The Subclass Shortcut: How China Determines Goods Similarity Differently from the World

One of the most frequent sources of confusion — and frustration — for foreign trade mark applicants in China is the subclass system. While most jurisdictions assess the similarity of goods and services on a case-by-case basis, considering factors like nature, purpose, and trade channels, China operates a mechanical classification system that largely predetermines the outcome. Understanding how this system works is essential for filing effective applications and avoiding unexpected refusals.

How the System Works

China uses the 45-class Nice Classification as the foundation of its system, but adds a critical layer: within each class, goods and services are divided into subclasses (sometimes called “similar groups”). Each subclass is assigned a code, and the CNIPA’s Classification of Similar Goods and Services (commonly called the “Classification Table” or “Subclass Table”) maps every standard goods and services description to one or more subclass codes.

The core rule is straightforward:

• Items in the same subclass are automatically deemed similar.
• Items in different subclasses are generally deemed dissimilar — even if they fall within the same Nice class.

This mechanical approach replaces the case-by-case analysis used in jurisdictions like the EU, US, and Singapore. CNIPA examiners do not typically exercise discretion to find goods similar across subclass boundaries during initial examination.

Why China Uses This System

The subclass system exists for efficiency. The CNIPA administers one of the largest trade mark registers in the world, processing millions of applications annually. With examination periods reduced to approximately four to five months, examiners need a rapid, consistent method for assessing goods similarity. The subclass system provides a standardised shortcut that eliminates subjective, time-consuming analysis for every application.

Practical Consequences

A Filing in One Subclass Does Not Cover the Entire Class

This is the single most important point for foreign applicants. Registering a mark in Class 25 (Clothing) does not protect you across all goods in that class. Class 25 contains multiple subclasses — for example, clothing, footwear, and headwear may fall in different subclasses. A registration covering “shirts” provides no protection against an identical mark registered for “shoes” if they are in different subclasses.

Class Headings Do Not Equal Full-Class Coverage

Filing a class heading does not automatically cover all items in the class. CNIPA treats class headings as specific items, not as umbrella descriptions. Applicants who file only the class heading may find significant gaps in their protection.

Marks Can Coexist Within the Same Class

Two identical marks owned by different parties can coexist on the register in the same Nice class, provided they cover goods in different subclasses. This is a result that would be unlikely in most other jurisdictions but is routine in China.

Cross-Subclass Similarity Is Possible but Rare

The Classification Table includes annotations that indicate where goods in one subclass are considered similar to goods in another subclass. These cross-references are exceptions to the general rule and must be checked carefully. Additionally, in opposition, invalidation, and court proceedings, the subclass boundaries can sometimes be argued more flexibly than during initial examination.

How This Differs from the EU and US

In the EU, the EUIPO assesses similarity of goods and services by examining their nature, intended purpose, method of use, whether they are in competition, and their usual distribution channels. The US similarly applies a multi-factor test. In both systems, the assessment is qualitative and case-specific.

China’s system is fundamentally different: it is code-based and mechanical. The examiner looks up the subclass code, compares it to the subclass codes of the cited mark, and applies the presumption of similarity or dissimilarity accordingly. While this makes the system more predictable, it can produce results that seem counterintuitive to foreign applicants.

The International Registration (Madrid) Problem

International registrations designating China through the Madrid System frequently suffer from insufficient subclass coverage. The goods and services descriptions in an IR are often drafted for other jurisdictions and may not map cleanly to China’s standard descriptions. As a result, the CNIPA may classify the goods into fewer subclasses than the applicant intended, leaving gaps that can be exploited by squatters.

For this reason, practitioners commonly recommend supplementing Madrid designations with direct national filings in China to ensure all relevant subclasses are covered.

Strategic Recommendations

• Use standard descriptions: Always use descriptions from the current edition of the CNIPA’s Classification Table. Non-standard descriptions may be rejected or classified into unexpected subclasses.
• Cover all relevant subclasses: For key marks, file applications covering as many relevant subclasses as possible within each class. This creates a broader defensive perimeter and deters squatters.
• Do not rely on class headings: File specific goods and services descriptions that cover the actual subclasses you need.
• Supplement Madrid designations: If you are designating China through the Madrid Protocol, review the subclass coverage and consider filing direct national applications to fill gaps.
• Check the Classification Table annotations: The annotations reveal cross-subclass similarity relationships that are not obvious from the class structure alone.

Common Mistakes

• Assuming class-wide protection: A registration in one subclass does not protect against identical marks in other subclasses within the same class.
• Using non-standard descriptions: The CNIPA may reject the application or classify goods into unexpected subclasses, undermining the filing strategy.
• Ignoring subclass gaps in Madrid designations: IR specifications frequently do not cover all the subclasses the brand owner needs in China.
• Expecting case-by-case similarity analysis: CNIPA examiners apply the Classification Table mechanically. Arguments that goods are “commercially related” despite being in different subclasses are unlikely to succeed during initial examination.

Key Takeaway

China’s subclass system is a mechanical classification tool that fundamentally determines the scope of trade mark protection. Goods in the same subclass are similar; goods in different subclasses are generally not — regardless of how commercially related they may be in reality. Foreign applicants must adapt their filing strategy to this system, covering all relevant subclasses with standard descriptions, rather than relying on the class-based approach used elsewhere in the world.