China updates guidance on trademark non-use cancellations

The legislative context

Article 49 of China's Trademark Law (as amended in 2019) provides that: "Where a registered trademark becomes the generic name of the goods approved for use, or the use of the registered trademark has ceased for three consecutive years without justifiable reasons, any entity or individual may apply to the Trademark Office for cancellation of the registered trademark."

Where such a filing is made, the Office shall make a decision within nine months of receiving the application, though this time limit can be extended by three months under special circumstances.

This provision is elaborated in Article 66 of the Implementing Regulations, which sets out the procedure for revocation. It provides that "the relevant facts shall be stated when the application is filed" and that the trademark registrant has two months to supply evidence proving use of the mark prior to the filing of the non-use cancellation action (or explain the reasons for discontinuity). Evidence of use can include dissemination by the trademark registrant and by others under license. However, if the Office is not convinced of genuine use by the two-month deadline, the mark will be stricken.

Recent years have seen a large number of non-use cancellation actions filed, creating an administrative burden for the CNIPA. Moreover, there have been suspicions that much of this activity is pursued maliciously, targeting trademarks that are clearly being used, sometimes attacking the same mark repeatedly and using the threat of revocation to obtain leverage against the IP holder. Partly to address this issue, the CNIPA had previously required applicants to specify the grounds for their objection and provide evidence, such as an internet search result for the trademark and its registrant. Now, the Chinese governmental body has gone further and raised the bar for non-use cancellation actions.

Latest guidance

On May 26, 2025, the CNIPA published a document in Chinese on its website titled: Application for Cancellation of a Registered Trademark for Non-Use Without Justifiable Reasons for Three Consecutive Years. This builds on Article 49 of the Trademark Law and Article 66 of the Implementing Regulations, specifying both how relevant actions should be submitted and what they should contain.

Notably, the CNIPA guidance states that the application should contain the results of a preliminary investigation, showing non-use for three consecutive years without legitimate cause, as well as the identification (including contact details) and, if relevant, power of attorney of the revocation applicant. Paragraph 15 of the document states (according to unofficial translation) that accepted corroborative material includes, but is not limited to:

"information regarding the registrant's business scope or operational status, the market investigation of the concerned trademark and related investigations that are not limited to professional query platforms. This also includes evidence from the registrant's official website, WeChat public account, e-commerce platforms and offline production and operation sites, as well as online inquiries, market research and on-site investigations."

International brand owners who wish to file non-use cancellation actions against trademarks in China need to pay attention to these requirements and ensure that they have compiled sufficient and appropriate documentation before launching proceedings. While the guidance does not indicate that legitimate applications for revocation will be refused, the onus is clearly on the applicant to make the strongest case they can from the start, based on a broad review of testimony. Spurious or ill-founded attempts are now much less likely to prevail against bona fide registrations.

From the opposite perspective, owners of Chinese trademarks will find it reassuring that steps are being taken to tackle claims that are based on flimsy or antagonistic grounds. This should lead to fewer such impugnments, resulting in lower defense costs and (hopefully) greater legal certainty. As in every country, it remains important to maintain examples of evidence of use (including online) for the relevant goods and services in China to be successful in the face of any contestations.

Hypothetical case studies

Given the recency of the new guidance, real examples of its operation have yet to filter through. At the same time, this presents an excellent opportunity to prepare for the enhanced obligations. Consider two hypothetical situations, which are based on typical experiences of overseas brand owners in China.

Case study one, adopting a defensive posture: A UK-headquartered business has a Chinese trademark for Brand A for goods in class 25 and services in class 35, with a registration date of November 15, 2022. Brand A is licensed to a local business in China, which has an active but moderately sized market, with sales in key cities and some online marketing and advertising. The UK company's investigators have also found counterfeits of its goods on sale in certain parts of the country, so it is crucial to maintain the registration. With the three-year anniversary of the registration approaching in November 2025, Brand A's owner is aware that a local rival may file a non-use cancellation action. Knowing that this is a possibility, the UK entity is taking steps now to ensure that it has evidence of sales and promotion in China, such as invoices, advertising copy, sales figures and its license agreement. By contacting the relevant internal departments in good time and reaching out to its licensee, the company will be able to demonstrate use within a two-month period should any opposing action be initiated.

Case study two, preparing to advance: A UK-based business in the sustainable technology sector is keen to expand into China, under its well-known Brand B mark, and has already explored a number of promising business opportunities. However, its trademark advisers have identified an identical mark filed by a local company, covering the relevant goods, which was registered on January 15, 2023. Further research suggests that the local entity has registered trademarks for a number of other international brands in what appears to be an instance of trademark squatting. The UK company is considering filing a non-use cancellation action as soon as the three-year period expires in January 2026. In light of the latest guidance, it has decided to instruct a local representative to start a preliminary investigation (including searches of physical and online markets and social media) and ensure that the requisite corporate paperwork is in good order. These undertakings are needed to secure the greatest chance of cancelling the existing mark before filing a trademark application for the international Brand B.

Looking ahead

The new CNIPA guidelines are a good example of how the Chinese trademark system continues to evolve, particularly in light of the rapid growth in filings and registrations over the past few years. If the latest steps do not achieve the goals desired by the authorities, it is possible that further measures will be introduced in the future.

Indeed, this May, China's State Council announced the 2025 legislative plan, which includes several IP-related proposals. Notably, these comprise a draft amendment to the Trademark Law to be submitted to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, which is likely to be published later this year. 

Besides prolific accusations of non-use, there remain numerous problems in China's trademark system, not least bad-faith- and unpronounceable random-letter applications, repeated identical filings and bribery.

Underscoring the severity of the malfeasance and the seriousness with which the CNIPA treats corruption, the IP office permanently debarred three Beijing-based agencies this May for sending inducements to trademark registration and management staff. Further moves to address all of the IP obstacles facing the country and increase protection for trademark holders in the country would be welcomed by both foreign and domestic businesses.

A version of this article first appeared in CITMA Review magazine, September - October 2025 issue.