What has happened?

• The Chinese IPO has upped the ante on applications to cancel Chinese trade mark registrations for non-use, requiring more solid preliminary proof of non-use for applications to be accepted. Good practice when filing these non-use cancellations has always been to give some evidence of preliminary investigations, but this is now becoming more formalised. 

• Higher scrutiny has already begun. Cancellation applicants are now required to show that they have undertaken various online checks and looked into the nature of the registrant's business before non-use applications are accepted. 

• Brand owners considering filing non-use cancellations in China should work closely with their lawyers to ensure that research into non-use is carried out in advance and applications are substantiated well, to avoid the need to supplement them further or risk them being rejected. 

Want to know more?

As a reminder, Chinese trade mark registrations become open to challenge for non-use once they have been registered for three years. This is two years less than the grace period for use that is applicable in the UK, EU, and many other jurisdictions. 

The new changes starting to take effect

The Chinese IPO's new practice is still evolving, with initial official written guidance only being released on 26 May 2025. Further guidance is expected in due course. The IPO initial guidance defines the preliminary investigation evidence required as: 

"It includes but is not limited to the following content: information related to the business scope or range of activities, operational status, or existence status of the applicant for the trademark registration; market research findings concerning the applicant's trademark; relevant investigations not limited to professional query platforms; evidence materials from online searches, market research, and field investigations such as the applicant's official website, WeChat public account, e-commerce platforms, and offline production and business locations."

Currently, guidance from local counsel and our own experience suggests that the changes can be considered under two umbrellas.

Formalities examination

From the outset, applications for non-use cancellation in China should now include the following: 

• Basic commercial registration information of the owner of the registration that's subject to cancellation, including business scope, business status or existence status, and trade mark registration status as relevant

• If the registrant is in business or in good legal standing, investigation reports and evidence on the registrant's product sales, business premises or office locations

• The results of investigations into the registration under attack on comprehensive online platforms and industry-specific websites for the registered goods and services. For relevant searches, consecutive five-page, full-page retrieval screenshots starting from the homepage should be provided, and at least three platforms should be used.

For now, online evidence is generally sufficient for the above rather than a detailed field/market investigation. 

After an application for non-use cancellation is filed, during the initial examination stage, the Chinese IPO will actively check use of the registered trade mark, and if any instances of use are detected the IPO will issue a notification of amendment asking for more evidence of non-use from the cancellation applicant. The deadline to submit further evidence is currently usually a month from notification.

Substantive examination

In addition to the above, the Chinese IPO will now also examine the intention behind the non-use cancellation action. This is a material shift in approach. Particularly:

• If deemed necessary, the Office will ask for the reasons behind the filing of the non-use cancellation action and may even require details of related cases. 

• Where non-use cancellation actions are filed anonymously (which is often the case if brand owners are trying to clear earlier cited filings that are seemingly not in use but blocking new applications), currently we don't anticipate having to reveal the underlying cancellation applicant. When filing non-use cancellation applications in this particular circumstance, it is standard practice to submit a simple statement stating that the challenged registration is a citation in relation to an interested party's pending application. That statement is not forwarded on to the owner of the challenged registration. Based on what we know now, it should be sufficient to continue doing this. 

• The IPO may ask local representatives to submit 'letters of commitment', undertaking that the preliminary proof of use investigations contain results that are genuine, accurate and complete. The aim of these letters is to ensure that preliminary investigations and any evidence submitted is legitimate. 

The worst case scenario is that, if one fails to satisfy the above requirements, the cancellation application is rejected. 

What does this mean for you?

• Brand owners and local lawyers already undertaking good research and practices before initiating these challenges should not see an overly significant increase in the work needed to have these applications filed and accepted. However, it remains to be seen whether detailed field/market investigations become a requirement down the line. 

• If the registrant defends a non-use cancellation action with evidence of use that was not uncovered in initial research, that should not adversely affect the cancellation applicant later on in the proceedings. We understand that, under the current practice, there will be no adverse costs awards against applicants who have legitimately carried out the above steps to the best of their endeavours. 

• While the burden has shifted more towards cancellation applicants, the IPO's approach should also have a positive effect. Third parties may think twice before challenging Chinese registrations. In particular, the practice of trying to knock out registrations unrelated to any citation issues, purely to create a headache for a registered owner, may be limited. We may also see the time length of these procedures improve, as examiners should not have to deal with as many applications that are not properly substantiated from the outset.