1 May 2026) clarifies the concepts: intent includes infringing after notice or settlement; serious circumstances include re-offending after penalties or infringing as a business. Statutory compensation cannot be the punitive base; the total is capped at five times the base, with reasonable costs (legal fees, notarisation) separate.
The 2027 Law raises the statutory ceiling to RMB 5 million and expressly includes reasonable enforcement costs, making litigation far more attractive.
Criminal enforcement
Serious counterfeiting is a crime. Article 213 of the Criminal Law punishes using an identical mark on identical goods without permission: illegal turnover of RMB 50,000 (or income RMB 30,000), or two-or-more marks with turnover RMB 30,000, is “serious” (up to three years); the “especially serious” threshold (turnover RMB 250,000 or income RMB 150,000) brings three to ten years. The 2020 Amendment XI raised the maximum from seven to ten years.
Foreign brands pursue this by reporting to the police, often using evidence from Customs or administrative raids. A conviction also supports civil damages and deters copycats.
Coordinating with customs
China Customs (GACC) runs an IP recordal system letting holders suspend infringing imports and exports. Recordal is free and online via the Customs service platform. A recorded mark is the precondition for Customs’ ex officio active protection; without it, a holder can only seek passive protection on discovering an imminent shipment.
Customs interception is the front door of the wider chain: a seized shipment yields evidence and a suspect supply chain that can go to regulators for penalties or to police for prosecution. Brands already in the administrative and civil tracks should keep a live Customs recordal so border seizures feed the playbook. (A separate article covers Customs interception; this piece focuses on the post-registration toolkit.)
2027 Trademark Law changes
The revised Law, passed 26 June 2026 and effective 1 January 2027, is the first comprehensive revision since 1983, growing from 8 chapters / 73 articles to 9 / 87. Enforcement highlights:
- Higher punitive damages: one-to-five times for intentional and serious infringement; statutory ceiling RMB 5 million; reasonable costs recoverable.
- Stronger well-known protection: cross-class anti-dilution now covers unregistered famous marks; confirmation replaces determination.
- Tighter bad-faith control: “not for use and clearly exceeding normal needs” applications are refused; bad-faith applicants face warnings and fines up to RMB 100,000; complicit agencies are liable.
- New “trick mark” penalties: misleading use draws a correction order, fines up to five times turnover (or RMB 250,000), and possible revocation; anyone may report it.
