Introduction: Fundamental Principle and Recent Changes
China trademark system, like many worldwide, is based on the principle that trademarks must be actively used. A trademark is not just a registration certificate but a commercial asset that identifies the source of goods or services. To uphold this, Article 49(2) of China Trademark Law allows anyone—individuals or organizations—to request cancellation of a registered trademark if it has not been used for three consecutive years without valid reason. This three-year non-use cancellation (known as 撤三) was designed to clear inactive trademarks from the register and empower the public, including competitors and concerned citizens, to prevent misuse such as hoarding or squatting.
However, since 2025, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has introduced stricter evidence requirements during the review process to curb abusive 撤三 filings. While aiming to prevent misuse, these new rules have unintentionally narrowed the range of eligible applicants, making the process accessible mainly to well-funded commercial entities rather than any interested party. This analysis explores these new rules, their effects on applicants, and suggests a nuanced reform approach, supported by case studies.
Case Study 1: Commercial Dispute – BrewMaster vs. BrewMaestro
- Situation: A German brewery, BrewMaster AG, had been selling beer in China under the unregistered name BrewMaster. In 2022, a local individual unrelated to brewing registered the identical BrewMaster trademark in Chinese characters for beer. BrewMaster AG attempt to register their mark was blocked. In 2024, they filed a 撤三 cancellation against the local registrant.
- Before 2025: BrewMaster AG legal team simply stated the mark was unused. CNIPA accepted the claim, notified the registrant, who failed to respond with proof of use, leading to cancellation and clearing the way for BrewMaster AG registration.
- After 2025: BrewMaster AG application triggered a rectification notice requiring:
- Investigation reports from at least three platforms (e.g., Tmall, JD.com, beer forums) showing no use of BrewMaster.
- A signed commitment from their local legal representative affirming the claim accuracy and disclosing BrewMaster AG as the true interested party.
- Evidence of their own pending trademark application as proof of relevance.
Analysis: BrewMaster AG, as a well-resourced company, can meet these demands by hiring investigators and legal counsel. The process is costlier and slower but strengthens their case. The new rules effectively filter out less serious or less capable challengers, focusing CNIPA resources on genuine commercial disputes. For foreign companies, 撤三 is now a strategic legal action requiring investment and preparation.
Case Study 2: Public Interest Challenge – Professor Li and the Oriental Pearl Mark
- Situation: Professor Li, a university academic, found that the famous Oriental Pearl landmark name was registered for restaurant services by a small trading company in a remote province that never operated a restaurant. In 2024, he filed a 撤三 application as a concerned citizen to free the name for legitimate use.
- Before 2025: Professor Li submitted a letter explaining the case. CNIPA accepted it. The company did not respond, and the mark was cancelled. Professor Li felt he contributed to system integrity.
- After 2025: Professor Li 2026 application received the same rectification notice as BrewMaster AG, requiring:
- Detailed investigation reports on the company business and evidence from three platforms showing no restaurant operation.
- A signed commitment accepting personal liability for the claim accuracy.
- Evidence of his own pending trademark applications or disputes related to the mark.
Analysis: Professor Li could not afford investigation costs, had no pending applications, and was unwilling to risk personal liability. He abandoned the application, leaving the unused mark registered. This case shows how the new system discourages public-spirited individuals, effectively silencing non-commercial oversight and prioritizing registrants property rights. It highlights the need for a simplified process for public interest applicants.
Case Study 3: Malicious 撤三 Services – BrandCleaner Ltd.
- Situation: BrandCleaner Ltd. is a notorious third-party that identifies unused valuable trademarks and offers to cancel them for a fee, often secretly on behalf of competitors. In 2024, hired by a competitor of TechNova Inc., BrandCleaner filed a cancellation for TechNova dormant FutureTech mark without disclosing its client.
- Before 2025: The application was simple and cheap. TechNova failed to respond in time, and the mark was cancelled, harming TechNova brand. Such proxy cancellations were common and problematic.
