The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) published an article titled “Interpretation of the Norms for Suspension of Review Cases” on its official website. This article publicly explains the parts of the internal CNIPA working system, specifically the “Review Case Suspension Norms”, which can be disclosed to the public. It outlines the principles, circumstances, and procedures for suspending review cases. In practice, suspension of proceedings is most closely related to trademark review and reexamination cases.

For trademark review and reexamination cases, the following circumstances may warrant suspension:

1. Citation Trademark Transfer or Name Change: The cited trademark is

  about to be transferred or renamed under the applicant of the review and reexamination case.

2. Citation Trademark Renewal Grace Period: The cited trademark has expired but is still within the renewal grace period.

3. Citation Trademark in Cancellation or Withdrawal Process: The cited trademark is already undergoing cancellation or withdrawal procedures.

4. Based on Article 50 of the Trademark Law: The cited trademark has been revoked, declared invalid, or not renewed upon expiration. If less than one year has passed since the revocation, invalidation, or cancellation, suspension may apply. (Excluding cases where the trademark was revoked for three consecutive years of non-use.)

5. Pending Case Conclusion: The cited trademark case has a conclusion but is waiting for enforcement, effectiveness, or retrial after a judgment.

6. Dependent on Other Ongoing Cases: The rights status of the cited trademark must be determined based on results from another case currently under review by a court or administrative authority.

7. Invalidation Request Pending: The cited trademark is subject to an invalidation request, and the registrant has been found in other cases to have committed malicious registration under Articles 4, 19(4), or 44(1) of the Trademark Law.

8. Awaiting Related Case Decisions: Suspension is needed while waiting for decisions or judgments in the same or related cases.

Notes on Suspension:

• Circumstance (6) requires the review and reexamination applicant to explicitly request suspension.

• Circumstances (1)–(5) are mandatory grounds for suspension.

• Circumstances (7)–(8) are conditional and can be suspended at the examiner’s discretion without requiring a request from the applicant.

If changes in the cited trademark occur after the initial rejection of the application, it is recommended that the applicant proactively submit updated information during the review and reexamination stage and request suspension to ensure timely consideration by the examiner.

Under China’s current trademark law, “actual use” is not a precondition for filing or obtaining trademark registration. That is, a trademark does not need to be in actual use at the time of application or registration. However, non-use can have a negative impact on the registered rights. Article 49, Paragraph 2 of the Trademark Law provides that if a registered trademark is not used for three consecutive years without justification, any organization or individual may apply to the Trademark Office to cancel that registered trademark. In other words, if an application for cancellation is filed, a trademark that has not been genuinely used for three consecutive years without legitimate reasons may be revoked.

I. Practical Features of Three-Year Non-Use Cancellation Cases

1. Cancellation as a Common Tool for Clearing Prior Registration Barriers

Any entity can file a three-year non-use cancellation request against a registered trademark that has not been used for three years. In practice, such requests have become a common means to clear obstacles from prior registered trademarks when filing new trademarks (target trademarks), especially for prior trademarks that have been registered for over five years, were not maliciously registered, and are identical or highly similar to the target trademark.

The primary purpose of the three-year cancellation system is to remove “zombie trademarks” and free up unused trademark resources. China currently has a large number of registered trademarks and a rapidly increasing application volume, with a significant proportion of trademarks remaining unused for a long time. According to recent monthly reports by the CNIPA, approximately 80% of cancellation review cases resulted in either full or partial revocation of the registered trademarks on certain goods or services. A substantial portion of these decisions became effective directly without entering further procedures, indicating a high success rate for three-year non-use cancellation in practice. Thus, the system serves as an effective tool for clearing prior registration obstacles.

2. Differences in Evidence Submission and Examination Across Procedures

Unlike review and litigation procedures, the law does not provide detailed regulations for document exchange and evidence examination in the three-year cancellation process. In practice, after accepting a cancellation request, the Trademark Office does not forward the materials to the trademark registrant but issues a notice requiring submission of evidence of use or justification for non-use within two months for the three years preceding the application date. The office then reviews the submitted materials and directly issues a decision without exchanging documents with the applicant.

In the cancellation review procedure, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) follows the Implementation Regulations of the Trademark Law and Trademark Review Rules, sending copies of the cancellation review application to the registrant and allowing a response. The submitted evidence is then exchanged with the applicant for verification, but generally, the applicant’s verification materials are not exchanged back with the registrant.

In administrative litigation, courts strictly follow procedural law, ensuring full rounds of evidence submission, cross-examination, and in-court debate.

3. Stricter Evidence Standards as Procedures Advance

Administrative decisions, such as those made by the Trademark Office or TRAB, prioritize efficiency. Hence, the evidentiary standards in three-year non-use cancellation differ from those in litigation. In the cancellation procedure, evidence for trademark use across goods or services is generally considered collectively; if a basic evidence chain exists for some goods/services, it is likely to be accepted as valid.

