I'm writing to share some recent developments in non-use cancellation practices in China that may impact both trademark owners and non-use cancellation petitioners.

A Quick Look at the Landscape 

China’s trademark register is quite large, which often results in new applications being blocked by earlier registrations—even if many of these older marks are essentially “zombie” trademarks. When a new application is provisionally refused because of these blocking marks, many naturally resort to filing for a non-use cancellation.

In the past, trademarks that were over three years old were easy targets for cancellation, typically requiring only minimal investigation.

New Evidence Requirements 

Recently, CNIPA appears to be stepping up its game by issuing rectification notices that ask petitioners for more detailed evidence. The new requirements include, but may not be limited to:

1.        Registrant Information: Basic details about the trademark owner, including their business scope, current status, and overall trademark portfolio.

2.        Business Activity Evidence: Documentation proving the owner’s commercial activities—like sales or service records—and verification of their business premises or office.

3.        Online Search Documentation: Proof of a thorough search on relevant online platforms and industry websites or marketplaces. This evidence should include full-page screenshots of at least five consecutive pages from the homepage, covering at least three different platforms.

What We Know So Far 

At this point, we haven’t received any similar rectification notices ourselves, and only a handful of peers have mentioned them. So, It’s still too early to tell whether this practice will become widespread or how extensive the required evidence will ultimately be.

Implications for Non-use Cancellation Filings 

These changes seem aimed at curbing malicious non-use cancellation requests. For example, there have been cases where multiple non-use cancellation requests target a specific trademark—one trademark reportedly received 60 requests.

Previously, the low filing cost made such actions an attractive tactic for malicious petitioners to gain leverage. With these new requirements, the threshold for initiating a cancellation will be considerably higher, and it’s likely that not all requests will be accepted.

Looking Ahead 

We’ll continue to monitor these changes closely to understand their full impact on the feasibility and cost of non-use cancellations.

If these stricter requirements become standard, trademarks that are over three years old and show clear signs of use will likely be less vulnerable. This is good news for trademark holders, as in such cases, non-use cancellation petitioners will at least need to put in much more effort to demonstrate that a trademark’s use doesn’t meet the legal standards.

On the flip side, for those looking to clear the way for new applications, the process is likely to be more costly than before.

Feel free to share your thoughts or experiences as these developments unfold.