QBPC has closed. What does your brand need to replace?
At a glance
- In June 2026, QBPC was reported to have ceased operations. It had been set up in 2000 for foreign-invested companies protecting their brands in China.
- Its closure doesn’t change Chinese law or how enforcement works, but it removes a shared channel to authorities and platforms that many brand owners relied on.
- Brand owners should list the functions QBPC performed for them and decide, one by one, whether to join another body, handle the function themselves or stop doing it.
When an industry body closes, the first question is usually why. For brand owners in China, a more useful question is: what did it do for us, and who does that now?
What happened
The Quality Brands Protection Committee (QBPC) was set up in 2000 under the China Association of Enterprises with Foreign Investment (CAEFI), which is affiliated with the Ministry of Commerce. [2] On 16 June 2026, World Trademark Review reported that QBPC had ceased operations. The same report said the interim committee of a Global Brand Protection Foundation was urging international brand owners to keep supporting QBPC’s work. [1]
Former QBPC members have reportedly joined CAASA, the China Anti-Infringement and Anti-Counterfeit Innovation Strategic Alliance. [2] CAASA, active since 2015, describes itself as a non-profit that brings Chinese and international parties together, including brand owners, platforms and industry associations. [3]
The reasons for QBPC’s closure haven’t been made public.
What QBPC did for its members
QBPC described itself as having more than 200 members, mostly foreign-invested companies. [4] It ran seminars, forums and training, gave its views on draft laws to legislators, courts and enforcement agencies, and acted as a channel between China and the international community. [4] It also held roundtables with platforms; at one with JD.com in 2023, members raised the brand protection problems they had met on the platform. [5]
Its work fell into two groups.
The collective part: commenting on draft laws, raising common problems with government and speaking for foreign brand owners as a group. No single company can do this alone; someone has to represent the group.
The access part: introductions to officials and platform teams, training sessions with enforcement officers, and contacts at other companies. A brand can build these relationships itself, but it takes time and someone in the company has to take responsibility for them.
Questions to ask about your own programme
Before deciding what to do, work out what you actually used QBPC for.
- Which QBPC activities did your team use in the last two years?
- Which of them fed directly into your cases, for example, an introduction, a forum or a working group that led to action?
- Which contacts at platforms and enforcement agencies sit with your company, and which sat with the committee?
- Where did you rely on QBPC for information about policy changes, and where else could you get it?
The gap will be different for every company. A brand that used QBPC mainly to track policy needs something different from one that relied on it to open doors at a particular platform.
What doesn’t change
None of this changes how enforcement itself works. A complaint to a market regulator, a referral to the police, a customs recordal or a platform notice still succeeds or fails on the brand owner’s own evidence: proof of rights, test purchases, records of the goods and a clear link between the infringer and the infringement.
An industry body can make it easier to be heard, but the outcome of each case still rests on the brand owner’s evidence. The closure is a good moment to check that your own evidence and records are in order.
The options
For each function, you have three choices.
Join another body. Former members have reportedly moved to CAASA. [2] The Global Brand Protection Foundation is asking brand owners for support. [1] Chamber IP working groups are another route. Before joining any of them, ask four questions. Who sits on it? How is it governed and funded? Whose interests does it represent? What can it deliver for your programme?
Build it yourself. Platform relationships, contacts with enforcement agencies and a policy watch can all be run in-house or with outside advisers. This takes more work, but the relationships stay with your company rather than with a committee.
Let it go. Some activities may matter less to your programme than others, and not every function needs a replacement.
Most brand owners will probably use a mix: backing the body that best represents their collective interests while building the direct relationships their own cases need.
Whatever you choose, your enforcement programme still needs to rest on evidence and relationships that your company controls.
Sources
- World Trademark Review. Exclusive: Goodbye QBPC, welcome back GBPF. Published 2026-06-16. English. By: Joyce Ng. Accessed 22 October 2026.
- China IPR. QBPC, RDPAC and Distinct Foreign Voices in China's IP System. Published 2026-06-19. English. By: Mark Cohen. Accessed 22 October 2026.
- China-Britain Business Council. Our Network of Strategic IP Partners. Undated. English. By: China-Britain Business Council. Accessed 22 October 2026.
- QBPC (Glue Up page). About QBPC. Undated. English. By: Quality Brands Protection Committee. Accessed 22 October 2026.
- QBPC (Glue Up page). QBPC & JD Round-table Meeting. Published 2023-11-08. English. By: QBPC Internet Committee. Accessed 22 October 2026.
Was this useful?
Your response is private.