- After 2025: BrandCleaner 2026 application triggered a rectification notice requiring disclosure of any interested parties and a signed commitment. This conflicted with BrandCleaner secretive business model. The need for costly investigations and legal risks made the business unprofitable, so BrandCleaner declined the job.
Analysis: The new rules successfully deter malicious cancellations by enforcing transparency and increasing costs. Legitimate businesses benefit from reduced risk of predatory attacks, though genuine challengers must now openly bear the costs and risks.
New Administrative Requirements: Detailed Overview
CNIPA recent changes have transformed 撤三 filings from simple procedures into complex evidentiary processes with three main components:
- Preliminary Investigation Evidence:
- Applicants must submit detailed proof that the trademark has not been used for three years, including:
- Registrant business profile and activities.
- Multi-platform search results (screenshots from at least three online sources showing no use).
- On-site investigation evidence if geographically relevant.
- Mandatory Commitment Statement: A signed legal declaration affirming the truthfulness and completeness of the application and disclosing any interested parties. False declarations risk penalties.
- Relevance Evidence: Proof of a direct commercial connection, such as pending trademark applications blocked by the mark or ongoing disputes, to prevent frivolous or harassment filings.
Impact: Narrowing the Applicant Pool from Any Person to Interested Party
These requirements have effectively restricted 撤三 applications to those with direct commercial interests, excluding public watchdogs and casual challengers.
- Barriers for Non-Interested Parties: The cost, complexity, and need for professional investigations make it nearly impossible for ordinary individuals or small entities to apply.
- Reduced Motivation: Non-commercial applicants face high costs with no direct benefit and personal legal risks from the commitment statement, discouraging public interest actions.
- Thus, the broad legal right for any person to file has become, in practice, limited to interested parties with commercial stakes.
Proposed Reform Strategy: Differentiated and Systemic Approach
To balance preventing abuse and preserving public oversight, reforms should recognize different applicant types and tailor requirements accordingly:
Applicant Categories and Requirements:
- Interested Parties (Competitors/Rightsholders): Maintain strict evidentiary standards to ensure serious claims and prevent frivolous attacks.
- Non-Interested Parties (Public Watchdogs): Allow a simplified, low-barrier process with a formal statement of non-use. To prevent abuse, CNIPA could publish public notices of such applications, allowing interested parties to intervene with full evidence.
- CNIPA (Ex Officio Actions): Empower CNIPA to initiate cancellations proactively, e.g., through pilot programs targeting long-unused marks or blacklists of hoarders.
Broader Systemic Reforms:
- Integrate Use Requirements Throughout Trademark Lifecycle: Require declarations of intended use at filing, confirmation at registration, and evidence of use at renewal, with grace periods and higher fees for unused marks.
- Economic Disincentives for Hoarding: Introduce annual maintenance fees that increase over time to encourage active use and portfolio rationalization.
- Stricter Penalties for Bad Faith: Impose fines, filing restrictions, or public blacklisting for systematic hoarders or squatters.
Practical Advice for International Businesses
- Offensive Strategy: Prepare for more costly and complex 撤三 filings by budgeting for investigations and legal counsel. Ensure you have pending applications or disputes to demonstrate relevance.
- Defensive Strategy: Maintain thorough, organized evidence of trademark use in China, including photos, advertising, invoices, and online presence, to defend against cancellation attempts.
- Proactive Strategy: File trademarks with genuine intent to use, avoid speculative filings, regularly audit your portfolio, and monitor competitors filings to act promptly.
Conclusion: Balancing Integrity and Accessibility
CNIPA reforms address the problem of abusive cancellations but have unintentionally restricted public participation in trademark oversight. The solution is not to remove these safeguards but to adopt a nuanced system that imposes strict evidence requirements on commercial claimants while preserving accessible channels for public interest actions. Coupled with systemic reforms like use-based renewals and maintenance fees, this approach would create a fairer, more efficient trademark environment.
For international stakeholders, adapting to this evolving landscape means embracing a more strategic, evidence-based, and legally supported approach to trademark management in China. The era of simple, low-cost administrative actions is ending, giving way to a mature, demanding regime that requires careful planning and professional guidance to protect valuable brand assets effectively.