In summary
China's trademark system has introduced stricter requirements for non-use cancellation applications, shifted evidence burdens and reduced acceptance of coexistence agreements. Absolute rejection grounds are overused with vague reasoning, while examiner communication remains limited. The complex subclass system creates challenges for foreign applicants. These practices aim to curb surging application volumes but risk reducing transparency and fairness.
Discussion points
•Non-use cancellation: new evidence requirements increase applicant burdens to deter malicious filings
•Evidence exchange: no cross-examination in initial cancellation proceedings prioritises efficiency over fairness
•Coexistence agreements: once accepted, now largely rejected, to suppress application numbers
•Absolute grounds: overused absolute grounds in rejections lack clear explanations
•Examiner communication: limited direct channels hinder clarification opportunities
•Classification system: rigid subclass system complicates protection strategies for foreign brands but fits Chinese trademark examination conditions
Referenced in this article
•China Trademark Law
•Implementing Regulations of China Trademark Law
•Beijing High People’s Court’s Guidelines for the Trial of Trademark Right Granting and Verification Cases
•China Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Trademark Civil Disputes
New requirements for trademark non-use cancellation application
The reason this issue is placed first for discussion is twofold: on the one hand, it represents the latest practical change; on the other hand, the cancellation procedure for non-use of a trademark for three consecutive years (commonly referred to as ‘non-use cancellation’) is an essential measure to overcome rejections based on prior rights. Its practical changes have far-reaching implications.
First, it must be clarified that the new requirements for cancellation applications were initially not announced in any official notice from the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA). It was not until early February 2025 that we began receiving office actions for cancellation applications. The earliest office actions were relatively simple, merely requiring the cancellation applicant to provide evidence that the disputed trademark had not been used. However, within just one or two weeks, multiple versions of rectification requirements emerged, becoming increasingly detailed, and the number of office actions surged exponentially.
From the accumulating office actions, we deduced the key evidence materials that applicants must submit to the CNIPA when filing for cancellation based on non-use for three consecutive years:
•Business registration information of the trademark owner (including basic details, business scope, and operational status or existence status).
•Evidence of product sales or service provision at the trademark owner’s actual business premises.
•Online trademark usage search evidence for the designated goods (including industry platform search records and screenshots of at least three platforms showing five consecutive pages of search results on each platform).
These were the ‘new requirements’ we summarised based on multiple versions of office actions, which remain applicable in the current practice. Clearly, this rule shifts part of the burden of proof to the cancellation applicant, significantly increasing the cost of the cancellation procedure. Given that non-use cancellation is almost a necessary step to overcome trademark rejections, this practical change has imposed a substantial impact on all applicants. Notably, the new requirement for cancellation applicants to provide evidence that the disputed trademark has not been used appears to contradict the basic logical principle that ‘the burden of proving existence lies with the claimant, not non-existence’. So, here comes the question: Why has the Trademark Office made this adjustment?
Through participation in some seminars held by the Trademark Office, we learned that this adjustment aims to combat malicious cancellation filings. According to the Trademark Office, some entities frequently file a large number of cancellation requests against the same trademark – or even against trademarks that are clearly in use – either to undermine competitors or to clear obstacles for their own trademark applications. This not only burdens trademark owners but also wastes the Trademark Office’s examination resources. Hence, the Trademark Office revised its practice to require cancellation applicants to provide preliminary evidence that the disputed trademark has not been used. Under the requirements of the latest office actions, applicants must also state the genuine purpose of their cancellation request in the application.
Of course, opinions may differ on whether combating malicious cancellations necessitates the current approach. However, since June 2023, when the CNIPA allowed applicants to request the suspension of review proceedings concerning trademark rejection, the number of cancellation applications has exploded, continuing into 2025, and placing immense pressure on the Trademark Office’s examination capacity. Raising the requirements for cancellation applications not only helps curb malicious filings but also suppresses the motivation of action to some extent, thereby reducing the overall number of applications.
Another question: Does the Trademark Office have the authority to make such adjustments (here, ‘authority’ refers to whether the law grants them such power)? Before answering this, another critical point must be addressed: this practical change was implemented without prior official notice. As mentioned earlier, we identified the shift through the emergence of office actions. In fact, it was not until 26 May 2025 that the Trademark Office issued a formal notice,[1] requiring applicants to explain the circumstances of the disputed trademark’s non-use for three consecutive years without justifiable reason and to submit preliminary investigation evidence, including but not limited to:
•the business scope or operational range of the trademark owner;
•the operational or existence status of the trademark owner;
•market investigation findings regarding the disputed trademark (covering professional query platforms, the trademark owner’s official website, WeChat public accounts, e-commerce platforms, offline production and operation sites, etc); and
•evidence obtained through online searches, market research and on-site investigations.