- Agency supervision and faster procedure: agencies must file practitioner data; the opposition period shrinks from three to two months.
These shifts tilt the balance to rights holders and raise the expected cost of infringement.
Practical playbook
- Monitor early and continuously; the two-month opposition window demands speed.
- Keep proof of use — the new law allows ex officio revocation of three-year non-use marks.
- Start with administration: complain to the local IP office for fast seizure, confiscation and fines; use the public-report channel.
- Escalate to civil where value is high; claim loss or profit and plead punitive damages; recover costs.
- Refer counterfeiting to the police once thresholds are met.
- Build a well-known file so cross-class protection is ready when dilution appears.
- Keep Customs recordal live so border measures feed the chain.
Related reading
- CNIPA guidance on the 2027 revision and well-known marks.
- SAMR representative IP enforcement cases (2026).
- SPC interpretation on punitive damages (法释〔2026〕7号).
商标注册后的维权之路：从行政投诉到驰名商标保护
概述
向国家知识产权局（CNIPA）成功注册商标，只是品牌保护的上半场，远非终点。外国品牌一旦进入中国市场开展运营，就必须准备就注册权利向各类侵权者主动维权——既包括制造、销售假冒商品的造假者，也包括未经授权转售的平行进口商，以及刻意攀附品牌商誉、制造混淆的本地经营者。中国为权利人提供了一套分层的执法救济工具箱：市场监管部门的快速行政查处、附带惩罚性赔偿的民事诉讼、针对假冒行为的刑事打击，以及海关在边境实施的扣留措施。四条路径各有侧重、相互衔接——行政重效率、民事重赔偿、刑事重惩戒、海关守国门，组合运用方能织密保护网。这种立体保护体系，正是外国品牌得以安心扎根中国市场的重要制度保障。2026年6月26日通过、2027年1月1日施行的全面修订《商标法》，强化了上述每一条路径，是外国品牌权利人最应当理解的一项关键变化。本文旨在梳理注册之后的执法格局，说明2027年修订如何系统性地提高侵权成本，并给出一套可落地的协同维权组合拳。需要强调的是，注册只是取得权利的起点，真正决定品牌价值的，是权利人能否在侵权发生时迅速、有力地作出反应——这一点对依赖商誉的外国品牌尤为关键。
行政查处
最快、成本最低的维权路线，是向地方市场监督管理部门提出行政投诉。在省市两级市场监管体系内部，设有承担知识产权执法职责的”知识产权局”。依据《商标法》第六十条，认定侵权成立的，主管机关责令侵权人立即停止，并可没收、销毁侵权商品以及主要用于制造侵权商品的工具。相比于诉讼，行政查处通常周期更短、举证负担更轻，特别适合需要迅速制止线下门店或仓储窝点售假的情形，权利人往往能在数周内见到查扣与处罚结果。
罚款力度相当可观：违法经营额五万元以上的，可处违法经营额五倍以下的罚款；没有违法经营额或不足五万元的，可处二十五万元以下的罚款。五年内实施两次以上侵权、或有其他严重情节的，应当依法从重处罚。值得注意的是，销售者如果既不知道、也不应知道所售商品侵权，且能够证明商品合法来源并说明提供者的，仅被责令停止销售，免予罚款——这体现了对善意销售者的合理保护。
行政机关还可应当事人请求，就赔偿数额进行调解；但调解协议没有强制约束力，当事人不服的仍可向人民法院起诉。这种行政调解省时省力，适合侵权规模较小、双方有和解意愿的情形，但对于恶意侵权或赔偿争议较大的案件，权利人往往仍需转向诉讼。实践中，市场监管部门主动作为：市场监管总局定期公布知识产权执法典型案例，既震慑违法者，也为同类案件提供执法尺度参考。2026年上半年，地方局办理了SKF轴承假货系列案、奔驰汽车配件案，以及横跨Max Mara、Dior、LV、Chanel、案值超过6000万元的服装售假链条，其中多起已移送公安机关刑事侦查。对外国品牌而言，另一项实用机制是：任何单位或个人现在均可就误导性使用注册商标的行为投诉、举报，这显著降低了启动行政调查的门槛起。
驰名商标保护
对于具有高知名度的强势品牌，最强武器是驰名商标的跨类保护。依据《商标法》第十三条第三款，为相关公众所熟知的商标，可以禁止他人在不相同、不相类似商品上注册、使用复制、摹仿或翻译该商标的标志，只要该使用会误导公众、并可能损害驰名商标权人的利益——此即反淡化保护。
2027年修订在对外国品牌直接有利的方向上改变了规则：在此之前，这一跨类防御仅适用于已经在中国注册的驰名商标。修订后的第十三条删除了”已在中国注册”的限制，使得即便未在中国注册、但确为相关中国公众所熟知的商标，也能阻止在不相类似商品上的抢注或使用。这使中国的保护水平更接近CPTPP等高标准国际经贸规则。
