How to Find Similar China Trademark Classes Before Filing

Filing a trademark in China without checking similar classes is one of the most common — and most avoidable — reasons applications get rejected. China’s register now holds close to 50 million active marks, and examiners reject applications the moment they spot a conflict within the same or a similar class [1]. This guide covers what similar classes mean under Chinese law, why the rules just changed in 2026, and how to run the search yourself — or know what your trademark agent should be doing for you.

1. What “Similar Classes” Actually Means Under Chinese Trademark Law

Nice Classification vs. China’s Similar Group System

China uses the Nice Classification, the same international system most countries rely on, dividing all goods and services into 45 classes — Classes 1 through 34 cover goods, Classes 35 through 45 cover services. But China does not stop there. Building on the Nice Classification, CNIPA publishes its own Classification Table of Similar Goods and Services, breaking every class into smaller units called similar groups. Each carries a four-digit code: the first two digits identify the class, the last two identify the group within it. Cosmetics, for example, sit in group 0306, within Class 3. This extra layer exists because two products can share a Nice class yet have almost nothing in common commercially. For a broader walkthrough, see our complete guide to China trademark search.

The Core Rule — and Its Limits

The working rule CNIPA examiners apply is simple: goods or services within the same similar group are, in principle, treated as similar; goods in different groups are, in principle, not similar. Where a group is internally split into subsections — marked (1), (2), and so on — only items within the same subsection are similar to one another. This rule is what most rejections under China’s first-to-file system trace back to.

Legal basis — PRC Trademark Law, Article 30: “Where a trademark for which registration is applied for is not in compliance with the relevant provisions of this Law, or is identical with or similar to a trademark already registered or preliminarily approved by another party in respect of the same or similar goods, the Trademark Office shall reject the application and shall not publish the trademark.” [3]

Legal basis — Supreme People’s Court Interpretation on Trademark Civil Disputes, Article 11: Similar goods are defined as those sharing common ground in function, use, production department, sales channels, or target consumers, or which the relevant public generally believes to be specifically connected in a way likely to cause confusion. [4]

These two provisions are the legal backbone behind every similar class search. Article 30 is the rejection trigger; Article 11 is the definition examiners and courts use to decide whether that trigger applies. If your application has already been rejected on similarity grounds, our guide on China trademark rejection reasons and solutions covers the response process.

2. Why This Matters More Than Ever in 2026

China’s Filing Volume Is at a Record High

The scale of China’s trademark register is the main reason similar class search has become non-negotiable. As of end-2025, China held 49.877 million effective registered trademarks domestically, excluding Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan [1]. During 2025 alone, CNIPA registered 4.206 million new trademarks, concluded 384,000 trademark review cases, and handled 112,000 opposition cases, with an average four-month examination cycle and a pass rate above 97% [1]. China also received 6,718 Madrid Protocol applications from Chinese applicants in 2025, reflecting active outbound brand activity [1].

With tens of millions of live marks on the register, the odds of an unintentional overlap inside your target similar group — or an adjacent one — are far higher than most foreign applicants expect. A search limited to “does anyone have my exact name in my exact class” misses most real conflict risk. Article 30 rejections specifically target similarity within the same or similar goods, which is exactly the layer a shallow, single-class search cannot see [3]. This is why professional pre-filing searches, like the ones described in our China trademark search tool guide, focus on similar-group logic rather than exact-match lookups alone.

What Changed in the 2026 Classification Table

On top of rising filing volume, the classification rules themselves just shifted. The World Intellectual Property Organization’s Nice Classification 13th Edition took effect globally on January 1, 2026, and CNIPA’s Trademark Office adjusted the Classification Table of Similar Goods and Services accordingly [2]. Applications filed on or after January 1, 2026 must use the new table; applications filed before that date remain governed by the prior edition, and existing registrations are unaffected [2]. Three changes matter most for search accuracy this year:

A search run against last year’s table can return a false sense of clearance. If your goods touch eyewear, wearable tech, or AI-related services, re-running the search against the current 2026 table before filing is essential.

3. Step-by-Step: How to Conduct a Similar Class Search

Step 1 — Identify Your Goods or Services’ Class and Similar Group

Start by pinning down which Nice class your goods or services fall under, then locate the specific four-digit similar group inside that class. Cosmetics, for instance, sit in similar group 0306 within Class 3. Skipping straight to a keyword search without first identifying the correct group is the most common reason applicants miss adjacent risk.

Step 2 — Search Within the Same Similar Group

Log in to the China Trademark Network (the official CNIPA search portal at wcjs.sbj.cnipa.gov.cn) and open the trademark similarity search function. Enter the international class number along with the similar group code — multiple codes can be entered together, separated by a semicolon (for example, 0901;0908). The system returns existing identical or similar marks registered within that group, forming your baseline risk picture.

