Recently,LEXFIELDrepresentedaworld-renownedoverseasdairycompanyandsuccessfullydefendedtheregistrationofitstrademarksinfiveinvalidationcases.Thefavorableoutcomeshavesafeguardedtheclient’scoretrademarkrights,providingsolidlegalsupportforitscontinuedbusinessexpansionandstableoperationsintheChinesemarket.Thedisputedtrademarksconsistof“letters+numbers”andareusedonacertainprobiotic.HavingbeenregisteredandusedinChinaforovertenyears,themarkshavegainedsignificantrecognitionandinfluence.Hadthetrademarksbeeninvalidated,theclient’sproductpromotionandsalesinChinawouldhavebeendirectlyimpacted,causingimmeasurableharmtoitsbusinessintheChinesemarket.Intheseriesofcases,thepetitionerprimarilyarguedthattheclient’strademarkslackeddistinctiveness.Uponreceivingtheclient’sinstruction,LEXFIELDteamconductedcomprehensiveresearchanddetailedanalysis,studiedthelegalgroundsandevidence,andfocusedonthefollowing:1.CollectingExtensiveEvidenceofTrademarkUseof“Letters+Numbers”:Collectedsubstantialevidencedemonstratingthatthe“letters+numbers”hadbeenusedinatrademarkmanner,provingthatthemarkspossesseddistinctivecharacterbythetimeofapplicationandhadestablishedauniqueassociationwiththeclient.2.ArguingAgainstGenericness:Emphasizedintheresponsethatthedisputedtrademarksneitherconstitutedgenericnamesasdefinedbylaws,nationalstandards,orindustrystandardsnorhadtheybecomecustomarygenericnamesthroughuse.3.AddressingComparisonswithOtherCases:Inresponsetothepetitioner’sreferencetoothertrademarksthathadbeenrefusedorcancelledunderallegedlysimilarcircumstances,wepointedoutthatthosecasesinvolveddifferentcontexts—suchasbadfaithinapplicationorlackofrelevance.Wearguedthattheprincipleofconsistentexaminationstandardsrequiresthatvariablesbetakenintoaccount,includingtheexaminingauthority,groundsforreview,andthespecifictimingandcontextualbackground,andthatconclusionscannotbedrawnsolelybasedonidenticaltrademarkelements.Asaresult,theChinaNationalIntellectualPropertyAdministration(CNIPA)upheldLEXFIELD’sarguments,rejectedallgroundsraisedbythepetitioner,andmaintainedtheregistrationoftheclient’sfivetrademarks.ThiscaseofferssignificantinsightsforbothdomesticandinternationalenterprisesregardingtrademarkprotectioninChina.Werecommendthatcompaniesfocusonthefollowingaspectsinthetrademarkpractices:1.ConsciousTrademarkUse:Whenusingregisteredtrademarks,consciouslyreinforcetheuseasatrademark.Evenindescriptivecontexts,itisadvisabletoapplythe®symboltoindicateregisteredtrademarkuse.2.ClearLicensingTerms:Inlicensingagreements,stipulatethat:1)thelicenseemustusethe®symbol;and2)thelicenseeshallnotusethetrademarkasaproductnameoringredientname.3.ProactiveEnforcement:Activelyenforcerightsagainstothers’unauthorizedusetopreventtrademarkdilution.4.EvidencePreservation:Activelyretainevidence,includingproductpackaging,transactiondocuments,contracts,andenforcementrecords,toensuresufficientevidenceisavailableforfutureenforcementactions.

