On June 2025, Chang Tsi & Partners had the privilege of attending the Non-use Cancellation Seminar organized by the China Trademark Association. The event brought together leaders from the China Trademark Office and key figures responsible for cancellation operations, alongside top law firms and trademark agencies. The focus was on discussing changes in cancellation practices, addressing malicious cancellation, and providing practical guidance. 

I. Background on the Change of Non-use Cancellation Practices and Big Data

In recent years, the malicious non-use cancellation applications has become increasingly evident, harming the legitimate rights of trademark holders and even being used as a means of profit. At the meeting, we learned about the cancellation application data from the past three years:

• 2022: 150,000 applications
• 2023: 180,000 applications
• 2024: 230,000 applications (with approximately 3,000-4,000 identified as malicious)

Additionally, in 2024, 11,000 applications were rejected due to non-compliance, reflecting the CTMO's increasingly stringent review process.

II. Five Typical Cases of Malicious Non-use Cancellation

In 2025, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) placed great emphasis on strictly regulating malicious trademark cancellation actions. The Trademark Office has made combating malicious cancellations a key focus and identified five key behaviors:

1. Frequent and widespread cancellation applications against various trademarks: Applicants repeatedly target multiple trademarks, seeking profit or disruption.
2. Submitting cancellation applications despite knowledge of trademark use: Applicants ignore evidence of use, abusing the cancellation process.
3. Repeated cancellation applications against the same trademark: Such actions waste administrative resources or disruption of the right owner’s business.
4. Agencies registering trademarks and later filing for their cancellation: Agencies violate trust and harm client interests.
5. Other actions clearly violating the principle of good faith: Including using the process for profit or unfair competition.

The CTMO emphasized the severe penalties for malicious actions, including transferring cases to relevant departments for penalties.

III. Summary of China Trademark Office Guidelines

During the seminar, leaders from the CTMO and representatives from law firms and agencies discussed standards and procedures for cancellation applications. Key points include:

1. Standards for Identifying Malicious Non-use Cancellation

Trademark Office examiners will review the application documents, grounds for cancellation, preliminary investigation evidence, and other materials submitted by the applicant, and determine whether to accept the application based on the examination standards.

If it is found that the trademark is indeed in use, the Trademark Office will not accept the cancellation application. After a comprehensive assessment, cases involving malicious cancellation will be referred to the relevant departments for handling. The Trademark Office maintains a cautious approach to identifying malicious cancellations. For instance, so far 390 applications involving two individuals and one agency have been identified as malicious.

2. Preparation of "Non-use" Evidence

Quality over quantity: Examiners prefer effective, credible, and objective evidence over lengthy search pages. Examples include sales records from stores or online platforms, which are more reliable than search engine results.

Field investigation reports: Although not commonly required, they may be requested for suspected malicious cancellation cases.

Search results and platform choice: The Office does not mandate the number of platforms or pages of search results; the focus is on evidence authenticity.

3. Handling Special Circumstances

State-owned trademarks: If the cancellation involves symbols related to national interests, please handle with caution.

Responding to official notices: Trademark holders should actively respond to official notices instead of ignoring them. Misunderstandings or procedural issues can be resolved through simple explanations or communication with examiners. An effective communication mechanism is now in place.

Cross-case evidence reference: In cancellation defenses, holders can reference evidence from previous cases, and a brief response is advised to facilitate examiner processing.

Anonymous cancellation applications: While not strictly regulated, agencies can report fixed anonymous entities to the Trademark Office for ongoing management.

IV. Conclusion

This seminar not only clarified the direction for combating malicious cancellations but also provided clear guidance for handling non-use cancellation applications. China Trademark Office stressed that applicants for cancellation should adhere to the principle of good faith and avoid abusing procedures, and rights holders should actively respond to cancellation applications by submitting effective evidence to protect their interests.

The standardization and transparency of cancellation practices are crucial components of the trademark protection system. Through this exchange, law firms and agencies gained deeper insights into practical operations, laying a solid foundation for future trademark protection efforts.