China’s trademark review is moving from uploads to evidence pipelines
China’s Trademark Office has announced the second phase of its integrated electronic evidence service platform for trademark review, opening a direct blockchain channel for case-related e-evidence. On paper, this looks like another system update. In practice, it reaches into one of the hardest parts of trademark review: how digital evidence enters the case file, how quickly it can be verified, and how convincingly it can be organized in two-party proceedings.
Read together with China’s broader move toward full electronic trademark processing, the change matters more than the interface suggests. From July 1, 2026, trademark matters handled through agents are expected to be filed electronically through the online service system, and the newly issued guidance on electronic evidence already sets tighter rules on formats, file size, evidence catalogues and confidential channels. The second-phase platform therefore signals a shift from simple uploading to evidence management. For brand owners, respondents and agents, that is a real change in case strategy.
Blockchain helps prove integrity, not the merits of the case
The practical value of a direct blockchain channel is not that it magically makes evidence stronger. Its real promise is narrower and more useful: it can make the path of collection, preservation and transmission easier to trace. If the platform can reduce disputes over whether a file was replaced, altered or assembled too late, parties and examiners may spend less time fighting about the mechanics of the record and more time on the substance.
That still does not mean evidence stored or linked through blockchain will automatically carry the case. Trademark review remains a fact-heavy exercise. Decision-makers still look at relevance, legality and whether the materials actually prove the point they are supposed to prove. A well-preserved screenshot is not enough if the trademark user cannot be identified, if the sales chain is incomplete, or if the platform page does not match the underlying transaction records. A better evidentiary floor is helpful, but it does not replace persuasion.
Evidence work moves upstream, and agents will feel it first
The newly issued guidance on electronic trademark evidence already shows the direction of travel. Evidence catalogues must be prepared carefully, materials are generally expected in PDF format, file naming and scanning standards matter, and capacity rules are now more concrete. Once the second-phase platform adds a direct blockchain channel, the real change for agents will not be learning one more technical feature. It will be getting involved earlier in evidence planning: which pages should be captured in original form, which transaction exports need source information, which videos should be converted into still frames with explanations, and which records should be preserved before response deadlines begin to close in.
That pushes practice away from last-minute uploading and toward evidence operations. Many teams still gather materials near the deadline, convert everything into PDFs and hope the record holds together. That approach becomes riskier when the system is designed around traceability and structure. The parties most likely to benefit are the ones that already keep platform data, advertising records, invoices, agreements, notarized materials and web captures in a coherent filing logic rather than in a scramble of folders.
Two-party proceedings will rely more on tiered evidence submissions
Another practical consequence is the growing importance of layered submissions. In proceedings that involve evidence exchange between both sides, such as opposition-related matters, non-use cancellation disputes and other review cases, the system already contemplates dedicated handling for materials containing trade secrets. That matters because some of the most probative documents in modern trademark disputes are also the least suitable for full disclosure: backend sales data, channel agreements, pricing structures, customer information and detailed media spend.
Once platform capabilities improve, a public set and a confidential set will likely become normal rather than exceptional. That raises the coordination burden inside companies. Legal, marketing, e-commerce, finance and outside counsel can no longer leave document sorting to the final few days. In a fully electronic path, poor version control becomes a real litigation problem. If the public file is too thin, the story collapses. If the confidential file is too broad, teams may mishandle what belongs in the restricted channel.
Online-trace cases will feel the change before anyone else
The first cases to be reshaped are unlikely to be those supported mainly by traditional paper records. The bigger impact will fall on disputes built on fast-moving digital traces: online sales and promotion evidence in non-use cases, reputation materials in bad-faith disputes, e-commerce listings, social media dissemination, livestream records and platform backend data. These files are numerous, volatile and difficult to align. The recurring weakness has not been the absence of screenshots; it has been the lack of a clean explanation of source, timing and linkage across different materials.
That is why the main signal from this second-phase rollout is not that proof will become easier. It is that rough, improvised proof will become harder to defend. Companies that want to stay ahead should not wait for a dispute to erupt before building their evidence process. Monitoring, capture, preservation, catalogue control and confidential routing need to become routine. The businesses that operationalize those steps first will have more room to maneuver in trademark review.