Step 3 — Expand to Cross-Group and Cross-Class Searches

This is the step most applicants skip, and it causes the most preventable rejections. Standard searches usually run against a single class or group, missing two categories of risk:

• Cross-similar-group risk: different groups within the same class can still be similar due to annotated notes. Group 0301 (“cleaning preparations”) and group 0306 (“cosmetics”) in Class 3 are cross-referenced, so a search limited to one is incomplete.
• Cross-class risk: in limited cases, different classes are treated as similar because purpose and content overlap — Class 35 “advertising” and Class 42 “design services” is a commonly cited example.

A search built only around your primary class systematically undercounts risk. Our team’s guide to mastering CNIPA trademark search breaks down how professional searches structure this expansion.

Step 4 — Check the “Notes” and Special Cross-Reference Rules

Underneath each similar group, CNIPA publishes annotated “Notes” that spell out inclusions, exclusions, and cross-reference relationships not obvious from the group name alone. Under group 0907 (“communication and navigation equipment”), for example, the note specifies that “telephones” are treated as similar to the fax equipment in group 0903 — a connection you would never catch by reading group titles alone. Reading these notes for every group your goods touch is what separates a professional-grade search from a keyword search. Our pre-filing trademark check guide and brand name availability search guide cover this in more detail.

4. Beyond the Table: When the Classification Table Doesn’t Tell the Whole Story

The “Related Public Perception” Test

The classification table cannot list every possible similar good or service in existence. Article 12 of the Supreme People’s Court’s interpretation makes clear the table is a reference tool, not the final word — courts and examiners judge similarity based on the relevant public’s general perception [4]. In practice, that judgment weighs six factors:

A similar class search is therefore not a mechanical lookup — it is a legal judgment exercise informed by the table, not dictated by it. Two goods can sit in separate similar groups and still be found similar if a consumer would reasonably assume they came from the same source.

Well-Known Trademarks and Cross-Class Protection

China’s Trademark Law carves out a specific exception for marks that qualify as well-known: their protection is not confined to the registered class at all. Under Article 13 of the Trademark Law, a well-known mark can block conflicting applications in unrelated classes if use would mislead the public or damage the earlier owner’s interests. If a prior mark you are searching against has well-known status, its practical protection zone can extend far beyond anything the similar group table suggests — one more reason comprehensive, professionally guided searches matter more than a single database lookup. See our overview of defensive trademark strategies in China and how trademark squatting works in China.

5. A Worked Example: Searching a Cosmetics Brand Name

To see how the four steps come together, consider a US skincare brand preparing to file in China for a facial serum line.

Step 1: The applicant identifies Class 3 and confirms the product sits in similar group 0306 (“cosmetics”), not group 0301 (“cleaning preparations”), based on the product’s function.

Step 2: A search of similar group 0306 on the China Trademark Network turns up no identical or phonetically similar marks — the baseline search looks clear.

Step 3: Because groups 0301 and 0306 are cross-referenced, the applicant expands to 0301 and finds a registered mark with a near-identical English name covering “cleaning preparations for cosmetic purposes.” Under Article 30, this prior mark is a live conflict risk even in a different similar group [3].

Step 4: Reading the annotated notes under group 0306 confirms certain personal-care items in group 0308 also cross-reference — prompting one more targeted search before filing.

What looked like a clear result in Step 2 became a real conflict once Steps 3 and 4 were applied. This is the gap between a surface-level check and a search built to withstand CNIPA examination. For applicants who want this handled end-to-end, YCIP’s trademark and copyright services include full similar-group and cross-class clearance searches as part of the filing process.

6. Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

Each mistake is preventable, and each is also a leading cause of Article 30 rejections in practice. If you’ve already run into one of these issues, see our guide on understanding a CNIPA trademark rejection notice, or our guide to appealing a refusal based on similarity if a rejection has already been issued.

7. Final Checklist Before Filing

• Confirmed the correct Nice class and similar group for your goods or services
• Completed a same-similar-group search on the China Trademark Network
• Completed a cross-similar-group search based on annotated Notes
• Considered cross-class similarity where business logic connects two classes
• Confirmed the search was run against the current 2026 classification table
• Considered well-known trademark cross-class protection risk
• Prepared specific goods or service item names, not similar group category names, for the application

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a trademark similar group in China?

A similar group is a subdivision within the Classification Table of Similar Goods and Services, one level more specific than a Nice Classification class, represented by a four-digit code — the first two digits for the class, the last two for the group. CNIPA groups goods or services sharing common function, use, materials, sales channels, or target consumers into the same group. Goods within the same group are, in principle, treated as similar.

