I. Evolving Legal Context
China’s trademark landscape has intensified scrutiny on “defensive registrations.” While CNIPA historically permitted broad-class filings exceeding actual business scope, mounting pressure from trademark squatters prompted the strictest evidence standards since 2023 for non-use cancellation proceedings ([10]). Understanding this shift is critical for foreign entities maintaining service mark registrations.
Historical context clarifies this rigor: Service marks gained legal recognition only in China’s 1993 Trademark Law Amendment (Article 4), aligning with global frameworks like the US Lanham Act (1946) but later than many jurisdictions. This statutory development underscores CNIPA’s heightened focus on validating commercial use authenticity ([1]).
II. Universal Evidentiary Rules (Goods & Services)
A. Trademark Identity Consistency
CNIPA mandates that the mark in use must be identical or indistinguishably similar to the registered version. Minor deviations risk evidentiary rejection:
Example 1: Use of “BUCCELLATI” is inadmissible for defending “FEDERICO BUCCELLATI” registration.
Example 2: Stylized composite marks (e.g., logos with Chinese characters) require exact replication; textual variants like “CAISAR MANOR & 凯撒” fail as evidence ([10]).
B. Multi-Registration Management
If holding similar marks in one class, evidence must be registration-specific. Overlapping use cannot defend parallel registrations:
Case Illustration: Utilizing “高通 GOTOP” does not protect “GOTOP” or its graphical variants. Maintain segregated proof for each registration.
C. Classification Precision
Annual updates to China’s NICE Classification necessitate subclass verification. Services rendered must precisely match registered terms—not analogous activities. Conduct annual audits of registration subclasses to avoid gaps ([10]).
III. Service-Specific Evidence Frameworks
Service marks face elevated evidence hurdles due to service intangibility. CNIPA requires demonstrable public-facing usage in China. Below are compliant methodologies:
1. Contractual Attribution Statements
Service contracts with Chinese entities must explicitly embed the registered mark, including:
—— Trademark registration number
—— Designated service items
—— Logo placement in headers/footers
Supporting documents:
—— Invoices with consistent service descriptions
—— Payment records (SWIFT/Bank transfers)
—— Service acceptance certificates
Critical Note: Overseas payments lacking fapiao require notarized bank vouchers aligning with contract terms ([10]).
2. Advertising Campaign Documentation
—— Multimedia promotions constitute primary evidence when services lack physical traces. Preserve:
—— Dated ad contracts specifying media channels (TV, WeChat, Baidu, etc.)
—— Payment receipts linked to campaigns
—— Archived ad copies displaying the mark alongside registered services
Context: Service trade growth (e.g., 15.6% YoY increase in 2022 [4][8]) heightens CNIPA’s advertisement scrutiny.
3. Physical Service Premises Records
Even without advertising, office operations generate valid evidence:
—— Lease agreements with the mark referenced in leased premises use
—— Supplier contracts for branded items:
—— Signage, staff uniforms, stationery, brochures, digital displays
—— Corresponding invoices (e.g., for printing services)
—— Site photos/videos showing mark deployment
4. Distinguishing Trademarks from Trade Names
CNIPA dismisses evidence conflating corporate names with service marks:
Failure Case: “Fangyuan” financial services used its trade name in client agreements and project reports (e.g., “Fangyuan Capital”). CNIPA canceled the mark, ruling it identified the company—not Class 36 services ([10]).
Compliance Solution: Add ® symbol to service marks in all materials to signal registered status (e.g., “Fangyuan® Capital”).
5. Alternative Solutions for Deficient Records
Missing core documents? Supplement via:
—— Email correspondence with Chinese clients featuring the service mark in email signatures
—— Reports/PPT templates embedding the mark and registration number
—— Service delivery platforms (e.g., SaaS login screens) displaying the mark
IV. Broader Market Implications
China’s service sector now contributes 53.7% of GDP (2025), amplifying trademark enforcement stakes ([9]). With service trade growing at 6.1% annually (3.1% above global average [4][8]), systematic evidence retention is non-negotiable for foreign rights holders.
Reference Citations
[1] 《服务商标》 Historical Development of Service Mark Protections
[4] 《中国服务贸易欣欣向荣》 China’s Service Trade Growth Statistics (2023)
[8] Burgeoning Service Trade Highlights China’s Opening-Up (2023)
[9] 《积极发展我国现代服务业的典型调查》 GDP Contribution Analysis of China’s Service Sector (2025)
[10] 《专业文章丨国外企业如何有效的在中国进行商标维权》 Foreign Enterprise Trademark Protection Strategies (2025)