1. Background Introduction

Early 2025 marks a pivotal reform in China’ s trademark non-use cancellation system, as the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has rolled out a series of sweeping reforms nationwide to crack down malicious applicants of non-use cancellation actions and tackle systemic abuse of the cancellation procedure. And this reform has been updated over recent months and is now entering a relatively stable phase. 

According to Article 49 of the Trademark Law and Article 66 of the Implementing Regulations of the Trademark Law, relevant circumstances shall be stated when filing non-use cancellation applications. And earlier in 2023, the Systematic Governance of Malicious Trademark Registration Work Plan (2023-2025) issued by CNIPA already reveals CNIPA’ s determination to comprehensively curb malicious behaviors across various trademark procedures—laying the groundwork for the 2025 reforms.

2. Timeline of 2025 reforms 

February 2025: trademark agents from multiple cities received office actions for the non-use cancellation actions they filed on behalf of their clients, requiring them to file preliminary evidence to prove the targeted trademark has not been put into use. And evidence listed by CNIPA is briefed as following: 

- basic information of the registrant, include enterprise information, business scope and status, trademark information of the registrant,

- online search results on at least 3 platforms, each with more than 5 consecutive pages,

- search methods on each platform: registrant’ s name, trademark, trademark + goods.

- Field investigation or industry research reports (not for all, only for some Chinese registrants).

March 2025: CNIPA required the applicant to file:

- letter of commitment, undertaking the filed information and evidence is true, accurate and complete.

April 2025: CNIPA required the applicant and the local representative to file:

- letter of integrity commitment, undertaking no concealment of the true applicant and to bear the adverse consequences such as credit penalties if the commitment is not implemented.

- Disclosure of applicant’ s related trademark applications or review cases on rejection, invalidation or opposition cases, infringement cases, etc.

May 2025: On May 26, CNIPA formally issued a guideline for trademark non-use cancellation actions. The following preliminary investigation on use of the challenged trademark include but not limited to: 

- registrant’ s profiling: business scope, business status or existence status of the trademark registrant,

- market research of the trademark, 

- multi-channel searches: searches on professional search platforms, official website of registrant, WeChat official account, and e-commerce platforms,

- field investigations at offline production and operation sites, 

- other online search, market research, or field investigation evidence.

June 2025: The number of office actions are significantly decreasing. In rare cases, the following office actions were received:

- suspension or withdrawal request may be asked to file for filed cancelations, if the examiner identifies another cancellation action against the same mark pending under examination. 

- notice of acceptance may be revoked if CNIPA later finds the search evidence for non-use filed by the applicant is fake, or the cancellation action is out of bad faith to disrupt other’ s normal business activities as the mark is in use.

- notice of non-acceptance may be directly issued if the attacked trademark is widely known in the relevant field and the applicant should have been aware that it is in use. 

July 2025: Most non-use cancellation actions with proper responses to office actions are accepted by CNIPA

3. Practical implications and what should we do

For applicants:

Shift in burden of filing proofs: In the past, “isolated” evidence for use with a few screen shots filed by the applicant can meet the requirements for formality examination and the burden of proof for use is primarily on the registrant. After 2025 reforms, the burden of proof for non-use are shifted to the applicant before the cancellation action is officially accepted by CNIPA.  Time costs and economic costs are surged now for the applicant as quantitative and qualitative evidence shall be filed and the difficulty of submitting evidence for non-use is increased.  Assistance from professional local agencies will be helpful to ensure successful acceptance or proper evidence submission in response to office actions. 

High threshold to entry: “Full-chain” proofs for non-use, introductions of integrity commitment system and credit punishment mechanism to both the applicant and its local representatives undoubtedly and significantly raise the entry threshold for trademark cancellation applications. By raising the bar, CNIPA now demands greater prudence in initiating non-use cancellations.Prohibition of strawman: cancellation action if filed in the name of a strawman will now pose dilemma to the applicant: disclosure of the real applicant or not may result in rejection of the cancellation action in either way. Fake documents or information if filed may cause credit punishment or administrative penalty to the applicant or the local agency.  So, cancellation action in the name of a “strawman” is not advisable. 

For right holders:

Reduced harassment: Decline in bad-faith cancellation actions allows the legitimate right holders to focus more on long-term developments for their brands in the market, rather than being exhausted dealing with the cancellation actions submitted by others. 

Higher standards of evidence: Per our recent cases, CNIPA and the court are holding a higher standard for the use evidence filed by the registrant, and original or notarized evidence are required for filing to prove authenticity. Time stamp verifications for electronic evidence are playing a vital role to prove valid use since nowadays e-evidence has permeated in daily business activities. 

Proactive actions for defense:  The registrants must ensure their trademarks are consistently and properly used and keep track of all usage to form a continuous record of use and avoid their trademarks becoming “zombie trademarks” . For defensive trademarks or reserve trademarks, effective evidence of use, even if on small scale, should be retained regularly. Alternatively, the registrant can have them licensed to others for use in a timely manner.  Monitoring on the status of trademark registrations will also help the right holders to spot the cancellation actions filed by other party and get prepared for defense within the statutory 2-month time limit. 

4. Conclusion

These changes reflect CNIPA’ s new attempts for a balance between clearing “idle” trademarks and preventing procedural misuse by malicious applicants and improving the overall efficiency of trademark examinations.  Every stakeholder must adapt swiftly to the new landscape of trademark cancellations and make good decisions.  Applicants must exercise greater diligence in filing cancellation actions only against marks that may hinder their own applications or infringe their rights or interests.  Trademark owners shall implement a systematic portfolio management mechanism for their registered marks to prevent loss of trademark rights and optimize the value and interests embedded in their trademarks.  And local agencies, meanwhile, shall refine their proposals and strategies to guide the client to safeguard their legitimate interests.

For further updates, stay tuned to our upcoming insights on new developments if any and their implications.