Recently, the Trademark Office of China National Intellectual Property Administration（hereafter referred to as the CNIPA）issued an interpretation of the Standards for Suspension in Trademark Review, which distinctly specifying seven circumstances of warranting suspension and three circumstances where the suspension may be considered depending on specific case details.

Among the seven circumstances of warranting suspension, five are universally applicable to refusal reviews, non-registration reviews, and invalidation cases, namely:

(1) the disputed trademark or cited trademark is in the process of a name change or assignment, and following the changes or assignment, the said trademark no longer presents a conflict of rights.

(2) the cited trademark has expired and is in the process of renewal or a grace period for renewal.

(3) the cited trademark is in process of deregistration or withdrawal application.

(4) the cited trademark has been cancelled, declared invalid or subject to no renewal upon

expiration, and the date of revocation, invalidation, or deregistration is less than one year when the case is heard; it should be noted that if the reason for refusal does not involve Article 50 of Chinese Trademark Law, there is no need for suspension; according to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Guidelines (hereafter referred to as Guidelines), if the cited trademark is cancelled due to cessation of use for three consecutive years, the Guidelines shall prevail.

(5) the case involving the cited trademark has been concluded and is awaiting the conclusion to be effective, or the enforcement of an effective judgment is pending for retrial.

One particular scenario is specifically applicable to non-registration reviews and invalidation cases, consistent with the provisions of Article 35, Paragraph 4 and Article 45, Paragraph 3 of Chinese Trademark Law. This is:

(6) the prior rights involved must be based on the outcome of another case that is under hearing of the People's Court or being processed by the administrative authority.

Another scenario is specifically applicable to refusal review cases:

(7) the right status of the cited trademark must be based on the result of another case that is under hearing of the People's Court or being processed by the administrative authority, and the applicant explicitly requests a suspension.

To maximize the benefit to right holders, no distinction shall be made between the times and subjects of application for cited trademark. However, the applicants should clearly state the specific details of cases, such as the registration number of cited trademark, the ongoing procedures, and its relationship with this case, and the warrant of suspension must meet the principle of necessity.

In addition, there are three scenarios where the proceedings may be suspended depending on the specific details of cases:

(8) in the case of refusal review, the cited trademark has been subjected to a request for invalidation, and the registrant of cited trademark has been determined in other cases to constitute a bad-faith registration as stipulated in Article 4, Paragraph 4 of Article 19, and Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of Chinese Trademark Law, the proceedings can be suspended in such cases. The difference between this scenario and the aforementioned scenario (7) is that the suspension request by the applicant is not a prerequisite, the examiner can independently decide whether to suspend the case based on the specific situation, so as to effectively reduce the troubles of duplicate applications and exhaustion of legal procedures caused by the bad-faith trademark registration.

(9) if it is necessary to wait for the prior ruling or judgement of a case with the same or related situation, the proceedings can be suspended as per the needs of individual case. This scenario does not necessarily involve a cited trademark, and a suspension request by the applicant is not required. However, for coordination of administrative authorization and confirmation, as well as administrative and judicial procedures, unifying the review and trial standards, avoiding procedural loopholes caused by conflicting conclusions, and reducing the burden on parties, the examiners can independently decide whether to suspend the case according to its specific situation.

(10) in other scenarios that cannot be exhausted, the principle of necessity and favoring legitimate right holder is upheld, the examiner can independently decide whether to suspend the case based on the specifics situation with a reference to the above scenarios.