China: CNIPA Raises Threshold for Trade Mark Non-Use Cancellations, Yet Problems Persist

On 26 May 2025, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) released revised Guidelines for Filing Applications to Cancel Registered Trade Marks on Grounds of Non-Use for Three Consecutive Years (the "Non-Use Cancellation Guidelines"). The core revision mandates that applicants must now submit preliminary investigation evidence demonstrating the target mark’s non-use during the preceding three-year period. Acceptable evidence includes online search results, market survey reports, registrant business scope and status records, and materials and information obtained through official websites, WeChat Official Accounts, e-commerce platforms, or physical premises investigations.

Examination Practice Has Tightened

The release of the revised Guidelines is not an isolated move but a formal response to CNIPA’s implicit upgrades to examination standards implemented since early 2025 towards non-use cancellations.

Since the beginning of the year, CNIPA has issued rectification notices to numerous non-use cancellation applicants, demanding significantly more detailed evidence than previously required. For example, applicants must provide detailed business registration information of the trade mark registrant, latest official records of operational/existence status of the trade mark registrant, and in some cases, physical investigation reports of the registrant’s business or office premises.

Concurrently, applicants must submit detailed search screenshots from industry-specific websites (e.g., trade association portals) and major e-commerce platforms (e.g., Taobao, Tmall, JD.com), clearly showing the registrant’s name, target trade mark, and designated goods/services. Where registrants and applicants share the same city, applicants are often required to provide offline field investigation reports with granular details on trade mark usage.

Moreover, applicants must specify the reasons for filing the non-use cancellation—such as clearing obstacles to their own trade mark registration—and submit a formal Letter of Undertaking, warranting the truthfulness, accuracy, and completeness of the information submitted and accepting liability for misrepresentation.

Failure to satisfy any requirement may result in the outright dismissal of the non-use cancellation application.  Compared to prior practice, which allowed filings with minimal evidentiary proof, these new requirements substantially increase the evidentiary burden and costs for applicants. The lack of a transitional period or prior consultation with the trade mark profession has led trade mark agencies and relevant associations to voice strong concerns through repeated engagements with CNIPA.

Underlying Pressures Driving the Change in Practice

It is understood that CNIPA’s decision to raise the threshold for non-use cancellation applications is driven primarily by two systemic issues.

First, to curb systemic abuse and malicious profiteering towards non-use cancellations.

China’s Trade Mark Law permits any third party to initiate a non-use cancellation against any trade mark registered for three years without substantive evidence, placing the entire burden of proving genuine, lawful, and effective use on the registrant. This framework has been exploited by certain bad actors who submit mass non-use cancellation applications against random marks. They then contact the registrants—explicitly or implicitly—demanding payment in exchange for withdrawing the cancellations, effectively engaging in near "trade mark extortion." Many registrants, fearing cancellation for actual non-use or wishing to avoid the complexity and expense involved in preparing counter-evidence, pay these settlement fees. This abuse has has sparked professional debate and pressured CNIPA to scrutinise applicants’ legitimacy and motives in the non-use cancellations.

Second, to manage the examination pressure resulted from an explosive increase in non-use cancellations in the past few years. 

This surge is rooted in deeper causes. Since 2021, trade mark applicants have found it increasingly difficult to overcome refusals based on prior conflicting marks by arguing “no likelihood of confusion," with success rates generally below 30%. More critically, since sometime 2022, CNIPA and courts have largely ceased to accept trade mark coexistence letters or agreements—consents from prior mark owners allowing registration of similar subsequent marks—as effective to overcome cited obstacles, regardless of prior business cooperation, affiliated company relationships, or past acceptance in examination and litigation. The substantial shutting down of these primary legal avenues has forced applicants, especially those seeking to register marks somewhat similar to earlier ones, to resort to the non-use cancellation procedure to remove blocking prior marks (notably those with weak or no use evidence). This strategic shift caused a drastic and abnormal spike in non-use cancellation filings, significantly straining CNIPA’s examination capacity.

Guideline-Reality Gaps and Systemic Risks

Although the new Guidelines aim to provide more transparent and standardized instructions, reflecting discussions over recent months, they do not fully codify the stricter, more detailed requirements already observed in practice since early 2025—such as the offline investigation mandate for same-city registrants or the prevalent requests for detailed cancellation motives and undertakings in rectification notices.

Whether or not the actual standards and requirements in the review of the non-use cancellations will become less stringent after the issuance of the new Guidelines has not yet been observed in practice, nor has there been any clear indication that CNIPA’s stance will soften. The future development merits close monitoring.

More fundamentally, the statutory provisions under the current Trade Mark Law permitting any party to file non-use cancellation applications without substantive evidence remain unchanged. This renders CNIPA’s internally-driven higher thresholds, applied through examination practices and Guidelines, legally tenuous with uncertain long-term sustainability. Whether formal legislative amendments will be enacted to institutionalize higher evidentiary and substantive thresholds for initiating non-use cancellation proceedings—thus ensuring stable and consistent regulatory standards—remains to be seen.

Implications for Enterprises

In any event, the practical changes in China’s trade mark non-use cancellation actions have materially increased the difficulty, cost, and risk involved in removing prior trade mark obstacles via this procedure. This directly impacts brand owners’ trade mark registration strategies, obstacle clearance approaches, and overall brand management in China. It is advisable for relevant brand owners to timely consult professionals well-versed in China’s latest trade mark practices to prudently assess and adjust their registration and maintenance strategies in the Chinese market.