On May 26, 2025, the Trademark Office of the National Intellectual Property Administration revised the Guidelines for Applications to Cancel Trademarks Not Used for Three Consecutive Years issued in March 2023 to further improve the efficiency of cancellation of non-use (CNU) applications. The revision guides applicants to apply for cancellation of registered trademarks that have not been used for three consecutive years without justifiable reasons. The most significant change clarifies the burden of proof for applicants and quantitative evidence requirements, marking a major shift from the long-standing "reverse burden of proof" rule. This revision aims to rationalize the use of the CNU system to clear idle trademarks, optimize trademark resources, while curbing malicious CNU applications that abuse the procedure to disrupt market order and maintaining a fair competitive environment.

▼ 

01 Background of the Revision

Abuse of the CNU Procedure

The original purpose of the CNU system was to prevent trademark hoarding and urge trademark registrants to actively use their trademarks. In practice, however, CNU applicants have leveraged the original "reverse burden of proof" rule for various purposes. By merely stating in the application materials that the trademark in question had not been commercially used in approved categories within the past three years—without providing evidence or submitting only minimal proof—they initiated CNU procedures against others' registered trademarks. This led to registrants facing numerous unwarranted CNU applications, affecting their normal operations and brand building.

Waste of Administrative Resources

Under the original rules, a large number of malicious CNU applications not only consumed substantial administrative resources for review but also increased the evidentiary burden on trademark registrants.

▼ 

02 Legal Basis

The Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China Article 49 stipulates: "Where a registered trademark has not been used for three consecutive years without justifiable reasons, any entity or individual may apply to the Trademark Office for cancellation of the registered trademark," providing the basic legal basis for the CNU system.

The Regulations for the Implementation of the Trademark Law Article 66 states: "Where a registered trademark has not been used for three consecutive years without justifiable reasons, any entity or individual may apply to the Trademark Office for cancellation of the registered trademark and shall explain the relevant circumstances when submitting the application," regulating specific contents such as CNU application conditions.

This revision refines and improves the applicant's burden of proof, evidence requirements, and other operational aspects within these legal frameworks to better implement the legislative purpose of the Trademark Law and safeguard trademark use order and the legitimate rights of trademark owners.

▼ 

03 Comparison and Analysis Before and After the Rule Revision

The revision clarifies the applicant's burden of proof, imposing strict quantitative and standardized requirements on evidence forms and contents. This marks the end of the long-standing "reverse burden of proof" era, where trademark registrants were obligated to prove effective use, and initiates the "era of full-chain evidence," where applicants must first prove that the trademark in question has not been used for three consecutive years without justifiable reasons.

[2023 Original Link on How to Handle Cancellation of Registered Trademarks for Non-Use and Provide Trademark Use Evidence: https://sbj.cnipa.gov.cn/sbj/sbsq/sqzn/202303/t20230330_26212.html]

[2025 New Rule Link on Application for Cancellation of Registered Trademarks Not Used for Three Consecutive Years without Justifiable Reasons: https://sbj.cnipa.gov.cn/sbj/sbsq/sqzn/202303/t20230330_26201.html]

▼ 

04 Impacts and Challenges

For CNU Applicants

Application costs have significantly increased, requiring applicants to invest more time and funds in evidence collection, possibly involving notarization fees, travel expenses, and hiring professional investigation agencies.

The shift from "simple explanation" to "full-chain evidence" raises professional requirements for applicants, drastically increasing application difficulty.

For Trademark Agencies

Business complexity has surged, as agents must assist applicants in collecting, organizing, and analyzing evidence to build compliant evidence chains, posing huge challenges to agencies' professional capabilities and service levels.

Industry competition will shift from "low-price competition" to "service quality competition," with evidence chain construction becoming a core competency, prompting agencies to enhance professional literacy and deepen research on trademark laws and practices.

For Trademark Registrants

Malicious CNU applications will decrease, allowing registrants to allocate more energy and resources to brand building and market expansion.

However, they must still prioritize collecting and organizing trademark use evidence, as valid evidence is crucial to maintaining registration if facing a legitimate CNU application.

For the Overall Trademark Ecosystem

Effectively curbs malicious CNU applications, preventing procedural abuse, making the CNU process fairer and more transparent, and safeguarding normal trademark market order.