How do I search China trademark similar groups?

You can search through: (1) the China Trademark Network (wcjs.sbj.cnipa.gov.cn), using the similarity search function with your class and similar group codes; (2) the goods/services item lookup by class, group, item name, or code; (3) the official Classification Table of Similar Goods and Services published by CNIPA’s Trademark Office; and (4) the CNIPA website, searching for the “Nice Classification NCL13-2026 Text” cross-reference document.

What does cross-class similarity mean in China?

Cross-class similarity means goods or services in different classes — or different similar groups within the same class — can still be found similar. This happens in three scenarios: cross-group similarity flagged by annotated Notes (groups 0301 and 0306 in Class 3, for example); cross-class similarity where purpose and content overlap (Class 35 “advertising” and Class 42 “design services”); and well-known trademark protection, which can extend across classes entirely. A search limited to one class misses all three.

What changed in the 2026 China trademark classification table?

Effective January 1, 2026, China adopted the Nice Classification 13th Edition (2026 Text), and CNIPA updated the Classification Table of Similar Goods and Services accordingly [2]. Three changes stand out: cross-class migration (eyewear moved from Class 9 to a new group in Class 10); new-economy categories (additions such as agricultural harvesting robots and AI-as-a-Service); and refinement of existing group names and structures.

What is the legal basis for similar class search in China?

The primary bases are Article 30 of the PRC Trademark Law, which bars registration of marks identical or similar to prior marks on the same or similar goods [3]; Article 11 of the Supreme People’s Court’s interpretation on trademark civil disputes, defining “similar goods” [4]; and the Classification Table of Similar Goods and Services itself, the primary reference tool for examination and litigation.

How can I avoid rejection due to similar class issues?

Search comprehensively — not just your own similar group, but cross-referenced groups and, where relevant, other classes. Read the annotated Notes under every group your goods touch. Confirm you’re working from the current classification table. Because cross-class judgment calls are genuinely complex, working with a trademark agent familiar with China’s classification practice significantly reduces rejection risk.

Conclusion: Don’t Let a Missed Similar Class Cost You Your Filing Date

China’s trademark system runs on a strict first-to-file basis, and with close to 50 million marks already on the register, the margin for a shallow search has never been thinner [1]. A search that stops at your primary class and exact-match names is a partial one — and partial searches are exactly what Article 30 rejections are built to catch [3]. The 2026 classification update adds one more layer applicants cannot afford to skip, particularly for eyewear, wearables, and AI-adjacent goods [2].

Every step here — finding the right similar group, expanding across cross-referenced groups, reading the Notes, and applying the six-factor test — is standard practice for a specialized China trademark team before every filing. YCIP’s attorneys run these clearance searches for foreign businesses filing in China every day, flagging conflict risk before it becomes a rejection notice.

Ready to file with confidence? Contact YCIP for a professional similar class search and filing strategy review, or get a quote for your trademark application today.

References and Further Reading

1. “看！知识产权事业高质量发展显成色” (2025 IP Development Data), CNIPA, https://www.cnipa.gov.cn/art/2026/1/28/art_55_203775.html. Source Role: Government statistical release. Support Status: Supports. Relevance: 2025 trademark registration volume and examination statistics.
2. “关于启用尼斯分类第十三版2026文本的通知” (Notice on Nice Classification 13th Edition 2026 Text), CNIPA Trademark Office, https://sbj.cnipa.gov.cn/sbj/tzgg/202512/t20251226_36952.html. Source Role: Regulatory notice. Support Status: Supports. Relevance: Confirms the 2026 classification update and effective date.
3. “中华人民共和国商标法(2019年修正)” (PRC Trademark Law, 2019 Amendment), CNIPA, https://www.cnipa.gov.cn/art/2019/7/30/art_95_28179.html. Source Role: Primary legislation. Support Status: Supports. Relevance: Official text of Article 30, the rejection provision for similar-class conflicts.
4. “最高人民法院关于审理商标民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释” (Supreme People’s Court Interpretation on Trademark Civil Disputes), Supreme People’s Court Gazette, http://gongbao.court.gov.cn/Details/93ca0d509275338b498e7bef849830.html. Source Role: Judicial interpretation. Support Status: Supports. Relevance: Defines “similar goods and services” for courts and examiners.
5. China Trademark Network (official CNIPA search portal), https://wcjs.sbj.cnipa.gov.cn. Source Role: Government search tool. Support Status: Supports. Relevance: Primary tool for similar-group trademark searches.
6. WIPO Nice Classification, World Intellectual Property Organization, https://www.wipo.int/classifications/nice/en/. Source Role: International standard-setting body. Support Status: Supports. Relevance: Background on the classification system underlying China’s similar group table.