Abstract: Objective：To provide reference for further normalized， written and systematical management of the generic names of proprietary Chinese medicines.Methods：By using Excel software， the basic principles of 《The guiding principle of generic name of proprietary Chinese medicines》promulgated recently in China was used as the statistical basis. The data of proprietary Chinese medicines approved in 2009-2014 from China Data Center for Food & Drug Administration were made classified statistics of “Drug name” in order to understand the basic status quo of the naming of proprietary Chinese medicines in China. Based on the relevant provisions of the “Guiding Principles” series of documents， the author analyzed the deficiencies in system construction of standardizing generic names of proprietary Chinese medicines.Results：Regulators have not set a standard for drug generic name review， and did not consider cultural factors for certain naming methods， implemented a “one-size-fits-all” strategy， did not specify the main responsibilities of the pharmaceutical companies in naming， and did not establish a binding mechanism for guaranteeing the effective condnct of renaming work. Conclusion：Proposed that century enterprise culture， the credibility of well-known trademarks and famons brand firms， the authenticity of Chinese herbal medicines and classical names should betaken into account， and should set the scientific name review standards， use the efficacy of the drug as the actual inspection index for classified management， clarify the responsibility of enterprises， formulate supporting constraints， and ultimately implement standardized management of drug names.