Since early 2025, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has been gradually adjusting the evidentiary requirements for applicants of the non-use cancellation proceedings. The applicants of non-use cancellations have been receiving Notifications of Amendment one after another, with increasingly demanding requirements for additional information and materials. On May 26, 2025, the CNIPA updated the guidance on "Application for Non-use Cancellation of a Registered Trademark" (https://sbj.cnipa.gov.cn/sbj/sbsq/sqzn/202303/t20230330_26201.html) on its website to provide detailed explanations of changes in documentation requirements faced by non-use cancellation applicants. This article is intended to outline the specific changes in requirements on applicants of the non-use cancellations, explore the motivations behind the changes, and provide some advice to help trademark registrants prepare for potential non-use cancellations, as well as to assist applicants of non-use cancellations in adjusting their filing strategies.
Ⅰ. What's New: Key Changes in Non-Use Cancellation Proceedings
Based on a large number of the Notifications of Amendment on non-use cancellations issued by the CNIPA since early 2025 and the updated guidance published on May 26, 2025, non-use cancellation applicants are now required to bear a greater burden in conducting preliminary investigations into the non-use of the mark. They are also required to provide more disclosure regarding their identity and the intent behind the cancellation request.
1. More substantial evidence of non-use is required
Article 49 of the PRC Trademark Law states: …Where a registered trademark has become the generic name of the goods for which it is approved for use, or where the trademark has not been used for three consecutive years without justifiable reasons, any entity or individual may apply to the Trademark Office for the cancellation of such registered trademark.
Article 66 of the Implementing Regulations of the PRC Trademark Law states: If a registered trademark falls under the circumstance specified in Article 49 of the Trademark Law—where it has not been used for three consecutive years without justifiable reasons—any entity or individual may apply to the Trademark Office for its cancellation. The applicant shall provide an explanation of the relevant circumstances when submitting the application. The Trademark Office shall notify the trademark registrant after accepting the application, and require the registrant to submit evidential materials on use of the registered trademark before the application for cancellation is submitted or provide good reasons for the cease of use within two months of receipt of the notice. If the registrant fails to submit evidential materials on use of the registered trademark within the prescribed time limit or the submitted evidential materials are invalid and there are no good reasons, the Trademark Office shall cancel its registered trademark.
According to the PRC Trademark Law and its Implementing Regulations, the applicant of non-use cancellation must state relevant circumstances when filing the request. The Trademark Examination and Trial Guide issued by the CNIPA in 2021 required the applicant to "specify the grounds for cancellation and explain the non-use of the mark for three consecutive years, along with listing preliminary investigation evidence," but it did not clearly define the content required for such evidence.
Previously, in practice, the applicant was only required to provide preliminary evidence suggesting that the mark had not been in use. Typically, a printed result from a keyword search combining "the mark and its registrant" on search engines was considered sufficient.
However, under the CNIPA's latest requirements and guidance, cancellation applicants must now submit preliminary evidence showing that the challenged mark has not been used for three consecutive years without justifiable reasons, such as online search results or market investigation reports. Such preliminary evidence includes, but is not limited to, the following: information about the registrant's business scope or operational status, market investigation results of the challenged mark, and evidence gathered not only from professional search platforms but also from the registrant's official website, WeChat official account, e-commerce platforms, offline business premises, and other sources such as online searches, market research, and field investigations. More specifically:
（a）Basic information about the registrant of the challenged mark, such as its business scope, operational activities, current business status, and details of its trademark registrations.
（b）More comprehensive online search results. First, the search keywords must be more precise and diverse, such as "the trademark registrant," "the challenged mark," and "the mark and the designated goods/services." Second, searches should be conducted not only on general search engines (e.g., Baidu, Google) but also on comprehensive online platforms and industry-specific platforms relevant to the designated goods or services. Third, the search results must be complete. In recent cases, the CNIPA has required that each search result include screenshots of three or five consecutive pages.
（c）On-site investigation evidence. This requirement applies only to specific cases, particularly those where the challenged mark has survived repeated non-use cancellations and/or where online search results show signs of use. In such cases, on-site investigation evidence would be more helpful to promote the CNIPA to accept the non-use cancellations.
2. More disclosure of the applicant's identity and intent (applies only to some cases)
According to Article 49 of the PRC Trademark Law, any party (whether an individual or a company) may file a non-use cancellation request against a registered mark. As a result, it has been common practice in China to file such cancellations in the name of a strawman (either an individual or a company) to conceal the true identity of the real applicant and avoid potential retaliatory actions from the owner of the challenged mark. Accordingly, straw applicants are often used to initiate non-use cancellations on behalf of the real applicants. Previously, the CNIPA did not question the identity of the applicants in such cases.
However, in recent Notifications of Amendment issued in non-use cancellation cases, where the applicant has filed a large number of non-use cancellations, the CNIPA may question whether the applicant is abusing the procedure for profit. In such cases, the CNIPA may require a reasonable explanation and even request disclosure of any new trademark applications or review of refusal cases related to the non-use cancellations, along with a declaration that the applicant has not concealed the true identity of the cancellation applicant or any other material facts.
