Forbidden Signs: Understanding Article 10 and Public Interest Refusals in China

China’s trade mark system contains a set of restrictions that go further than any other major jurisdiction: the absolute prohibitions under Article 10 of the Trademark Law. Unlike descriptiveness or similarity objections, Article 10 is an absolute bar to both registration and use. A mark that violates Article 10 cannot be registered, cannot be used commercially, and — if used after refusal — may result in administrative fines imposed by local Market Supervision Administrations. There is no acquired distinctiveness exception. Understanding what triggers Article 10 is essential for any business entering the Chinese market.

What Article 10 Covers

Article 10 lists nine categories of signs that are prohibited from use as trade marks. These fall into two broad groups: signs that conflict with state sovereignty and official symbols, and signs that conflict with public morality and public interest.

State Symbols and Official Marks (Article 10(1)(1)–(5))

The following are absolutely prohibited:

• Signs identical or similar to the state name, national flag, national emblem, or military flag of the People’s Republic of China, or to the names of the places where central and state organs are located, or to landmark buildings.
• Signs identical or similar to the state names, national flags, or emblems of foreign countries (unless the foreign government consents).
• Signs identical or similar to the names, flags, or emblems of international intergovernmental organisations (unless the organisation consents or the use would not mislead).
• Signs identical or similar to official control or warranty marks (unless authorised).
• Signs identical or similar to the symbols of the Red Cross or Red Crescent.

Geographic Names (Article 10(1)(6)–(7))

Administrative division names at or above the county level, and foreign geographic names well-known to the public, are generally prohibited. However, geographic names that have other meanings or are part of a collective mark or certification mark may be excepted. Article 10(1)(7) bars marks that are deceptive or fraudulent in their advertising of goods — for example, exaggerating quality or misleading consumers about origin.

The “Unhealthy Influence” Clause (Article 10(1)(8))

This is the broadest and most consequential provision. It prohibits signs that are “detrimental to socialist morals or customs, or having other unhealthy influences.” The CNIPA’s 2021 Examination Guidelines define “socialist moral standards” as the principles, norms, and prevailing customs of public life during a specific period. “Other unhealthy influences” extends to signs containing derogatory meanings or perceived negative impacts on China’s political, economic, cultural, religious, and ethnic interests.

This clause has been applied to refuse marks with vulgar connotations, political references, cultural sensitivities, references to national heroes or military terms used inappropriately, and marks that touch on banned industries (such as cryptocurrency-related terms following the 2021 ban).

The Critical Difference: Article 10 vs. Article 11

This distinction is one of the most important in Chinese trade mark law:

• Article 10 prohibits both registration and use. A mark refused under Article 10 cannot be used commercially at all. Using it risks administrative penalties.
• Article 11 (descriptiveness) prohibits registration only. The mark may still be used in commerce — it simply cannot be registered as a trade mark.

Furthermore, Article 10 refusals generally cannot be overcome by acquired distinctiveness. No amount of commercial use can make a prohibited sign registrable if it falls within Article 10’s scope.

Enforcement and Administrative Penalties

Since the CNIPA issued its 2021 “Standards for Determining General Trademark Violations,” enforcement of Article 10 has increased. Local Market Supervision Administrations can impose fines and order cessation of use. Between 2019 and 2025, enforcement activity spiked notably in 2024, driven by cases involving national pride, military symbols, and public health claims.

Enforcement remains selective and regionally concentrated, but the trend is toward broader application. The CNIPA has become increasingly strict in applying Articles 10(1)(7) and 10(1)(8), with 2024 data showing over 26,000 appeals involving deceptive marks, and approximately 88% of those refusals upheld on appeal.

Appealing an Article 10 Refusal

An applicant may appeal an Article 10 refusal to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) within 15 days of receiving the refusal notice. If the TRAB upholds the refusal, the applicant may further appeal to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court and ultimately to the Beijing High Court.

However, the success rate on appeal for Article 10(1)(7) and (8) refusals is extremely low. The CNIPA’s high refusal upheld rate means applicants should carefully assess whether an appeal is worth the cost and exposure — noting that TRAB decisions are publicly available in China.

Strategic Implications

• Pre-filing screening is essential: Before filing in China, assess whether the mark contains any element — including cultural connotations, homophone meanings in Chinese, or visual similarities to state symbols — that could trigger Article 10.
• Consider Chinese-language meanings: A mark that is innocuous in English may have vulgar, politically sensitive, or culturally inappropriate connotations in Mandarin, Cantonese, or regional dialects.
• Do not use a refused mark: Unlike Article 11 refusals, an Article 10 refusal means the mark cannot be used at all in China. Continuing to use it risks fines and enforcement action.
• Monitor evolving standards: The CNIPA’s interpretation of “unhealthy influence” evolves with political and social developments. Terms that were acceptable five years ago may not be acceptable today.

Common Mistakes

• Assuming Article 10 only covers state flags: The “unhealthy influence” clause is extremely broad and covers cultural, political, and moral sensitivities.
• Using a refused mark commercially: This is not just a missed registration opportunity — it is a violation that can result in administrative penalties.
• Attempting to claim acquired distinctiveness: Article 10 prohibitions cannot be overcome by evidence of use. This path is only available for Article 11 refusals.
• Ignoring Chinese phonetics: Transliteration into Chinese characters may produce unintended meanings that fall within Article 10’s scope.

Key Takeaway

Article 10 represents the most absolute restriction in Chinese trade mark law. It bars both registration and use, cannot be overcome by distinctiveness evidence, and carries the risk of administrative penalties for non-compliance. For foreign brands, the broadest trap is Article 10(1)(8) — the “unhealthy influence” clause — which the CNIPA interprets expansively and applies with increasing strictness. Pre-filing due diligence with experienced local counsel is not optional; it is the only reliable safeguard.