However, there is a trend toward examining evidence on a per-goods/service basis. For example, in early 2022, notices explicitly stated that if evidence could prove use on some registered goods, the trademark would be maintained for those goods, while registration on other goods would be revoked. During cancellation review, TRAB evaluates use per goods/service, especially if the cancellation request targets specific items.

4. Continuous Submission of Evidence

In three-year non-use cases, evidence of trademark use can be supplemented throughout the procedure. Registrants and their agents are responsible for identifying, collecting, and organizing supporting evidence.

If the registrant did not submit use evidence in the cancellation review, TRAB may refer to evidence submitted in the initial three-year cancellation procedure and use it in its review, ensuring that lack of submission in the review does not automatically lead to revocation.

The legal basis for declaring a registered trademark invalid is provided under Article 44 of the Trademark Law. A registered trademark that violates Articles 10, 11, or 12 of the Trademark Law, or was obtained through fraudulent or other improper means, may be declared invalid by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA). Other organizations or individuals may request the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) to declare the trademark invalid.

I. Types of Trademark Invalidation

1.Invalidation by CNIPA ex officio (Absolute Grounds)

• Parties may apply to TRAB for review.

2.Invalidation by TRAB based on Absolute Grounds

• Applicants: any entity

• Time limit: no restriction

3.Invalidation by TRAB based on Relative Grounds

• Applicants: prior rights holders or interested parties

• Time limit: within five years from the registration date of the disputed trademark; for malicious registration of a well-known trademark, the five-year limitation does not apply.

Absolute grounds for invalidation include:

• Registered trademarks that lack distinctiveness, visibility, or legality

• Trademarks obtained through fraud or other improper means

Relative grounds for invalidation include:

• Conflict with prior existing rights or other legal interests

• Infringement of a well-known trademark

• Malicious registration of unregistered trademarks owned by others

• Violation of agency or representation regulations

II. Procedure for Trademark Invalidation Initiated by CNIPA

1.CNIPA issues a written notice of its decision to invalidate the registered trademark to the parties involved.

2.If the parties disagree with CNIPA’s decision, they may file a request for review with TRAB within 15 days of receiving the notice.

3.TRAB shall issue a decision within 9 months and notify the parties in writing. In special circumstances, the review period may be extended by up to 3 months with approval from the State Administration for Market Regulation.

4.Parties dissatisfied with TRAB’s decision may file a lawsuit with the People’s Court within 30 days of receiving the notice.

III. Procedure for Trademark Invalidation Requests by Other Entities or Individuals

1.Any organization or individual may apply to TRAB for the invalidation of a registered trademark.

2.Upon receiving the application, TRAB shall notify the relevant parties in writing and set a deadline for submitting a response or defense. (Our firm can assist with drafting responses to invalidation requests.)

3.TRAB shall issue a decision within 9 months, either maintaining the registration or declaring the trademark invalid, and notify the parties in writing.

4.Parties dissatisfied with TRAB’s decision may file a lawsuit with the People’s Court within 30 days of receiving the notice.

5.Upon accepting the lawsuit, the court shall notify the opposing party in the trademark invalidation proceeding to participate as a third party in the litigation.

Trademark opposition is an important stage in the trademark registration and confirmation process and serves as a key mechanism for rights holders to exercise their rights. The Opposition Division of the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) actively implements measures for facilitating trademark registration and strengthens administrative protection of trademark rights, fully utilizing the function of oppositions.

I. Introduction to the Trademark Opposition System

A trademark opposition allows a natural person, legal person, or other organization to file an objection within the statutory period against a trademark application that has been preliminarily approved and published by CNIPA. The objecting party requests the Trademark Office to revoke the preliminary approval, after which CNIPA will issue a decision either approving or rejecting the trademark registration.

• Opposer: The party filing the opposition

• Applicant/Respondent: The trademark applicant under opposition

• Opposed Trademark: The trademark subject to opposition

Key changes in the opposition procedure under the 2013 amended Trademark Law and its Implementing Regulations include:

1. Restrictions on the eligibility of opposers

2. Clear specification of reasons for filing an opposition

3. Simplification of the trademark opposition confirmation procedure

4. Explicit time limits for opposition examination

5. Emphasis on the principle of good faith and stronger regulation of malicious trademark registration

II. Relationship and Differences Between Opposition Procedure and Trademark Examination

Relationship:

• Both are crucial stages in trademark registration and confirmation

• Examination standards are generally consistent under the existing Trademark Law framework

Differences:

1. China follows a trademark registration system; applicants do not need to submit proof of use during registration. The registration process is unilateral, whereas opposition involves both parties submitting relevant evidence, including trademark usage.

2. Opposition examination and determination of trademark similarity consider the actual market usage of the trademark and related products, reflecting case-specific conditions.

3. Trademark registration examination is proactive, while opposition examination is reactive.

4. Different legal provisions apply to the registration examination and opposition procedure.

III. Significance and Remedies of Trademark Opposition

1. Protects the interests of prior rights holders and interested parties

2. Protects consumer interests

3. Maintains public interests and social ethics

4. Allows the public to supervise trademark examination work

5. Promotes honesty, good faith, innovation, and awareness of intellectual property protection among market participants