Overview

Against the backdrop of increasingly stringent trademark examination standards in China, a growing number of trademark applications have been refused under Article 10.1(7) of the China Trademark Law (“Article 10.1(7)”). These refusals arise where a mark is deemed likely to mislead the public regarding the quality, functions, purposes, raw materials, origin, source, or other characteristics of the designated goods or services.

As an absolute ground for refusal, such rejections cannot be resolved through coexistence agreements or negotiation. Instead, applicants must adopt a systematic and evidence-based approach, focusing on:

·       The trademark itself

·       The scope of designated goods/services

·       Objective facts of actual use

Among these, reasonable restriction of goods/services serves as the foundation for mitigating misrepresentation risks, while robust evidence of genuine use is key to persuading the review authority.

This article outlines practical strategies—particularly in goods restriction and evidence compilation—to overcome refusals under Article 10.1(7).

Key Examination Criteria under Article 10.1(7)

Examination typically follows these principles:

1.      Perspective of the Public
Assessment is based on the general attention level of the relevant public.

2.      Holistic Evaluation
The trademark is examined as a whole, in conjunction with the designated goods/services.

3.      Prohibited Circumstances
Marks that may mislead the public regarding:

o    Quality

o    Raw materials

o    Functions or purposes

o    Composition

o    Origin or source

o    Other product attributes

4.      Potential Relief
Rejection may be overcome where:

o    Misrepresentation risks are eliminated through goods restriction, and

o    Authentic use evidence is submitted

I. Goods Restriction Strategy

Goods restriction is one of the most direct and effective measures to eliminate misrepresentation risks and significantly impacts the likelihood of success on review.

Core Objectives

·           Align the trademark’s meaning with product attributes

·           Narrow overly broad designations

·           Avoid exaggerated or misleading descriptions

Practical Approaches

1. Remove High-Risk Goods

Delete goods that may create misleading associations with the mark’s meaning—especially those involving exaggerated claims.

Example:
In the review of Trademark No. 74926857, registration was secured after deleting problematic service items.

2. Narrow and Specify Descriptions

Replace broad terms (e.g., “industrial chemicals” or “electronic products”) with precise and standardized descriptions.

Example:
In Case No. G1783705 BELLOFRAM SILICONES, the applicant succeeded by limiting goods to:

·           Class 17: shaped silicone, silicone foam sheets, silicone foam strips

·           Class 40: custom silicone molding and extrusion services

3. Ensure Consistency with Product Attributes

Descriptive elements in the mark must accurately reflect the inherent characteristics of the goods.

Example:
In G1767622 YAMADA AODD PUMPS, registration was achieved by restricting goods to:

·           Air-operated double-diaphragm vacuum pumps

4. Focus on Actual Business Operations

Retain only goods genuinely manufactured, sold, or promoted by the applicant. This reduces both absolute and relative grounds risks.

Required Documents & Procedures

·           International Registrations: Submit MM6 Goods Limitation Declaration

·           Domestic Applications: Use consistent, restricted standard descriptions

·           Supporting Evidence: Provide packaging, specifications, and use materials demonstrating non-misleading use

II. Core Measure: Comprehensive Use Evidence

A successful response requires building a coherent evidence chain demonstrating:

Trademark meaning aligns with restricted goods →
Genuine and good-faith use →
No likelihood of public misrepresentation

Basic Evidence

·           Business license or applicant qualifications

·           Written goods restriction statements and disclaimers

·           Trademark use materials:

o    Packaging and labels

o    Promotional materials

o    Store photos

o    E-commerce screenshots

Targeted Evidence by Misrepresentation Type

(1) Misrepresentation of Materials, Composition, Functions, or Purpose

Goal: Prove the mark reflects objective product characteristics

Evidence Includes:

·           Product formulas and specifications

·           Procurement contracts and invoices

·           Third-party test reports

·           Sales and transaction records

·           Marketing and exhibition materials

Examples:

·           Trademark No. 69998858 TANJI
Evidence such as factory photos and promotional materials demonstrated no misleading connection with Class 35 services, leading to approval.

·           Trademark No. 69364451 ZEEKR X
Extensive evidence showed established market recognition and no public confusion, successfully overcoming refusal.

(2) Misrepresentation of Source or Operator

Goal: Establish a clear association between the mark and the applicant

Evidence Includes:

·           Historical company names and abbreviations

·           Long-term use demonstrating brand exclusivity

·           Sales data, awards, and rankings

·           Authorization documents (if involving third-party names or likenesses)

(3) Misrepresentation from Stylization or Font

Goal: Show the mark is an artistic design, not misleading text

Evidence Includes:

·           Dictionaries or reference materials

·           Design drafts and creative explanations

·           Consistent real-world usage examples

Conclusion

Overcoming refusals under Article 10.1(7) requires a two-pronged strategy:

·           Eliminating misrepresentation risks through precise goods restriction

·           Demonstrating genuine use through strong and targeted evidence

A well-prepared submission not only strengthens the applicant’s position but also facilitates a balanced and reasonable examination.

Importantly, examination authorities should avoid overly literal or fragmented interpretations. Instead, they should:

·           Consider the overall impression of the mark

·           Evaluate it alongside the designated goods/services

·           Apply the understanding of the general public

Only through such holistic analysis can a fair determination be made as to whether a trademark truly misleads consumers.