驰名商标采取”个案确认、被动保护”原则，并非一项可永久持有的称号；修订法更将”认定”改为”确认”，以抑制社会各界”求认定”的异化倾向。确认可由国家知识产权局在异议、无效宣告或执法程序中作出，也可由指定人民法院在不正当竞争案件中作出。权利人需准备的证据涵盖商标的知晓程度、使用的持续时间与地域范围、宣传的规模、既往受保护记录，以及销量、市场份额等经济指标。鉴于确认高度依赖历史使用与知名度积累，品牌应在日常经营中即系统归档广告投放、展会参与、销售数据与获奖情况，避免临时抱佛脚。
新法还增设机制：当中国企业的商标在境外被抢注时，应其请求，国家知识产权局可确认驰名状态以支援境外确权抗辩。这对管理全球商标组合的多国企业而言，同样是一项具互惠价值的安排——换言之，一家在华布局的外国企业，其中国境内的驰名证据亦可被运用于其他法域的维权，形成双向支撑。
民事诉讼与赔偿
行政手段不足以填补损失时，向人民法院提起民事诉讼是获得金钱救济的主要路径。依据第六十三条，赔偿数额按以下优先顺序计算：权利人的实际损失、侵权人的侵权获利、或许可使用费的合理倍数；三者均难以确定时，适用法定赔偿。
对于”故意”且”情节严重”的侵权，可判处最高达计算基数五倍的惩罚性赔偿。最高人民法院2026年出台的司法解释（法释〔2026〕7号，自2026年5月1日施行）细化了相关概念：故意情形包括经有效通知或达成和解后仍实施侵权、借关联公司隐匿实际控制关系等；情节严重包括受到行政或司法处罚后再犯、拒不履行保全裁定、以侵权为业等。权利人可在诉讼中灵活选择管辖法院，典型如侵权人住所地、侵权行为实施地或侵权商品储藏地法院，以便就近举证、降低跨国维权成本。该解释明确，法定赔偿不得作为惩罚性赔偿的基数；惩罚性总额上限为基数五倍，合理维权开支（如律师费、公证费）另行计算。2025年，全国法院在505件知识产权案件中适用惩罚性赔偿，判赔金额合计18亿元，彰显从严保护的取向。
2027年《商标法》进一步将法定赔偿上限提高至500万元，并明确将合理维权费用纳入赔偿框架，使民事诉讼对外国品牌更具吸引力。实务中，权利人还可请求法院责令侵权人提交与侵权相关的账簿、资料，以解决”获利难以查清”的举证难题，这对跨境企业尤为实用。
刑事打击
情节严重的假冒行为进入刑事领域。《刑法》第二百一十三条将未经许可在同一种商品上使用与其注册商标相同商标、情节严重的行为，规定为假冒注册商标罪：违法经营额达五万元（或违法所得三万元），或假冒两种以上商标且违法经营额达三万元的，属”情节严重”，处三年以下有期徒刑或者拘役，并处或单处罚金；达到”情节特别严重”门槛（违法经营额二十五万元或违法所得十五万元）的，刑期升至三年以上十年以下有期徒刑，并处罚金。2020年《刑法修正案（十一）》将最高刑期由七年提至十年。关联罪名还涵盖销售假冒注册商标的商品罪（第二百一十四条）与非法制造、销售非法制造的注册商标标识罪（第二百一十五条）。上述罪名与行政查处、海关扣留形成梯度：情节较轻的交由行政机关罚款没收，达到刑事门槛的则移送司法机关，构成完整的责任追究链条。
对外国品牌而言，刑事路径通过向公安机关报案推进，证据往往来源于海关查扣或行政查处所固定的材料。单位实施该罪的，对单位判处罚金，并对其直接负责的主管人员和其他直接责任人员依法追究刑事责任，这显著提升了组织化制假售假的成本。刑事定罪不仅可支撑后续民事赔偿请求，也能对仿冒者形成有力威慑。
与海关的衔接
中国海关（海关总署）设有知识产权备案系统，权利人可据此申请海关中止侵权进出口货物。备案免费，通过海关政务服务一体化平台在线办理。已备案商标是海关”依职权”主动保护的前提条件；未备案的权利人，仅能在发现侵权货物即将进出口时，申请”依申请”的被动保护。
海关拦截最好理解为更广阔执法链条的”前门”：一次查扣所生成的实物证据与可疑供应链线索，可以移交市场监管部门转化为行政处罚，或移交公安机关启动刑事侦查。已在行政与民事路径上活跃的品牌，应当维持有效的海关备案，使边境查扣直接汇入前述组合拳。对于在海关总署核准总担保的权利人，请求扣留涉嫌侵权商标货物时无须逐案提交担保金，可进一步降低维权成本。（海关拦截另有专文详述，本文聚焦注册后的工具箱。）
2027年《商标法》的变化
全面修订《商标法》于2026年6月26日通过、2027年1月1日施行，是1983年施行以来首次全面修订，条文由8章73条扩至9章87条。与维权直接相关的要点如下：
- 更高惩罚性赔偿：故意且情节严重的侵权，适用一至五倍惩罚性赔偿；法定赔偿上限提至500万元；合理维权费用可获偿。
- 更强驰名商标保护：跨类反淡化扩展至未注册的驰名商标；”确认”取代”认定”。
- 更严恶意注册规制：以”不以使用为目的且明显超出正常生产经营需要”申请的，不予注册；恶意申请人面临警告及最高十万元罚款；协助恶意申请的商标代理机构依法担责。
- 新增”心机商标”处罚：以误导公众方式使用注册商标的，可被责令改正、处违法经营额五倍或二十五万元罚款，并可能撤销；任何单位或个人均可举报。
- 代理监管与程序提速：商标代理机构须报备从业人员信息；异议期由三个月缩至两个月，倒逼权利人更快监控。
这些变化整体上向权利人倾斜，实质性抬升了侵权的预期成本。对外国品牌而言，最值得关注的，是惩罚性赔偿上限与驰名商标跨类保护范围的同步扩展，以及行政查处门槛的降低——三者叠加，使”注册后维权”从被动应对转向主动布局成为可能。
实战要点
- 早监测、持续监测：盯紧国家知识产权局公告与市场动态；两个月的异议窗口对响应速度提出更高要求。
- 留存使用证据：新法赋予主管机关依职权撤销三年不使用商标的权力，企业须系统保存销售、广告与出口证据。
- 行政先行：向地方知识产权局投诉，争取快速查扣、没收与罚款；善用新增的公众举报渠道。
- 高价值案件升级至民事：主张实际损失或侵权人获利，并就故意或严重情形请求惩罚性赔偿；一并追偿维权成本。
- 假冒达门槛即刑事移送：海关或行政证据满足门槛时，及时转交公安机关。
- 构建驰名档案：平时汇集知名度证据，使淡化威胁出现时即可启动跨类保护。
- 维持海关备案有效：确保边境措施能够顺畅汇入更广阔的执法链条。
上述七步并非孤立动作，而应被视为一条闭环：监测发现线索，行政快速止损，民事与刑事追索赔偿与刑事责任，海关守住边境，驰名商标档案则提供跨类兜底。外国品牌宜在入境之初即建立专门的知识产权维权台账，明确各项措施的触发条件与责任部门，方能在侵权来袭时从容打出组合拳。
相关阅读
- 国家知识产权局关于2027年《商标法》修订及驰名商标规则的指引。
- 市场监管总局知识产权执法典型案例（2026）。
- 最高人民法院惩罚性赔偿司法解释（法释〔2026〕7号）。
- 海关总署知识产权海关保护备案办事指南（衔接边境维权）。
Sources