China Justice Observer

中司观察

EnglishArabicChinese (Simplified)DutchFrenchGermanHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishHebrewIndonesianVietnameseThaiTurkishMalay

Chinese Lawyers Engage in Trademark Agency for Ten Years

Wed, 31 May 2023
Categories: China Legal Trends

In March 2023, China’s Ministry of Justice (MOJ) republished an article on its website to commemorate ten years of Chinese lawyers’ engagement in trademark agency.

Chinese lawyers were first qualified to engage in the trademark agency business in 2013.

In November 2012, the former State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) and the MOJ jointly issued the “Measures for the Administration of Law Firms’ Engagement in Trademark Agency Business” (hereinafter the “Measures”, 律师事务所从事商标代理业务管理办法), which came into effect on 1 Jan. 2013, and thereafter law firms may engage in trademark agency business according to the Measures.

 

 

Cover Photo by Michelle Liu on Unsplash

Contributors: CJO Staff Contributors Team

Save as PDF

Related laws on China Laws Portal

You might also like

Guangdong High Court Highlights Landmark Mainland-Hong Kong Bankruptcy Ruling

Among 10 typical cases released by the Guangdong High People's Court to advance legal alignment in the Greater Bay Area, a landmark ruling (Re Guangdong Overseas Construction Corporation) stands out for securing Hong Kong judicial recognition for a bankruptcy administrator appointed by a mainland court outside designated pilot regions.

China Publishes First Typical Cases in Sports Arbitration

China Commission of Arbitration for Sports (CCAS) has released its first set of six typical cases, establishing a precedent, among others, that sports agency contract disputes fall under specialized sports arbitration rather than general commercial arbitration.

China Designates Beijing Court for ICSID Arbitral Awards

China has officially designated the Beijing No. 4 Intermediate People's Court to handle the recognition and enforcement of ICSID awards, filling a long-standing procedural gap and advancing its restrictive immunity framework.

PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal, Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments

Recent Australian case law clarifies that the “double interest” mechanism in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) monetary judgments functions as a compensatory post-judgment interest framework rather than an unenforceable penalty. This consolidates Australia’s position as a highly attractive and creditor-friendly forum for enforcing Chinese judgments. See Zhengzhou Lvdu Real Estate Group Co v Shu [2024] NSWSC 58 (6 February 2024), Fu v Pang [2025] VSC 597 (16 September 2025)