Attheendof2025,toregulatetrademarkuse,theChinaNationalIntellectualPropertyAdministration(CNIPA)issuedtheNoticeonStrengtheningtheManagementofTrademarkUse(hereinafterreferredtoasthe"Notice")alongwithitsinterpretations(hereinafterreferredtoasthe"Interpretation").TheNoticefocusesonregulatingthefollowingseventypesofillegalornon-complianttrademarkuse,clarifyingthatlocallawenforcementauthoritiesmayimposecorrespondingadministrativepenaltiesundertheTrademarkLawforsuchacts:1.Usingunregisteredtrademarksthataredeceptiveorotherwiseprohibited;2.Deceptiveuseofregisteredtrademarks;3.Usingunregisteredtrademarksasregisteredtrademarks;4.Failuretousearegisteredtrademarkwhereuseisrequired;5.Prominentlydisplayingthewords"Well-knownTrademark"incommercialactivities;6.Improperuseofcollectivemarksorcertificationmarks;7.Illegalagencyactivitiesbytrademarkagencies.IntheCNIPA'sInterpretation,the"BPXYD"trademarkinfringementcase,representedbyLexFieldLawOffices,wasincludedasanexamplefor"deceptiveuseofregisteredtrademarks".Itsignifiesthatthepathofseekingimmediatecessationofinfringementthroughadministrativecomplaintsagainstsuchfree-ridingbehaviors,characterizedby"lawfulregistrationbutillegaluse,"hasreceivedauthoritativeconfirmation.Thisarticle,referencingthecasesintheCNIPA'sInterpretation,introducestheconnotationsandcurrentenforcementtrendsconcerningtwotypesoftrademarkuseviolationsthatareofgreatconcerntoenterprises.I.DeceptiveUseofRegisteredTrademarksThistypeofillegalactincludestwoscenarios:wheretheactualuseofaregisteredtrademarkcausesthepublictobemisledaboutthequalityofgoods,andwhereitconstitutesfree-ridingontherightsofanotherproprietor.1.MisleadingastotheQualityofGoodsThisprimarilyreferstosituationswherearegisteredtrademarkisusedincombinationwithproductnames,advertisingslogans,packaging,orget-up,orwhereothermisleadingtermsareaddedduringuse,leadingthepublictomisunderstandspecificcharacteristicsofthegoods,suchasquality,origin,orproductionprocess.Forexample,usingaregisteredtrademark"鲜土"(freshsoil)oneggproducts(amarklaterdeclaredinvalidbytheCNIPA)intheactualform"农家鮮土鸡蛋"(farmfreshsoileggs,whentranslatedinChinesemeansthattheeggslaidbychickenthatarenotedinafactorybutarefedinafarmwithmorespacestomovearound)causedthepublictomistakenlybelievetheeggswerefarmeggs.2.AlteringtheUseofaRegisteredTrademarktoFree-rideonOtherProprietors’Trademark(Acommonscenarioinpractice)LexField'sCaseasanExample:Apetroleumcompanyregisteredthetrademark"BPXYD"forlubricatingoilproductsbutaltereditsuseinpracticetotheform"BPXYD",intendingtofree-rideonthewell-known"BP"trademarkoftherightsholder.Whilesimultaneouslyfilinganinvalidationrequestagainstthe"BPXYD"mark,LexFieldlawyersfiledacomplaintwithlawenforcementauthoritiestoquicklystoptheinfringement,primarilybasedonArticle49,Paragraph1oftheTrademarkLaw(unauthorizedalterationofaregisteredtrademark).TheenforcementauthorityacceptedLexField’spetition,issuedadministrativepenaltiesincludingafine,therebyswiftlystoppingtheinfringement.II.UseofUnregisteredTrademarksthatareDeceptiveorOtherwiseProhibitedAccordingtotheInterpretation,enforcementauthoritiesprimarilyfocusonthefollowingthreecategoriesofmisconduct:1.Usingunregisteredtrademarkscontainingtermslike"exclusivesupply","specialsupply","superior",or"national",whichmisleadthepublicregardingthesupplychannelorqualityofthegoods;2.Usingunregisteredtrademarkscontainingtermslike"selenium-rich","organic","zeroadditives",or"100%,"wheretheactualattributesofthedesignatedgoodsdonotmatchthemeaningoftheseterms,misleadingthepublicregardingthemainingredients,composition,orothercharacteristicsofthegoods;3.Usingunregisteredtrademarkscontainingplacenames,years,ortermslike"handmade"or"hand-beaten,"whichmisleadthepublicregardingtheorigin,productiontime,productionprocess,orothercharacteristicsofthegoods.LexField'sComments:1.Whennamingproductsoradvertising,enterprisesshouldproactivelyavoidusingthetermsmentionedinpoint1above.2.Forthetermsmentionedinpoints2and3,orothertrademarksrejecteddueto"misleading"provisions,evenifthetrademarkapplicationisrejected,theriskassociatedwithitsuseisrelativelylow,providedthatinactualuse,theproduct'squalityandothercharacteristicsgenuinelycorrespondtothemeaningofthetermsused.

