The newly‑revised Trademark Law was adopted on June 26, 2026 and shall come into force on January 1, 2027. It is currently in the transitional window between adoption and entry‑into‑force. Meanwhile, the incident of nearly 200 entities filing for the “猪葛亮” (homophonic parody of historical figure Zhuge Liang) trademark keeps gaining public attention. Descendants of Zhuge Liang issued a joint statement for rights protection. Lawyers point out such filings may violate the “other adverse effects” clause under Article 10 of the Trademark Law.

Reading the new statutory provisions alongside this high‑profile case helps answer a practical question: after the new Trademark Law takes effect, to what extent will room for homophonic free‑riding filings on historical‑figure‑related signs be constrained?

Which Red Line Does “猪葛亮” Touch?

Replacing the character “诸” with “猪”, the mark bears high similarity in glyph and pronunciation, readily leading the public to associate it with Zhuge Liang. Lawyer Jin Jie from Beijing Zhishen Law Firm analyzes that as a household‑renowned ancient sage, Zhuge Liang’s name carries high public recognition and cultural value. “猪葛亮” objectively degrades his positive cultural image and falls under “other adverse effects” stipulated in Article 10.1 (8) of the Trademark Law, meaning such marks “should not be granted registration in the first place”.

One common misconception needs clarification: this clause safeguards public interests and public order, rather than private civil rights of specific individuals. Zhuge Liang passed away more than one thousand years ago; his descendants do not qualify as “close relatives” under legal definition and cannot file civil lawsuits directly based on reputational‑right infringement. Rights protection focuses not on family private interests, but on proving the trademark harms public interests. Available remedies include filing requests for invalidation of registered trademarks with the China National Intellectual Property Administration, or asserting rights via trademark opposition procedures.

Second Gate under the New Law: “Non‑use Purpose” Becomes an Independent Ground for Rejection

The “adverse‑effects” rule addresses whether a sign itself is eligible for trademark registration. Nevertheless, the “猪葛亮” incident reveals another layer of the problem: among nearly 200 filing entities, quite a number did not file for genuine business use, but for hoarding and speculative resale.

The old law already contained relevant rules: “Trademark applications filed in bad faith without intent to use shall be rejected”. Yet in practice, “bad‑faith” was subject to strict evidentiary thresholds. Usually parties had to wait until after registration to initiate invalidation proceedings, leading to long cycles and high costs.

The new law revises the rule. Revised Article 19 sets forth: “Where a trademark application is filed without intent to use and obviously exceeds the normal needs of production and business operation, registration shall be refused”. The word “bad faith” is removed, replaced by the more objective standard “obviously exceeding the normal needs of production and business operation”. This means examiners may reject applications directly at preliminary examination stage, without waiting for third‑party oppositions during the publication period. For already‑registered hoarded trademarks, the CNIPA may also invalidate them ex officio, and may impose warnings as well as fines up to RMB 100,000 for malicious filing conduct.

Two regulatory gates work in combination: marks like “猪葛亮” can hardly pass registration due to adverse‑effect concerns in the first place. Even if they slip past sign‑examination, applicants failing to prove genuine‑use intent will be blocked at preliminary examination under the new law.

Naming Red Lines for Market Players

Avoid shortcut thinking that creates vulgar homophonic variations. Where names of historical sages and cultural symbols are used in playful or derogatory ways, examination and judicial practice consistently adopt strict standards. Rejection decisions for trademarks related to cultural figures such as “Chang Xiangyu” and “Lao She” serve as references. Creative marketing may draw on cultural influence, but must not come at the cost of undermining the dignity of public cultural symbols.

Defensive trademark registration shall match business scale. The new Trademark Law does not prohibit defensive filing strategies. However, “obviously exceeding the normal needs of production and business operation” sets an objective threshold. Enterprises with limited annual revenue that file bulk registrations across all 45 classes for marks unrelated to their main business will face significantly higher risks of rejection or invalidation under the new law. Proactively clean up marks without concrete use plans, while retaining those with definite use roadmaps — this approach is more prudent than waiting for non‑use cancellation or ex‑officio invalidation.

The value of the “猪葛亮” case lies less in debating whether Zhuge Liang’s descendants can enforce rights, and more in its timing right at the old‑new‑law transition. It illuminates the evolution of two sets of rules: signs shall not violate public order and good morals; trademark filings shall be rooted in genuine‑use needs. The transitional window still exists, yet room for homophonic free‑riding trademark filings has shrunk substantially.