It was also in this notice that the Trademark Office clarified the legal basis for the practical change that is enshrined in Article 66 of the Implementing Regulations of the Trademark Law, which states:
"Where a registered trademark has not been used for three consecutive years without justifiable reason, any entity or individual may apply to the Trademark Office for cancellation of the registered trademark. When submitting the application, the applicant shall explain the relevant circumstances".
The Trademark Office’s adjustment of application requirements essentially reinterprets the phrase ‘explain the relevant circumstances’. Although this still does not explain the lack of prior official notice, those familiar with China’s trademark practices would not find this surprising. No prior official notice is just common practice.
Evidence exchange in non-use cancellation procedure
Another long-standing concern in non-use cancellation procedure is the absence of a cross-examination process. The evidence of use submitted by the trademark owner in a cancellation proceeding is visible only to the Trademark Office, which makes a decision directly after review. If the decision favours the trademark owner, the cancellation applicant must file an appeal to obtain an opportunity for cross-examination. Many cancellation applicants thus believe that the appeal process exists solely to review and challenge evidence – a step that could have been completed during the cancellation proceeding itself. The additional appeal procedure appears to be an unnecessary increase in cancellation costs.
First, the lack of cross-examination in cancellation proceedings and its presence in appeals is explicitly stipulated in China’s Trademark Law. The rationale behind this design of legal system is that cancellation proceedings prioritise the efficiency of examination, while the task of ‘balancing fairness’ is left to subsequent appeal procedures. The volume of trademark applications and various right granting and verification cases in China far exceeds that of any other country. Therefore, the design of trademark laws and examination systems has unique considerations. Much like China’s economic development, efficiency has always been a key metric in trademark examination. Against the backdrop of high case volumes and efficiency demands, the absence of evidence exchange in cancellation proceedings is understandable.
Moreover, according to data released by the Trademark Office, the combined proportion of cases where trademarks are fully or partially cancelled in cancellation proceedings has consistently exceeded 80 per cent. This means that even without cross-examination, over 80 per cent of trademarks are fully or partially cancelled by the Trademark Office. This further reduces the necessity of adding evidence exchange to cancellation proceedings.
Declining acceptance of trademark coexistence agreements
Another reason for the surge in cancellation applications in recent years is the declining acceptance of trademark coexistence agreements (hereafter, coexistence agreements) in proceedings of review of rejection. Similar to the new requirements for cancellation applications discussed above, the non-acceptance of coexistence agreements occurred suddenly in practice, and to this day, there has been no official notice explaining the change of practice. In fact, no Chinese law, judicial interpretation or administrative regulation has ever explicitly invalidated coexistence agreements. On the contrary, article 15.10 of the Guidelines for the Trial of Trademark Right Granting and Verification Cases issued by the Beijing High People’s Court in 2019[2] states: ‘When judging whether the trademark in dispute is similar with the reference trademark, the coexistence agreements may be used as prima facie evidence to exclude confusion.’
From a practical perspective, the CNIPA began tightening its examination standards for coexistence agreements in the second half of 2021. Before that, coexistence agreements could serve as decisive evidence in the procedure of review of rejection, though acceptance was not absolute (primarily influenced by the degree of similarity between the trademarks). However, starting in the second half of 2021, coexistence agreements were suddenly no longer accepted in the majority of rejection review cases, with acceptance rates declining further until they are now generally not accepted in practice. So, what happened in 2021? Why did the CNIPA’s stance on coexistence agreements change so abruptly?
There was a record-breaking number of trademark applications in China in 2021, reaching an astonishing 9.45 million.[3] The previous year, 2020, saw 9.34 million applications, while in 2019 there were 7.83 million, 2018, 7.37 million, and 2017, 5.74 million. In just five years, China’s trademark applications surged from 5.74 million in 2017 to 9.45 million in 2021 – not gradually, but in leaps. If left unchecked, applications would likely have exceeded 10 million in 2022. It was against this backdrop that coexistence agreements ceased to be accepted in rejection review proceedings.[4]
Also in 2021, the CNIPA introduced the Action Plan to Combat Malicious Trademark Squatting. A large number of trademarks suspected of being filed in bad faith were issued office actions or rejections; claims of ‘bad faith’ in opposition and invalidation proceedings were widely supported by the CNIPA; and numerous trademark applications and uses suspected of being malicious received administrative penalties.
