China has witnessed a significant surge in trademark applications in recent years, alongside stricter review standards for trademark coexistence agreements and consent letters by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), as well as the courts.

In tandem, a soaring increase in applications for non-use cancellation of trademarks demonstrates this practice as an effective mechanism for eliminating obstacles from earlier trademark filings.

CNIPA data reveals that the number of trademark cancellation review decisions increased from 14,866 in 2022 to 16,438 in 2023 and 18,693 in 2024. As administrative review is a preliminary step in the process, the substantial rise in non-use cancellation cases clearly indicates a corresponding increase in overall three-year non-use cancellations.

However, this rapid growth in non-use cancellation cases has also given rise to issues such as malicious cancellation. By this tactic, some applicants exploit reversal of the burden of proof in the procedures – initiating attacks with false or selective evidence and increasing the costs for trademark owners to defend their rights.

Overall, however, the non-use cancellation regime is a key mechanism for clearing idle trademarks and ensuring effective use of trademark resources. So, to optimise resource allocation while protecting trademark owners, the CNIPA has recently updated its review process for cancellation cases.

Latest updates

While the Trademark Law does not explicitly specify evidentiary requirements for initiating non-use cancellation actions, article 66 of the Regulations on Implementing the Trademark Law stipulates: “Where a registered trademark has not been used for three consecutive years without justifiable reasons as specified in article 49 of the Trademark Law, any entity or individual may apply to the Trademark Office for cancellation of the registered trademark, and shall state the relevant circumstances when submitting the application.”

This provision enables the CNIPA to intensify its scrutiny of submitted claims and has prompted the following adjustments to its examination practices.

Examining applicants’ subjective intent. Since the second half of 2024, the CNIPA has been issuing rectification notices to applicants who file numerous three-year non-use cancellation applications within a short period. These notices require applicants to justify their intent in submitting the cancellations and provide supporting evidence.

Stricter requirements for preliminary investigation evidence. Since January this year, applicants have been receiving rectification notices from the CNIPA requesting additional evidence to prove the trademark in question has not been used for three consecutive years.

Previously, a simple screenshot of an online keyword search sufficed. Now, applicants must submit three categories of preliminary investigation evidence, namely:

1. 1. Basic information about the registrant of the trademark in question, including their business scope, operational or existence status and trademark registration status;
   2. If the registrant is active, an investigation report and accompanying evidence regarding product sales, service provision and business locations or offices must be provided; and
   3. Investigation evidence on the cancellation trademark for the registered goods or services on comprehensive online platforms and industry-specific websites, such as continuous full-page search screenshots covering five pages starting from the homepage on no fewer than three platforms.

These changes indicate that the CNIPA has reallocated the burden of proof in cancellation applications, shifting away from the previous approach where trademark registrants primarily bore this responsibility.

Adopting more rigorous review. Compared to past practices, the CNIPA now employs a more rigorous review process when examining both preliminary evidence and the subjective intent of non-use cancellation applicants. It scrutinises not only the applicant’s intent but also verifies the submitted evidence.

The CNIPA has also introduced new circumstances under which cancellation applications will not be accepted, such as those aiming to secure illicit gains through cancellation.

In the Notice on the Issuance of the Annual Work Guidelines for the High-Quality Development of Intellectual Property (2024), the CNIPA stated that it will continue to advance dynamic revision of the Trademark Examination and Adjudication guidelines.

Amid ongoing discussions on these revisions, the CNIPA is considering changes to the formal requirements for non-use cancellation applications. These include mandating preliminary evidence of the registrant’s legal existence, operational status, and the status of trademark registration and use.

The CNIPA also accentuates the principle of good faith and introduces new grounds for rejecting cancellation applications.

Specifically, these are: (1) applications submitted under a false name or on behalf of another party; (2) submissions that include forged or false materials; (3) applications made when the applicant knew or should have known the trademark was in use; and (4) applications intended to disrupt the normal business operations of the registrant.

Anticipated impact

The CNIPA has raised the evidentiary burden on applicants and streamlined examination procedures to curtail malicious cancellation applications. For trademark registrants, a reduction in bad-faith non-use cancellation claims means less unwarranted harassment.

Meanwhile, the CNIPA now places greater emphasis on the registrant’s integrity, and the authenticity and relevance of evidence when reviewing proof of use.

Consequently, trademark owners are advised to strengthen their evidence management by regularly collecting and organising supporting documentation to ensure effective proof in the event of a non-use cancellation challenge.

Applicants for non-use cancellation should keenly monitor the new filing requirements to ensure smooth processing of their submissions. They must also adhere to the principle of good faith by basing their requests on genuine commercial needs.

These anticipated updates highlight trends in the CNIPA’s examination of non-use cancellation cases. To better align with emerging practices and trends, both cancellation applicants and trademark owners should closely monitor these developments and adjust their strategies accordingly regarding non-use cancellation submissions, trademark registrations and usage management.