《集成电路布图设计保护条例》修订
Revision of the Regulations on Protection of Integrated Circuit Layout-Designs
中华人民共和国国务院令
Decree of the State Council of the People's Republic of China
第842号
No. 842
《集成电路布图设计保护条例》已经2026年7月10日国务院第91次常务会议修订通过，现予公布，自2026年10月15日起施行。
The Regulations on Protection of Integrated Circuit Layout-Designs, as revised and adopted at the 91st executive meeting of the State Council on July 10, 2026, are hereby promulgated and shall come into effect on October 15, 2026.
总理 李强
Premier LI Qiang
2026年7月23日
July 23, 2026
附全文：集成电路布图设计保护条例
Full text attached hereto: Regulations on Protection of Integrated Circuit Layout-Designs
（来源：中国政府网）
(Source: The Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China)
中欧专利审查高速路试点自2026年8月1日启动
China-Europe Patent Prosecution Highway Pilot Launched on August 1, 2026
经中国国家知识产权局与欧洲专利局的共同决定，中欧专利审查高速路（PPH）试点自2026年8月1日启动。
By a joint decision of the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and the European Patent Office (EPO), the China-Europe Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot program was officially launched on August 1, 2026.
中欧PPH试点启动以后，双方申请人可以按照中欧专利审查高速路试点项目下提出PPH请求的流程，向中国国家知识产权局或欧洲专利局提出PPH请求。
Since the launch of the pilot program, applicants from both sides may file PPH requests with either the CNIPA or the EPO in accordance with the procedures for requesting PPH under the China-Europe PPH pilot program.
（来源：中国国家知识产权局网站）
(Source: Official Website of the China National Intellectual Property Administration)
中加（拿大）专利审查高速路试点项目延长
China-Canada Patent Prosecution Highway Pilot Program Extended
根据中国国家知识产权局和加拿大知识产权局的共同决定，中加（拿大）专利审查高速路（PPH）试点项目将自2026年9月1日起延长五年，至2031年8月31日止。在两局提交PPH请求的有关要求和流程不变。
By a joint decision of the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO), the China-Canada Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot program will be extended for five years, effective from September 1, 2026 to August 31, 2031. The relevant requirements and procedures for filing PPH requests with both offices remain unchanged.
（来源：中国国家知识产权局网站）
(Source: Official Website of the China National Intellectual Property Administration)
中印（尼）专利审查高速路试点自2026年8月1日启动
China-Indonesia Patent Prosecution Highway Pilot Program Launched on August 1, 2026
根据中国国家知识产权局和印度尼西亚共和国司法部知识产权总司的共同决定，中印（尼）专利审查高速路（PPH）试点项目自2026年8月1日启动，期限为五年。
By a joint decision of the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP), Ministry of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia, the China-Indonesia Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot program was officially launched on August 1, 2026, with a duration of five years.
中印（尼）PPH试点启动以后，双方申请人可以按照中印（尼）专利审查高速路试点项目下提出PPH请求的流程，向中国国家知识产权局或印度尼西亚共和国司法部知识产权总司提出PPH请求。
Since the launch of the pilot program, applicants from both sides may file PPH requests with either CNIPA or the DGIP of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia, in accordance with the procedures for requesting PPH under the China-Indonesia PPH pilot program.
（来源：中国国家知识产权局网站）
(Source: Official Website of the China National Intellectual Property Administration)
典型案例：
Cases in Spotlight:
集佳代理“TATA木门”首获行政认驰，成功无效多枚含“TATA”商标
"TATA Doors" Represented by Unitalen Achieves First Administrative Recognition of Well-Known Trademark, Successfully Invalidating Multiple TATA Copycat Trademarks
基本案情
Case Brief
浙江闼闼木门有限公司（以下简称“闼闼公司”或“委托人”）自2003年起在“非金属门”等商品上使用
商标，经过持续经营和宣传使用，已经为相关公众所广泛知晓。第三人苏州博士隆智能家居有限公司（以下简称“博士隆公司”）自2017年起，在多个商品类别上批量申请注册了包括“TATAZNJJ”“TATAZNS”在内的70余件与闼闼公司“TATA”系列商标近似的标识。集佳代理委托人针对其中多枚商标向国家知识产权局提起无效宣告请求。
Since 2003, Zhejiang TATA Doors Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "TATA" or "Principal") has been using its trademark 
on goods such as "non-metal doors". With continuous business operations, promotion, and use, the trademark has become widely known to the relevant public. Since 2017, the third party, Suzhou Boshilong Smart Home Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Boshilong"), has filed batch applications to register over 70 marks similar to the Principal's "TATA" trademarks across multiple classes of goods, including "TATAZNJJ" and "TATAZNS". Unitalen represented the Principal in filing invalidity requests against multiple of these trademarks with the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA).