Clears long-unused trademarks, releases trademark resources, enables truly needy entities to obtain registration opportunities, improves resource utilization efficiency, and promotes a healthy trademark ecosystem.

▼ 

05 Practical Strategies and Recommendations

Under the new rules, applicants should improve evidence collection efficiency by integrating regulatory requirements, technical tools, and professional collaboration—focusing on the authenticity and completeness of application materials and the sufficiency of evidence for three years of non-use, while comprehensively verifying actual trademark use.

The new rules require applicants to submit three categories of core evidence, including but not limited to registrant basic information (business scope, existence status, etc.), operation 调查报告 (operational investigation reports, requiring evidence of product sales, service provision, etc., if the registrant exists), and platform search evidence (providing continuous 5-page full screenshots from the home page on ≥3 platforms, such as e-commerce platforms and industry websites). Therefore, in practice, applicants or trademark agencies are advised to construct evidence list templates around these three categories to avoid missing key information:

Registrant Basic Information

Core Objective: Prove whether the registrant exists and has the operational capacity to use the trademark.

Efficient Tools: Enterprise credit information platforms (e.g., National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity System, Tianyancha, Qichacha) for one-click downloading of official documents like business licenses, annual reports, cancellation/ revocation records (watermarked screenshots or PDFs are directly admissible as evidence).

Industry Databases: E.g., "Four Libraries and One Platform" for construction enterprises, Health Commission filing information for medical institutions, and the National Medical Products Administration website for drug/cosmetic filing information to quickly confirm valid industry qualifications.

Notes: Highlight the registrant's business status (active/canceled/ revoked), registered capital, and whether the business scope includes approved goods/services. If the registrant is canceled, this can directly serve as prima facie evidence of "inability to use."

Operational and Usage Status Investigation

Core Objective: If the registrant exists, prove it has not actually operated or used the trademark.

Preliminary Screening: Assess actual operations via the enterprise's official website (focus on whether product/service introduction pages include content related to the canceled trademark and business relevance), social media (WeChat Official Account, Douyin, Weibo), and recruitment platforms (BOSS Zhipin, Zhilian Recruitment).

In-Depth Investigation: Collect targeted evidence if preliminary screening shows anomalies (e.g., blank website, no recruitment records):

On-site Visits: Photograph the registrant's business premises (e.g., closed stores, idle factories), recording videos with mobile phone GPS positioning and timestamp functions (e.g., Rights Defender evidence collection APP).

Industry Data: Use industry associations, e-commerce platform backend data (with authorization), and customs import/export records (for import-export enterprises) to prove no transaction records in the past three years.

Tax/Social Security Data: Obtain public registrant tax filing records and social security payment numbers (some regions allow public access via government platforms); long-term zero filings or only 1-2 insured persons can indirectly prove lack of substantive operations.

Multi-Platform Search Evidence

Core Rules: Cover ≥3 platforms, each providing 5 consecutive full pages starting from the home page, displaying search time, platform name, keywords, and full result pages.

Platform Selection Logic:

Comprehensive Platforms: Mainstream search engines (Baidu, 360, Bing); e-commerce platforms (Taobao, JD.com, Pinduoduo for mass consumer goods) and Alibaba.com (for foreign trade enterprises).

Vertical Industry Platforms: E.g., Meituan/Dianping (service trademarks), China Pharmaceutical Network (pharmaceuticals), Autohome (auto parts).

Brand Official Websites/Social Media: Registrant's official website, WeChat Mini Program, Douyin store, etc., searching whether the trademark keyword appears in product titles, detail pages, or promotional copy.

Operation Tips: Use browser incognito mode to avoid historical record interference; press F12 to lock page elements when screenshotting to prevent incomplete dynamic loading; if search results are blank, record a screen video showing the full process (from entering the URL to the results page) to enhance credibility.

In summary, the new rules address the procedural abuse caused by the reverse burden of proof, making the rights and obligations of both parties in CNU procedures more equal, the process fairer and more transparent, and enhancing the credibility of the trademark system. This is of far-reaching significance for promoting rational use of trademark resources and the healthy development of the trademark market. Meanwhile, the new rules bring new challenges to all parties in CNU procedures. Only by staying updated on legal dynamics, keeping pace with policies, and relying on professional expertise can each party safeguard legitimate rights and promote the healthy, orderly development of the trademark industry ecosystem.