The effect was immediate. In 2022, trademark applications fell to 7.51 million, close to the 2018 level; in 2023, they dropped further to 7.18 million; and in 2024, even further to 6.97 million. While it is impossible to quantify how much the non-acceptance of coexistence agreements contributed to this decline, it is certain that many applications that would have relied on coexistence agreements to overcome rejections were no longer filed due to the tightened examination standards.
Undoubtedly, respecting trademark owners’ autonomy over their private rights and accepting coexistence agreements in principle is the preferable approach, which, indeed, was the CNIPA’s past practice. Looking ahead, will coexistence agreements return to China’s trademark review practice? The answer is likely to be yes, but this may require waiting until trademark application volumes stabilise at a lower level.
Expanded application of absolute grounds and defects in explanation
Another prominent trend in China’s trademark review practice in recent years is the significant increase in rejection rates based on absolute grounds, particularly article 10 (‘marks that cannot be used as trademarks’) and article 11 (‘marks lacking distinctiveness’) of the Trademark Law. The CNIPA’s interpretation of trademark meanings during examination has sometimes been overly broad or even perplexing. This change also occurred in practice without any official notice or guidance.
Again, why did this happen? In fact, the expanded application of absolute grounds and the non-acceptance of coexistence agreements emerged around the same time, sharing the same backdrop: surging trademark application volumes. These practical changes also produced similar outcomes: higher rejection rates, which reduced the number of registered trademarks while also curbing rapid growth in application numbers.
Objectively speaking, strict application of rejection grounds has its merits. Prohibiting trademarks that are deceptive, harmful to socialist morals or customs, or lacking distinctiveness (see articles 10 and 11 of the Trademark Law) from entering the market helps prevent consumers from being misled about product quality, origin or other critical information. It protects the public from deception or harmful influences and maintains a healthy market environment and fair competition. However, too much of a good thing can backfire. When absolute grounds are overextended, the practical effect becomes distorted: the CNIPA’s excessive concern for public interest and order during examination becomes increasingly disconnected from real-world consumer interests and stable market conditions, ultimately undermining examination quality and the authority’s credibility.
Another issue accompanying the over-application of absolute grounds is that rejection notices often contain only vague statements such as ‘likely to have a negative influence’ or ‘likely to cause confusion’, lacking specific explanations. Due to the expanded scope of absolute grounds, these unexplained rejections are frequently incomprehensible to applicants. This forces applicants to speculate on the reasons for rejection and base whether, and how, to file a review on guesswork, while also making it difficult to present arguments and evidence in the review procedure.
Undoubtedly, if the CNIPA could provide detailed explanations in rejection notices, maintain stable examination standards and respect existing market practices, trademark applicants would enjoy more predictable outcomes and greater freedom in using their marks. However, we must once again revisit the context of the expanded application of absolute grounds: surging application volumes. Against this backdrop, whether the CNIPA is willing, or has sufficient examination resources, to apply absolute grounds more precisely – balancing the dual needs of curbing application volumes and improving review quality – remains to be seen.
After all, excessively high application volumes inevitably lead to overwhelming examination pressure and declining examination quality, while broad-brush measures to reduce applications unavoidably impact examination quality. This may be one of the root causes of many issues discussed in this article.
Lack of examiner communication mechanisms
For a long time, foreign trademark owners and agents have called for direct communication channels with CNIPA examiners. This is particularly urgent in cases requiring immediate clarification, such as office actions for new goods, understanding rejection reasons or new cancellation requirements.
It should be noted that the Trademark Office currently has primarily two communication mechanisms: telephone enquiries and online messages, both of which are operational. However, these mechanisms have limitations. First, they do not facilitate direct communication with examiners; instead, specialised enquiry-handling departments manage them. Second, responses are often generic and rarely address specific questions. For example:
•enquiring whether new goods are acceptable might yield: ‘Please declare goods according to the Similar Goods and Services Classification Table’;
•asking why a rejection cited a specific absolute ground might result in: ‘This type of question cannot be answered. If dissatisfied with the rejection, you may file a review’; or
•querying case progress might prompt: ‘The review is ongoing. Please wait patiently’.
Additionally, enquiry calls are often difficult to connect, and online messages require waiting for replies via email, making communication inefficient.
However, many foreign trademark owners and agents (and even some domestic agents) are unaware that the CNIPA also offers on-site consultations. From Monday to Friday, 8:30–11:30 AM, officials from various CNIPA departments are available for in-person enquiries. The current schedule is as follows:
•Monday: trademark examination.
•Tuesday: trademark opposition.
•Wednesday: trademark review (including rejection reviews, invalidations and cancellation reviews).