在行政阶段，闼闼公司提交了销售合同、审计报告、广告宣传合同及发票、国家图书馆检索报告、行业协会推荐函、在先民事判决等大量证据，用以证明“TATA木门”商标已达到驰名程度，且第三人的诉争商标构成对驰名商标的复制摹仿。然而，国家知识产权局作出被诉裁定，仅认定诉争商标在部分商品上与引证商标构成近似并予以无效宣告，并未支持闼闼公司关于驰名商标保护的主张，因此维持了大部分商品的注册。
During the administrative stage, TATA submitted a substantial amount of evidence, including sales contracts, audit reports, advertising contracts and invoices, search reports from the National Library, recommendation letters from industry associations, and prior civil judgments, in order to prove that the "TATA Doors" trademark had achieved well-known status and that the disputed trademarks of the third party constituted reproduction and imitation of the well-known trademark. However, the CNIPA rendered the contested ruling, finding only that the disputed trademarks were similar to the cited trademark on certain goods and invalidating them accordingly. It did not support TATA's claim for well-known trademark protection, thereby maintaining the registration of the disputed trademarks on the majority of the goods.
闼闼公司向北京知识产权法院提起行政诉讼。一审法院经审理后，全面推翻了被诉裁定中关于驰名商标认定的结论，首次在行政诉讼中认定闼闼公司“TATA木门”商标在“非金属门”商品上已构成驰名商标，并依据《中华人民共和国商标法》第十三条第三款判决撤销被诉裁定，判令国家知识产权局重新作出裁定。
TATA then filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. After trial, the court of first instance comprehensively overturned the conclusions set out in the contested ruling regarding recognition of the well-known trademark. For the first time in administrative litigation, the court recognized that the Principal's "TATA Doors" trademark had constituted a well-known trademark on "non-metal doors". In accordance with Article 13, Paragraph 3 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, the court ruled to revoke the contested ruling and ordered the CNIPA to render a new ruling.
国家知识产权局及博士隆公司均不服一审判决，向北京市高级人民法院提起上诉，主张一审判决对驰名商标的认定有误。北京市高级人民法院经开庭审理，作出二审终审判决，驳回上诉，维持原判。
Both CNIPA and Boshilong disagreed with the first-instance judgment and filed appeals with the Beijing High People's Court, arguing that the recognition of the well-known trademark in the first-instance judgment was erroneous. After conducting an open trial, the Beijing High People's Court rendered a second-instance judgment as the final judgment, dismissing the appeal and affirming the original judgment.
案件意义
Case Significance
本案系“
”商标首次在商标行政诉讼中被认定为驰名商标。本次行政诉讼中的驰名商标认定为后续的商标授权确权行政案件提供了范本，为系列维权行动提供了坚实的权利基础。另外，本案是闼闼公司针对博士隆公司名下的含“TATA”系列商标提起的批量无效宣告案件，该系列商标的无效，有力净化了市场环境，捍卫了闼闼公司多年积累的品牌商誉。
The present case marks the first time the trademark "
" has been recognized as a well-known trademark in an administrative trademark litigation. The recognition of the well-known trademark in this administrative litigation sets a precedent for subsequent administrative cases concerning trademark authorization and confirmation and provides a solid foundation for rights protection measures. In addition, the present case is one of a batch-invalidation cases filed by TATA against the TATA copycat trademarks registered under the name of Boshilong. The invalidation of these trademarks has effectively purified the market environment and safeguarded the brand goodwill cast by TATA over the years.
集佳代理TATA撤三系列案二审全面改判，成功撤销多枚含“TATA”商标
Unitalen Represents TATA in Complete Reversal of Second-Instance Rulings for Cases of Cancellation of Trademarks for Non-use for Three Consecutive Years, Successfully Cancelling Multiple TATA Copycat Trademarks
基本案情
Case Brief
第三人苏州博士隆智能家居有限公司（以下称“博士隆公司”）名下注册了多枚包含“TATA”的商标，包括“TATAAQM”“TATAZN”“TATAZTJJ”等，涵盖第6类、第9类、第11类等多个商品类别。集佳代理委托人针对上述系列商标，以连续三年不使用为由向国家知识产权局提起撤销申请。
The third party, Suzhou Boshilong Smart Home Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Boshilong"), had registered multiple TATA copycat trademarks, including "TATAAQM", "TATAZN", and "TATAZTJJ", covering various classes of goods, including Class 6, Class 9, and Class 11. Unitalen represented the Principal in filing cancellation applications with the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) against the aforementioned trademarks on the grounds of non-use for three consecutive years.
