By Michael Li
China’s National Intellectual Property Administration and the General Administration of Customs have issued a joint opinion strengthening cooperation on intellectual property protection. Dated October 8 and published on October 14, 2026, the document addresses information sharing, investigative assistance and technical support in cases involving imported and exported goods.
For brand owners and manufacturers, the development places renewed emphasis on accurate rights records and coordination between intellectual property management and border enforcement.
The opinion provides for exchanges of trademark and patent information, including relevant trademark cancellations and invalidations, customs recordation data and enforcement information.
It also establishes mutual assistance arrangements for investigations. Customs may seek support when examining suspected infringement, including assistance with technical patent issues and verification of trademark information.
The document encourages eligible rights holders in specified areas, including the photovoltaic industry, to apply for customs IP recordation. It does not announce automatic recordation of every registered trademark.
A published collection of China Customs’ 2024 IP protection cases provides a concrete example of the issues involved.
In March 2024, Shanghai Customs identified 737 solar modules, declared as unbranded, that were suspected of infringing the SUNTECH word-and-device trademark. Their reported value was RMB 243,800.
Further investigation identified 2,480 solar modules suspected of infringing the JINKO trademark, with a reported value of RMB 1.09 million. Following confirmation by the rights holders, Customs detained the goods and subsequently imposed confiscation and fines.
These enforcement actions preceded the October 2026 opinion. They illustrate the practical relevance of export-side trademark enforcement, rather than results attributable to the new cooperation measures.
The operational implication is that trademark administration should remain connected to the supply chain.
A useful internal review brings together registration records, ownership changes, manufacturing authorisations, product photographs and the marks appearing on packaging.
Where products carry Chinese-language branding, the review should also consider whether the relevant names have been assessed separately. Our discussion of Chinese brand-name protection explains why a business should not assume that different language versions receive identical coverage.
Businesses should also identify who can respond promptly when questions arise about a shipment. A legal department may hold the registration certificate while a procurement team holds the manufacturer’s authorisation and product specifications. Bringing those records together can make an assessment more efficient.
The joint opinion supports better coordination, but rights holders should not interpret it as a guarantee that every infringing shipment will be identified.
Companies considering customs protection should review their specific rights, the available procedures and the information needed for the relevant application or response.
Exporters should likewise establish a documented process for checking the authority to manufacture and ship branded goods.
No. The document refers to facilitating and encouraging applications for customs recordation.
Yes. Patent-related information sharing, investigative assistance and technical support are expressly addressed.
No. The cases occurred in 2024, before the opinion was issued.
IPcrossark can receive enquiries concerning trademark applications, changes, renewals and transfers through its contact page.
For a matter involving cross-border goods, include the relevant trademark records, product details and shipment circumstances so that the required service scope can be clarified.
Fields marked * are required. We usually reply within one business day.
We will reply by email within one business day. This window will close automatically.