While this requirement may be intended to curb malicious abuse of the cancellation procedure, it appears to conflict with Article 49 of the PRC Trademark Law, which does not impose any restrictions on the identity of the cancellation applicant. In fact, in the CNIPA's recently issued updated guidance, no such restrictions on the applicant's identity or requirements to disclose related cases have been introduced.
According to the updated content, the CNIPA requires the applicants to "carefully read the Applicant's Declaration before submitting the application. Once the application is submitted, it will be deemed that the applicant accepts the content of the declaration." The "Applicant's Declaration" is a paragraph on the Application Form that states "the applicant, as well as their agent or agency, understands that submitting false materials or concealing important facts constitutes dishonest behavior; that they commit to acting in good faith, have conducted a preliminary investigation and found no evidence that the challenged trademark is in use in the market, and that the submitted information and materials are true, accurate, and complete. The applicant understands they will bear adverse consequences—including credit penalties—if the declaration is found to be false or not fulfilled."
Ⅱ. Understanding the Shift: Why Practices Are Changing
It is understood that the CNIPA has raised the threshold for initiating non-use cancellation proceedings primarily to address the previous issue where the relatively low threshold led to a large number of malicious non-use cancellation applications. These included non-use cancellations filed against trademarks that were clearly in use, repeated cancellations against the same mark, and using the cancellation process to extort money from trademark registrants. Given that non-use cancellation has become a primary means of removing prior trademarks, such bad-faith filings have further contributed to the growing volume of cancellation applications. By raising the threshold for initiating non-use cancellations, the CNIPA aims to curb improper and malicious filings, reduce the number of unreasonable applications, prevent abuse of the procedure, and ultimately improve examination efficiency.
Viewed in a broader context, the CNIPA's recent changes align with the fundamental principle that trademark registration is "for the purpose of use." This principle is also reflected in the latest draft amendments to the PRC Trademark Law, which emphasize the obligation to use registered marks. For example, Article 5 of the Draft Amendment states that "Where a natural person, legal entity, or unincorporated organization needs to obtain the exclusive right to use a trademark for a mark it uses or intends to use in production or business activities on its goods or services, it shall file an application for trademark registration with the intellectual property administration department of the State Council," which specifies that a trademark to be filed is to be "used or promised to be used." These changes will encourage trademark registrants to actively put their marks into use as a proactive defense against potential non-use cancellations.
Ⅲ. Response: How Applicants of Non-use Cancellations and Trademark Registrants Should Adapt
In comparison with international practices, many countries set a much higher threshold for initiating non-use cancellation proceedings against registered trademarks than China did previously. Regarding the CNIPA's recent changes to non-use cancellation practices, from a positive perspective, the changes can effectively curb abuse of the procedure by bad-faith parties and help reduce the burden of trademark registrants in defending against cancellations and bring a more reasonable balance between the interests of trademark registrants and cancellation applicants.
That said, compared with the previous requirements, the new changes significantly increase the workload and costs for applicants. Cancellation applicants are now expected to conduct more comprehensive investigations into the use status of the trademark in question and to carefully and prudently review and filter the search results before submission. If the online search shows indications of use, further on-site investigation may be necessary. If the on-site investigation confirms actual use of the trademark, the applicant may need to consider alternative strategies to address the relevant trademark issue.
For trademark registrants, it has always been critical to proactively gather and preserve all forms of use evidence (e.g. advertising evidence, transactional documents) to defend against potential non-use cancellations. Now, given the CNIPA's emphasis on online search results in non-use cancellation proceedings, trademark registrants should pay close attention to enhancing their online presence and preserving relevant evidence, which includes but is not limited to making the best use of the registrant's official websites and social media accounts.
In summary, under the new regulations, the cost of initiating a non-use cancellation will vary depending on the amount of preliminary investigation required, and applicants must take the CNIPA's new requirements seriously. It is important to conduct a thorough investigation into the actual use of the target mark before initiating the non-use cancellation action, in order to avoid the burden of subsequent supplementation and the potential risk of being deemed dishonest or a malicious cancellation applicant. The specific form, scope, and depth of the investigation should be reasonably selected and arranged based on the particular circumstances of the target mark. For example, if the target mark appears in preliminary online search results, further investigation and analysis may be necessary to demonstrate the lack of use for the designated goods or services, thereby substantiating the reasonableness and legitimacy of the cancellation request. Such efforts can assist the CNIPA in verifying the actual use of the trademark and in making an appropriate decision during the examination process. Meanwhile, trademark registrants, under the current requirements, are advised to actively demonstrate the use of their trademarks through various channels—especially by leveraging online platforms—to communicate such use to the public, thereby reducing the risk of unnecessary cancellation actions and minimizing the burden of evidence submission and defense.
Source: KING&WOOD MALLESONS Law Firm
Authors：
- JIANG LING, Partner, Intellectual Property Group
- LI ZHE, Consultant, Intellectual Property Group
- SONG YIMMIN, Senior Trademark Attorney, Intellectual Property Group
- Thanks to Wang Mo and Zhao Yibing for their contributions to this article.