With nearly one hundred thousand trademark applications in Australia, should Chinese brands expanding overseas plan ahead?

Chinese brands planning to enter the Australian market often hesitate at one point: before the product has formally launched, is it worth filing the trademark application first? In its 2025–26 annual report, IP Australia states that in that year, amid record application volumes, it processed 98,187 trademark applications and 10,366 design applications, and says it continued to deliver on key service commitments in patents, trademarks, designs and plant breeder's rights.

This figure is easily read as "competition is intensifying, so register quickly," but it is first of all a measure of processing volume. The original uses "processed," meaning applications handled during that year; it does not equal the number filed that year, nor does it show that examination standards or registration difficulty have changed. For companies expanding overseas, the real question is not "how many others have applied," but "does my brand have genuine use or intended use arrangements in Australia, and is it worth entering the process now?"

Application volume appears in another document. The Australian IP Report 2026 (2026, 5) records that in calendar year 2025 Australia received 97,345 trademark applications, up 13.3% year on year, a record high. The same report contains a conclusion closer to readers: in 2024 and 2025, China surpassed the United States to become the largest overseas source of new trademark applications in Australia. There are two reasons—more goods enter under Chinese own brands rather than as OEM/white-label products; and e-commerce platforms operate brand verification mechanisms that require sellers to register a trademark before they can trade.

The report also notes that the growth in applications from China far exceeded the growth in bilateral trade value. If the growth kept pace with sales, that would mean the market is growing; the portion exceeding trade growth more likely comes from institutional requirements such as platform access—not that business suddenly increased, but that "you can't list without registering."

Another confirmable point is that the office lists investment in digital services, technology and customer experience as annual work, and says this investment supported improvements in how customers access and use the intellectual property system. This means the channels for filing and searching, and the way information is presented, may keep adjusting; when preparing materials, rely on the processes and form requirements currently published by the official body, not on agent experience from several years ago.

But applying in advance is not without cost. Australia does not require that the mark already be in use at filing: section 27 of the 1995 Trademarks Act requires only that, on the filing date, there be an intention in Australia to use the mark in good faith (or to authorize another to use it, or to assign it). The cost comes after registration: section 92, subsection 4 provides two revocation paths—where there was no good-faith intention to use at the filing date and the mark has not been used since, revocation may be sought at any time from the filing date; where the mark has not been genuinely used for three consecutive years after registration, for applications filed on or after 2019 2 24, revocation may be sought only after the mark has been on the register for three years. The starting point is the date of entry on the register, not the filing date; for earlier applications, five years applies. Adding examination, publication and the opposition period, the "three years of non-use" window in practice opens only around the fourth year after filing.

So whether to file now depends on whether the market plan is specific down to products and channels, not on whether the total number of filings is high or low. If the product line, sales channels and target customer groups are still at the testing stage, you can first define a limited scope around core goods or services and leave room for later additions; if sales, trade shows or cooperation arrangements are already clear, align the filing timing with those arrangements so the brand is not exposed before the rights are in place. The trade-off is between coverage and cost, but earlier and broader is not always better—a registration that is not used can likewise be revoked.

One more point needs correction: this type of data is not undisclosed. This section of the annual report gives only totals, with no breakdown by class, country of origin or examination outcome, so it cannot be used to judge whether a particular class is crowded; however, country-of-origin, class and examination data are all published in its annual IP report, and the statement above that “China is the largest overseas source” comes from that report. To judge competitive density, consult that report and then add searches targeting the specific mark and class.

The preparation that follows is not complicated: gather evidence of existing or planned use of the brand in Australia, and clarify the applicant and ownership of rights—if a holding company owns the mark and an operating entity uses it, a licensing arrangement is needed and control over the use must be demonstrable; list the core goods and services, and conduct a prior search for the mark to be applied for. If the search reveals obstacles, then discuss adjusting the mark, narrowing the scope or changing the filing order. These steps presuppose that the market plan is already specific down to products or channels; if research is still at an early stage, completing the search and class review is enough for now.

The annual report also mentions raising awareness through education, partnerships and outreach: the HerIP program reaching more than 600 women, collaboration with the Indigenous Knowledge Panel and the Indigenous Strategy 2025–2030, and the pilot AI service IP First Response. These channels lower the threshold for first contact and provide general understanding; they do not replace search-based judgment for a specific mark and class.

Sources: IP Australia, “IP Australia tables Annual Report 2025–26” (2026, 10 29); IP Australia, “Australian IP Report 2026” (2026, 5); Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) s 27, s 92(4), s 93.

Note: The content of this article is compiled from public information and is only general intellectual property popularization and practical observation, for information reference only; it does not constitute legal advice or other professional advice for any specific case, and the relevant determinations and conclusions should be subject to the official published documents and the actual circumstances of the individual case.