Pursuant to Article 49 of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China (amended in 2019) and Article 66 of the Implementation Regulations for the Trademark Law (amended in 2014), where the use of a registered trademark has ceased for three consecutive years without justifiable reason, any unit or individual may apply to the Trademark Office of the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) for cancellation of the registration. This type of petition is commonly referred to in China as the “three-year non-use cancellation” (hereinafter referred to as “non-use cancellation”).
The non-use cancellation is an important mechanism under China’s Trademark Law, designed to clear idle trademark resources and preserve the integrity of the registration and use system. However, with the accumulation of practice, issues concerning formal compliance and malicious filings have gradually emerged. Starting from 2025, the CNIPA has further standardized the procedure by revising examination requirements and launching special rectification initiatives.
This article outlines the major changes introduced under the recent revisions:
Comparison dimension | Previous Regulations | New Regulations |
Burden of proof | The burden of proof rested with the trademark registrant, who was required to prove on their own that the trademark had been actually used within three years. The applicant only needed to submit simple clues (such as webpage screenshots) to initiate the "three-year non-use cancellation" procedure. | The applicant must proactively submit preliminary investigation evidence to prove the objective fact that the trademark to be cancelled has "not been used for three consecutive years". Otherwise, the application will be at risk of being supplemented / corrected or rejected. |
More Stringent and Quantitative Evidence Requirements | The requirements for the form of evidence submitted by the applicant were lenient; only a single platform screenshot or a simple statement was sufficient. This may lead to malicious abuse of the non-use cancellation application procedure. | The applicant is clearly required to provide the following three categories of core evidence: 1. Basic Information of the Registrant: Including business scope, operation/existence status, trademark registration status, etc. 2. Business Investigation Report: If the registrant is still in existence, relevant investigation evidence such as commodity sales, service provision, and business premises must be provided. 3. Platform Search Evidence: Searches must be conducted on 3 or more platforms (such as mainstream e-commerce platforms, industry websites, etc.), and complete screenshots of 5 consecutive pages must be provided, with the screenshots covering the content of the platform’s homepage.
|
New Obligation of Commitment to Authenticity | It is only stipulated that the trademark registrant (the respondent) should prepare a relevant evidence directory or list for the evidence materials they provide for use, and be responsible for the authenticity of the provided evidence materials. However, there is no clear "good faith commitment" requirement for the applicant. | The applicant and its agency must sign a commitment letter regarding the authenticity of the declared matters and materials, and bear legal responsibility for the authenticity of the submitted evidence. If false materials are provided, the relevant entities may face credit sanctions or even administrative penalties. |
Examination Stringency | The examination of the applicant is more lenient than that of the respondent. Situations are likely to occur where a single trademark is subject to multiple "three-year non-use cancellation applications" filed by different entities, or a single applicant files "three-year non-use cancellation applications" against multiple registered trademarks. | Strict examination of the applicant increases the cost and difficulty of filing applications, which helps reduce dishonest practices such as evidence falsification. |
Potential Impacts | It has relatively little impact on cancellation applicants, but places a heavy burden of proof on trademark registrants (respondents). Registrants may easily have their trademark rights cancelled due to failure to respond in a timely manner. | By clarifying the burden of proof requirements for applicants, the number of "three-year non-use cancellation" applications will be reduced, and the burden of proof on trademark registrants who genuinely use their trademarks will be alleviated to a certain extent. |
Application Costs | The application cost is relatively low. | Costs such as evidence collection increase, the application cost rises, and the requirement for professionalism is significantly heightened. |
It can be observed that the CNIPA now places greater emphasis on the sufficiency of preliminary evidence in non-use cancellation applications. Although a stricter review standard applies in principle, applicants are generally given opportunities to supplement materials and provide further explanations.
In addition, the Trademark Office may establish a “List of Abnormal Non-Use Cancellation Applicants” based on data analysis, which could affect the credit rating and compliance record of certain applicants and may result in administrative penalties.
In response to the amended Non-Use Cancellation Guidelines, applicants are advised to strengthen the collection of supporting evidence and carefully assess factors such as their own background, the factual circumstances of the case, and the trademark’s use status. A prudent assessment helps determine whether to proceed through an agency or anonymously, and minimizes the risk of rejection or blacklisting by the Trademark Office.
Home
Phone
Message