Recently,LexFieldrepresentedarenownedforeignartificialintelligencecompanyintwotrademarkinvalidationadministrativelitigationcases,winningboththefirstandsecondinstances.TheBeijingIntellectualPropertyCourtandtheBeijingHighPeople'sCourt,basedonArticle32oftheTrademarkLawofthePeople'sRepublicofChina,ruledthattheregistrationofthedisputedtrademarksinfringedupontheclient'spriortradenamerights,andorderedtheinvalidationofthetwotrademarks,whichwereidenticaltotheclient'stradenameandappliedforregistrationin2015.Intheinvalidationstage,thecaseswerehandledbyanothertrademarkagency,andtheinvalidationswerenotsupportedbytheChinaNationalIntellectualPropertyAdministration(CNIPA).Aftertakingovertheadministrativelitigationproceedings,LexFieldteamconductedacomprehensiveandmeticulousreviewofthecasefacts,legalbasis,andevidencematerials.Byaccuratelyidentifyingthebreakthroughpointinthecases,theteamultimatelysuccessfullyoverturnedtheunfavorableinvalidationrulingsinthefirst-instanceofadministrativelitigations,withthesecond-instancecourtsubsequentlyaffirmingthefavorablejudgements.Thechallengesinthesecasesliein:1.Thereisariskof"doublejeopardy"inprocedure.Theseinvalidationproceedingsrepresentedthesecondattemptbytheclienttoinvalidatethedisputedtrademarks,andbothinvalidationrequestshadpreviouslybeenrejectedbytheCNIPA.2.Substantially,bothdisputedtrademarkswereappliedforregistrationin2015,withtheapplicationdateevenearlierthantheclient'sowntrademarkapplicationsinChina,makingtheclient'sbasisofrightsrelativelyweak.3.Asaforeignenterpriseprimarilyengagedincutting-edgeartificialintelligence,priortothefilingdateofthedisputedtrademarks,theclienthadnotdirectlyconductedbusinessinmainlandChina.Ithadnolocalbranches,andwasunabletoprovidetraditionalevidenceofreputation,suchassalescontracts,invoices,oradvertisingmaterials.Moreover,theapplicationdateofthedisputedtrademarkshasbeenoveradecade,makingtothecollectionofhistoricalevidenceparticularlychallenging.4.Theapplicantofthedisputedtrademarksisalocally-ownedprivateenterpriseofacertainscale,withoutobviouslarge-scaleinfringementormaliciousimitationofothers’trademarks.LexFieldteamconductedadetailedreviewofthecaseevidenceandultimatelydecidedtofocusonthebreakthroughpointofthepriorrightsofthetradenameunderArticle32oftheTrademarkLawofChinainthiscase.Inresponsetotheabovechallenges,LexFieldteamemphasizedandsupplementedtargetedpointsduringthetrialprocessandinpost-trialwrittenopinions,includingthefollowing:1.Toaddress"doublejeopardy"issue,LexFieldteammeticulouslycomparedthegroundsandevidencepresentedinthetwoinvalidationproceedings.Weparticularlysupplementedafavorablejudgmentfromanothercasethatrecognizedtheclient'stradenamehadachievedacertainlevelofrecognitionasearlyas2015.Weemphasizedthatthisjudgmentwasnewlygeneratedaftertheinitiationofthefirstinvalidationproceeding,constitutingsubstantialnewevidence.Thisclaimwasacceptedbythecourt.2.Regardingtheterritorialissueoftheclient'spriortradenameright,LexFieldteamarguedthat,althoughtheforeignenterprisewasneitherregisteredinmainlandChina,nordirectlyconductingbusinesshere,throughextensivemediacoverage,onlinediscussions,andtechnicalexchanges,asoleassociationbetweenthetradenameandtheclienthasbeenestablishedamongtherelevantpublicinmainlandChina.Assuch,theclient'stradenamehadgeneratedlegalinterestsinmainlandChinaandshouldbeprotected.Thecourtupheldtheseargumentsandruledthatthedisputedtrademarksinfringedupontheclient’spriortradenamerights.Thejudgmentsfurthernotedthatallowingtrademarksidenticaltothewell-knowntradenamesofotherstocoexistwouldnotonlyharmpriorrightsholders,butalsodamageconsumerinterestsanddisruptmarketorder.SuchcoexistencewouldbedetrimentaltotheeffectivecultivationofindependentbrandsbyChineseenterprisesandtheirparticipationinbroaderinternationalcompetition,therebynegativelyimpactingtheirlong-termdevelopment.ThesecasesareofsignificantimportanceforforeignenterprisestosafeguardtheirrightsinmainlandChina.Thecourtdidnotadherestrictlytotheliteralterritorialprinciple,traditionalmodesoftradenameuse,orconventionalevidentiaryrequirementsforreputation.Instead,thecourtinterpretedthelawinlightofitslegislativeintentandthespecificcharacteristicsoftheartificialintelligenceindustry.Indoingso,theyprovidedeffectiveprotectionforthepriortradenamerightsofforeignenterprises.Atthesametime,thecourtalsoprovidedguidancefromabroaderperspective,aimingtoregulatethemarketorderandassistthehigh-qualitydevelopmentofprivateenterprisesinChina,fullydemonstratingtheorganicunityoflegaleffectandsocialimpact.

Recently,WorldTrademarkReview(WTR),aleadingmediaoutletinthefieldofintellectualproperty,publishedits2026WTR1000listofleadingtrademarklawfirmsworldwide.LexFieldlawofficesandmultiplepartnersfromtrademarkdepartmentwereincludedonthelist.Thismarksthe14thconsecutiveyearthatLexFieldhasbeenfeaturedonthislist,reflectingLexField’sexceptionalprofessionalcapabilitiesanditscontinuedpositionattheforefrontoftheindustry.Asanintellectualpropertyinformation,analysis,anddataplatform,WTRisoneoftheworld'sleadinglegalratingagencies.TheWTR1000listiscompiledbasedonin-depthresearchandselectionofglobaltrademarkpractitionersandtheirlawfirms,consideringfactorssuchasprofessionalperformance,clientrecommendations,andservicequality.Itholdsextremelyhighauthorityandreferencevalueintheglobaltrademarklegalindustry.ListedFieldsSilver-Firms:EnforcementandLitigationSilver-Firms:ProsecutionandStrategyListedLawyersSeniorpartnerJanLiuwasratedas"Luminaries";PartnerAmyZhangreceivedabronzeawardinthe"ProsecutionandStrategy"category;PartnerNancyZhangwonbronzeawardsinboththe"ProsecutionandStrategy"&“EnforcementandLitigation”categories;PartnerYuanYuanreceivedabronzeawardinthe"ProsecutionandStrategy"category.