•Thursday: trademark changes, assignments, renewals, and cancellations.
•Friday: international trademark registration.
Thus, foreign trademark owners and agents can authorise Chinese agents to attend on-site consultations, where response quality is generally superior to telephone or online enquiries.
‘Examiner’s advice’ is another alternative communication method for which foreign owners and agents have long advocated. However, a common misconception must first be clarified: some believe China’s trademark legal system does not allow examiner’s advice. This is incorrect. Article 29 of the Trademark Law explicitly states: ‘During the examination process, if the Trademark Office deems it necessary to clarify or amend the content of a trademark registration application, it may request the applicant to provide an explanation or amendment. Failure by the applicant to respond does not affect the Trademark Office’s examination decision.’ This provision is the legal basis for China’s examiner’s advice system.
Yet, this misconception is understandable, as examiner advice is exceedingly rare in practice – many rights holders or agents have never encountered it. Advocates argue that leveraging examiner advice (for example, by giving applicants a chance to explain before rejection) could reduce rejection rates. This sounds reasonable, so why doesn’t the CNIPA use it more widely?
The answer lies in the latter part of article 29 of the Trademark Law: ‘Failure by the applicant to respond does not affect the Trademark Office’s examination decision.’ In other words, responding to examiner advice is not mandatory; the CNIPA must proceed with the examination regardless. Thus, unless absolutely necessary, avoiding examiner advice is the more convenient choice for the CNIPA – especially amid high application volumes, where adding steps would further strain examination capacity.
That said, from a holistic and long-term perspective, proper use of examiner advice would undoubtedly improve examination quality. However, as with previous points, we may need to wait for application volumes to stabilise at a lower level.
Goods classification issues
Although China adopts the Nice Classification, it has a unique Similar Goods and Services Classification Table (Classification Table), distinguished by its subclass system. Goods in each class are divided into subclasses, where goods within the same subclass are similar in most cases, while those in different subclasses are not. Therefore, to secure comprehensive protection in a class, merely applying for broad heading goods is insufficient (or even inacceptable) – one must select goods from each subclass. Some subclasses are further divided into paragraphs, where goods in different paragraphs may also be dissimilar, necessitating selections from each. For those unfamiliar with China’s subclass system, this classification framework is undeniably complex.
China’s subclass system allows some flexibility in assessing similarity. However, this flexibility applies only to goods not deemed similar under the Classification Table. If such goods share identical or closely related functions, purposes, production sectors, distribution channels or consumer bases – or if the relevant members of the public would generally associate them – they may still be deemed similar.[5] Conversely, goods classified as similar under the Classification Table cannot be argued as dissimilar based on differences in function, purpose, production sector, etc.
This design primarily ensures consistency in examination standards and facilitates official examinations. As previously noted, China’s trademark case volumes dwarf those of any other countries. Allowing non-standard goods to be freely applied for and assessed outside the Classification Table’s similarity framework would severely compromise examination efficiency and quality. Thus, despite its rigidity or occasional misalignment with reality, the current subclass system remains the relatively rational choice – altering or abolishing it could cause more harm than good.
For foreign rights holders, ‘when in Rome, do as the Romans do’ may be the only pragmatic approach. One critical note: the CNIPA adopts a lenient stance when examining goods designated in international registrations (the Madrid System) for China, accepting any goods that do not blatantly violate the Classification Table’s rules. However, this is not necessarily advantageous. The Chinese translation and subclass allocation of internationally designated goods are handled solely by the CNIPA, without input from local agents. Consequently, the protection scope of an international registration in its home country may differ from its enforceable scope in China – a discrepancy that could fuel future disputes.
Endnotes
[1] China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), Trademark Office Notice on Revisions to Applications for Cancellation of Trademarks Not Used for Three Consecutive Years: https://sbj.cnipa.gov.cn/sbj/sbsq/sqzn/202303/t20230330_26201.html.
[2] Beijing High People’s Court’s Guidelines for the Trial of Trademark Right Granting and Verification Cases: https://img.chinacourt.org/up/uploadfile/2019/04/24/2B80F3BBF393C4B9481BC87466D4D82C.pdf.
[3] This and subsequent trademark application data are from CNIPA’s official releases.
[4] CNIPA Notice on Issuing the Action Plan to Combat Malicious Trademark Squatting: https://www.cnipa.gov.cn/art/2021/3/24/art_75_157972.html.
[5] Article 11 of Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Trademark Civil Disputes: http://gongbao.court.gov.cn/Details/93ca0d509275338b498e7bef849830.html?sw=最高人民法院关于审理商标民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释.
.jpg)