A Shift Toward Stricter Requirements for Non-Use Cancellation Applications in China
By Giulia Didonè | Trade Mark Attorney
In recent months, applicants filing non-use cancellation actions and their trade mark agents in China have begun receiving unexpected office actions from the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA).
These notices titled “Notification for Amendments” require applicants to provide additional supporting evidence or information for their pending cancellation requests, which aim to remove registered trade marks from the registry on the grounds of non-use.
The Non-Use Cancellation Proceeding
Until recently, non-use cancellation in China was considered a relatively straightforward and accessible process. Once a trade mark had been registered for at least three years, any individual or legal entity could file a cancellation request by submitting a basic application and paying the relevant fees. Unlike opposition or invalidation proceedings, which can be initiated by pre-existing rights holders and other interested parties, non-use cancellation filings have traditionally imposed no such eligibility requirements. Moreover, the burden of proof has always rested solely with the trade mark owner, who must demonstrate genuine use of the mark during the relevant period.
Non-use cancellation applicants were only expected to submit prima facie evidence, typically a simple search on platforms like Baidu, to indicate that the mark in question may not be in use when filing the application. They had no further responsibilities apart from waiting for CNIPA’s decision. So, the process was widely regarded as an efficient, low-cost method to remove a trade mark from the register.
Notable Shift in Evidence Requirements
However, recent CNIPA’s office actions reflect a noticeable tightening of this practice. Initially (at the beginning of the year), applicants were asked to provide more thorough investigative evidence, including:
- Basic information on the trade mark owner, such as the scope of business or operation, the status of the business or existence, and the trade mark registration status, etc. and in some cases, when the owner is marked as “in operation”, CNIPA requested an investigation report and supporting evidence from the business or office premises where the goods and/or services are provided.
- More comprehensive search results conducted on the use of the trade mark on at least three different platforms (search engines, e-commerce platform, social media), including a minimum of five consecutive pages of results.
Then, CNIPA began requesting declaration letters in which applicants must affirm that the submitted materials are truthful, accurate, and complete.
Most recently, a further and more substantial change requires applicants to declare that they are the genuine and independent filers of the cancellation request, not acting on behalf of third parties, nor concealing relevant facts. CNIPA has taken the additional step of requiring applicants to disclose the specific relationship or conflict between their own interests and the trade mark being challenged by the non-use cancellation request, essentially asking them to explain the motivation behind the action.
Concerns Among Trade mark Professionals
These evolving requirements have raised concerns across the trade mark community. The sudden implementation of stricter evidentiary standards, without prior notice, or clear guidance or policy has disrupted long-standing filing practices. Many trade mark agents have reported receiving successive waves of amendment notices, each imposing new and increasingly burdensome obligations on non-use cancellation applicants.
There is also growing uncertainty about the consequences of non-compliance. What happens if a non-use cancellation applicant fails to meet CNIPA’s new demands? While it seems that applicants may be encouraged to withdraw their requests, or that disciplinary consequences may be imposed, no official clarification has been issued to date.
Broader Context for Changes
This shift in CNIPA’s approach comes amid a steady rise in non-use cancellation filings in recent years. While many such filings are made in good faith to clear obstacles or protect trade mark rights, the system’s simplicity and low cost have made it vulnerable to misuse. As a result, some parties have started using cancellation requests as a tactical weapon – what might be called “bad-faith cancellations” – intended to intentionally and improperly harm trade mark holders.
In such cases, even if the trade mark owner eventually prevails, the process itself can be costly and time-consuming. CNIPA’s new demands may aim to discourage this abuse, but they also risk complicating access to what has traditionally been a useful and fair tool to clean up the register.
Looking Ahead
It remains to be seen whether CNIPA will formalise these stricter procedural standards as part of a revised framework for non-use cancellations. While the effort to curb abuse is understandable and necessary, it is equally important that transparency, predictability, and legal certainty must not be overlooked.
We will continue to monitor these developments closely and keep you informed of any significant updates.
Photo by Christian Lue on Unsplash