Chambers&Partnersrecentlyannounced2026rankings.LexFieldandfivelawyershavebeenrankedintwocategoriesof"IntellectualPropertyLitigation"and"IntellectualPropertyNonlitigation".LexFieldhasbeenrankedfor13consecutiveyears,reflectingthatitsoverallstrengthcontinuestoremainamongthetoplawfirms.ListedFieldsIntellectualpropertylitigationIntellectualpropertynon-litigationListedLawyersSeniorpartnerJanLiuwasratedas"EminentPractitioner"in"Intellectualpropertynon-litigation";SeniorpartnerHongyiJiangwasratedas"Band1"leadinglawyerin"Intellectualpropertylitigation";PartnerDavidHuangwasratedas"Band4"leadinglawyerin"Intellectualpropertynon-litigation";PartnerHongbinZhangwasratedas"Band5"leadinglawyerin"Intellectualpropertylitigation";PartnerNancyZhangwasratedas"Band4"leadinglawyerin"Intellectualpropertynon-litigation".

OnDecember27,2025,theNationalPeople'sCongressofChinapublishedthe"TrademarkLaw(RevisedDraft)"(“RevisedDraft”)andsolicitedpubliccommentsuntilFebruary10,2026.Thisisthefinalroundofpublicconsultation.Unlesstherearisessomemajorpointsofdisagreement,thenewTrademarkLawisexpectedtobeapprovedandpromulgatedinaboutsixmonths.Unlikethe2023DraftforComment,thecurrentRevisedDraftdoesnotmakesubversivechangestotheexistingTrademarkLaw.Instead,itfocusesonresolvingprominentissuesinpracticeandelevatesmatureadministrativeandjudicialpracticestolegalprovisions.Thosehighlycontroversialprovisionsinthe2023DraftforCommentasbelowhaveallbeendeleted:Submittingstatementfortrademarkusestatuseveryfiveyearsaftertrademarkregistration;prohibitingrepeatedapplications,andcompulsorytransferofmalicioustrademarktobrandtrueownerIndividualclausesmaybeadjustedinsubsequentreviews,butmajorchangesareunlikely,anditisalsoimprobabletoreintroducethecontroversialclausesfromthe2023DraftforComment.TheRevisedDraftcontains9chaptersand84articles(comparedto8chaptersand73articlesinthecurrentlaw).Itembodiesthelegislativeshiftfromanemphasisonregistrationtoastrongerobligationoftrademarkuse.Keyamendmentsinclude:expandingthescopeofprotectablesigns;imposingpenaltiesforbad-faithtrademarkfilings,regulatingtrademarkuse;strengtheningtheprotectionofwell-knownmarks,andprohibitingabuseoftrademarkrights.ProceduralChanges1.ShortenOppositionperiodfrom3monthsto2monthstofurtherreducethetrademarkregistrationcycle(Article35).2.Specifyexaminationsuspensionrulesinadministrativeproceedingsofrightsvalidity(Paragraph1ofArticle40).Article40:Examinationinopposition,reviewofrefusal,reviewofnon-registration,andinvalidationcases"shallgenerallybesuspended"(incontrasttothecurrentlaw"maybesuspended")ifitsoutcomedependsontheresultofanothercasependingbeforeacourtortheadministrativecompetentauthorities.LexField:ThisprovisionformalizestheCNIPA's2023"SpecificationsonSuspensionCircumstancesinReviewCases"andcurrentpractice.However,neitherArticle40northeSpecificationsexplicitlystatewhetherexaminationshallawaitfinalandeffectivedecisionconcerningthecitedmark.Practicemayvaryandfurtherclarificationisanticipated.3.Acourtshallconsiderthecasecircumstancesexistingatthetimewhenappealeddecisionwasmadetohearthecaseandmakedecisionregardlesschangeofcircumstancesatthetimewhenthecourthearsthecase.