博士隆公司提交了商标许可使用授权书、被许可人销售合同、银行回单及销售发票等使用证据。国家知识产权局经审查作出撤销复审决定，认定在案证据能够证明诉争商标在指定期间在核定使用商品上进行了公开、真实、合法的商业使用，决定对诉争商标予以维持。一审法院亦认为博士隆公司提交的销售合同及发票均显示有商品和诉争商标，足以证明在指定期间销售了带有诉争商标的商品，且使用行为构成一定数量和规模，并非象征性使用，维持了诉争商标的注册。
Boshilong submitted evidence of use, including trademark license documents, licensees' sales contracts, bank receipts, and sales invoices. After examination, the CNIPA issued a decision on the review of cancellation, determining that the evidence on record could prove that the disputed trademarks had been subjected to open, genuine, and lawful commercial use on the approved goods during the designated period, and decided to uphold the registration of the disputed trademarks. The court of first instance also held that the sales contracts and invoices submitted by Boshilong identified both the goods and the disputed trademarks and were sufficient to prove the sale of goods bearing the disputed trademarks during the designated period. The court further determined that the use reached a satisfactory quantity and scale and was not token use, thereby upholding the registration of the disputed trademarks.
委托人不服一审判决，向北京市高级人民法院提起上诉。
Dissatisfied with the judgment of first instance, the Principal filed an appeal with the Beijing High People's Court.
北京市高级人民法院作出二审判决，认定第三人提交的使用证据“不能唯一指向诉争商标，且不符合通常交易习惯”，不足以证明诉争商标在指定期间内在核定使用商品上进行了真实、合法、有效的商业使用，撤销多枚第三人注册的含“TATA”商标。
In its judgment of second instance, the Beijing High People's Court determined that the evidence of use submitted by the third party "could not exclusively point to the disputed trademarks and did not conform to common business practices"; thus, it was insufficient to prove genuine, lawful, and effective commercial use of the disputed trademarks on the approved goods during the designated period. Consequently, the court canceled multiple TATA copycat trademarks registered by the third party.
案件意义
Case Significance
本案厘清“撤三”案件中商标使用的证明标准。二审判决明确指出，当合同及发票中同时出现多枚不同商标、商标数量远超商品数量且无法唯一指向诉争商标时，该类证据不能证明诉争商标的实际商业使用。这一裁判标准对于规范“撤三”案件中的证据审查尺度具有重要参考价值。
The present case clarifies the standard of proof for trademark use in cases of "cancellation of trademarks for non-use for three consecutive years". The judgment of the second instance has explicitly pointed out that when contracts and invoices simultaneously contain multiple different trademarks, and when the number of trademarks far exceeds the quantity of goods, making it impossible to exclusively point to the disputed trademarks, such contracts and invoices shall not be deemed satisfactory evidence to prove actual commercial use of the disputed trademarks. This adjudication standard serves as a significant reference for regulating the scope of evidence review in cases involving "cancellation of trademarks for non-use for three consecutive years".
另外，本案系针对博士隆公司名下“TATA”系列商标提起的批量撤销案件。博士隆公司名下注册了多枚与知名品牌近似的“TATA”系列商标，其在各案中提交的使用证据完全相同、内容存疑，反映出明显的象征性使用特征。本案的胜诉有力地打击了此类不以真实使用为目的的商标注册行为，维护了商标注册秩序的健康运行。
In addition, the present case is one of batch-cancellation cases filed against the TATA copycat trademarks registered under the name of Boshilong. Boshilong had registered multiple copycat trademarks similar to the well-known brand "TATA". The evidence of use submitted by Boshilong in each case was identical and questionable in content, reflecting obvious characteristics of token use. The victory in the present case marks a ruthless crackdown on trademark registration practices lacking genuine use intent, safeguarding the healthy trademark registration order.
集佳新闻：
Unitalen News:
集佳律所荣登律新社“品牌影响力律所”，李春亚律师荣获“实力律师”称号
Unitalen Named the "Law Firm with Brand Influence" by LEGAL VISION; Attorney LI Chunya Awarded the Title of "Eminent Lawyer"
2026年7月18日，律新社隆重发布《精品法律服务品牌指南（2026）》，北京市集佳律师事务所成功入选“律新社2026年度知识产权领域品牌影响力律所”；同时，集佳合伙人李春亚律师荣膺“律新社2026年度知识产权领域品牌之星：实力律师”称号。
On July 18, 2026, Legal Vision officially released the Guide to Boutique Legal Service Brands (2026). Unitalen Law Office was successfully selected as the "2026 IP Law Firm with Brand Influence" by Legal Vision. Meanwhile, Attorney LI Chunya, the Unitalen Partner, was honored with the title of "2026 IP Brand Star: Eminent Lawyer" by Legal Vision.
.jpg)