(Paragraph2ofArticle40,highlycontroversialclause).Paragraph2ofArticle40:Whenacourtreviewsarefusalreviewdecision,anon-registrationreviewdecision,oraninvalidationdecision,itshallbaseitsjudgmentonthefactualcircumstancesexistingatthetimewhentheappealeddecisionorthedecisionofreviewofrefusalwasmade.LexField:Thisprovisionwillapparentlycausewasteofadministrativeresourcesandcomplicatethecaseproceedingsbecause,iftheobstaclefromthecitedmarkiscleared,e.g.cancelled,abandoned,orassigned,itisunnecessaryforthecourttomaintaintheappealeddecisionbasedonthecircumstancesatthetimeoftheCNIPAdecisionwhenthecitedmarkwasnotcleared.Itcouldbesubjecttofurtherimprovement.4.CNIPAmayinitiativelyrevoketrademarkregistrationsthathavenotbeenusedforthreeconsecutiveyearsorhavebeendilutedtobegenericterms(Paragraph2ofArticle56).TheRevisedDraftremovesthedraftprovisionoftrademarkownercommitmentforuseineveryfiveyearsbutaddsthisclausetostrengthentrademarkowner’suseobligation,whichismeanttoclearidletrademarks.LexField:Itwillbesubjecttoimplementingregulationsastohowtopracticethisclause.5.Motiontrademarkbecomesavailablefortrademarkprotection.(Article14).Tomeettheneedsofdigitaldevelopmentandprotection,motiontrademarkshallbeavailableforprotection.However,scentmarks,positionmarks,holograms,andtradedressremainunregistrable.6.Strengthenprotectionforwell-knowntrademarks.Unregisteredwell-knowntrademarksarenolongerlimitedtoprotectiononsimilargoodsorservices.Likeregisteredwell-knowntrademarks,unregisteredwell-knowntrademarksarealsoentitledtocross-classprotection(Article20).Historyrecordsofprotectionisaddedasafactortobeconsideredindeterminingwell-knowntrademarks.Thehistoryrecordsofprotectionrefertobothprotectionsasanon-well-knownmarkandwell-knownmark(Article62).LexField:Thisclausewillhelpincreasechancesofsuccessforthosefrequentlybeingimitatedtrademarkstoberecognizedaswell-knowntrademark.7.Consolidateandclarifythelegalbasisfortacklingbad-faithtrademarkapplications(keyclause,Article18).Article18:Applicationsfortrademarkregistrationthatarenotfiledforusepurposeandclearlyexceedtheapplicant’sbusinessneedsshallnotberegistered.LexField:Thisclauseisputinthechapteron"ConditionsforTrademarkRegistration".Itimpliesthatitisapplicabletoallproceedingsoftrademarkvalidityconfirmation,includingpreliminaryexamination,opposition,andinvalidation.Itmeansthat,duringtheCNIPApreliminaryexamination,theCNIPAmaydirectlyrejectmaliciousapplicationsaccordingtothisarticle.Itwillsignificantlystrengthenthecrackdownonmalicioustrademarkapplicationandsavecostandtimeresourcesfortruebrandowners.Howtodefine"applicationsthatclearlyexceedtrademarkapplicant’sbusinessneeds"andwhetheritincludesdefensiveregistrations,itwilldependonsubsequentreviewandjudicialpracticesandimplementingregulations.Itisprobablethattrademarkapplicationforreasonabledefensivepurposeandforsakeofforward-lookingtrademarkportfoliowillstillbepermitted.8.Penaltiesformalicioustrademarkapplicationbehaviors(Keyclause,Article53).Article53:Whereatrademarkregistrantcommitsanyofthefollowingmalicioustrademarkapplicationbehaviorsthatcausenegativeeffects,thecompetentauthoritiesresponsiblefortrademarkenforcementshallgiveawarningnotificationandmayimposeafineofnomorethanRMB100,000:(1)KnowinglyapplyingfortrademarkregistrationinviolationofArticle15ofthisLaw(MisleadingClause);(2)ApplyingfortrademarkregistrationinviolationofArticle18ofthisLaw(MaliciousTrademarkApplicationClause);(3)IntentionallyapplyingfortrademarkregistrationinviolationofArticles20to23ofthisLaw(Well-knownTrademarkClause,AgentSquattingClause,InfringementofPriorRightsClause).LexField:Thisclauseregulatesmalicioustrademarkregistrationbehaviors,andcommercialuseofsuchatrademarkisnotaprerequisiteforimposingpenalties.Itwillundoubtedlyfurtherstrengthenthecrackdownonfilingmalicioustrademarkapplications.Astohowtodefine"causingadverseeffects","knowingly",and"intentionally",itmaybefurtherspecifiedinsomethinglikesubsequentexaminationguidance.ItdoesnotprovidehowtoinitiateproceedingofgivingwarningandimposingpenaltiesbutwebelievethatpriortrademarkregistrationproprietorsandpriorpopulartrademarkownersshouldprobablybeinthepositiontofilecomplaintwithalocalAdministrationforMarket&Regulation(AMR)requestingpenaltyonthemalicioustrademarkapplicant.9.Crackdownon"usingregisteredtrademarksinamannerthatmisleadsthepublic"(keyclause,Article56).Article56:Wherearegisteredtrademarkisusedinamisleadingmanner,thecompetentauthoritiesresponsiblefortrademarkenforcementshallordercorrectionwithinaspecifiedperiodoftime.Ifthecorrectionisnotmadeinduetime,afineofnotmorethanRMB50,000shallbeimposed.Ifthecircumstancesareserious,theCNIPAshallrevoketheregisteredtrademark."Usingregisteredtrademarksinamisleadingmanner"includes:①misleadingregardingthecharacteristicsofgoodssuchasquality,specifications,orplaceoforigin(violationofabsoluteclauses);and②causingconfusionregardingthesourceofproducts(violationoftrademarksimilarityclauses),thatis,harmingtheinterestsofspecifictrademarkowners.Thisarticleregulatestheconsequencesofmisleadingeffectascausedbydeformeduseoftrademarksafterregistration.Inserioussituation,thetrademarkregistrationmayberevoked.Thisprovidesalegalbasisforcrackingdownonsneakybadfaithtrademarksasfrequentlyoccurinreality.Enforcement-RelatedChanges10.Theadministrativecompetentauthoritiesandjudicialauthoritiesareobligedtotransferatrademarkinfringementcasetoanothercompetentauthoritieswheretheyinvestigatethecaseandfindthecaseisnotsubjecttotheirresponsibilitybutsubjecttoanothercompetentauthorities(Article72).LexField:Thisarticleismadetoreducethecompetentauthorities’buckpassingofcasesandparticularlyfacilitatestheconnectionbetweenadministrativeinfringementactionandcriminalproceedingcaseinvolvingtrademarks.11.Enforcementlegalfeesshallbecalculatedandcompensatedseparatelyfromthestatutorydamages.(Paragraph2ofArticle74).Thisprovisionistoemphasizetheindependenceoftrademarkrightsprotectionexpenses.Itincreasestheinfringer’sliabilityofcompensation.ItisconsistentwiththecurrentjudicialpracticesandalignswiththeprovisionsofthecurrentCopyrightLawandPatentLaw.Insummary,theRevisedDraftprovidesfull-processregulationstoguidelegitimatetrademarkapplicationsandusebehaviors,andprovidesmoreremediesformoreeffectivelytacklingmalicioustrademarkapplicationsandimpropertrademarkusebehaviors.Itreturnstothelegislativeessencethattrademarkregistrationisbasedonuseneeds,andtheorderoflegalprovisionsismorelogicallyarranged.However,itisregrettablethatconsentletterpractice,whichhavereceivedhighattentioninpractice,isnotaddressed.Inaddition,itwillneedbeingfurtherregulatedregardinghowtoappropriatelyallowbothenterprises'forward-lookingtrademarkregistrationthatareyetforrecentactualusepurposeandensurepracticeoftheCNIPA’sexofficiocancellationbasedonnon-use.