The China Trade Mark Office (CTMO) has recently introduced significant changes regarding the evidence required for non-use cancellations (NUC).

Historically, the examination process required applicants to provide prima facie evidence demonstrating that the mark in question had not been used. This evidence typically consisted of keyword search results related to the mark, registrant, and the goods/services designated, with the burden of proof resting on the registrant.

Changes in Examination Practices

In July 2024, the CTMO changed its examination practices for NUC. The CTMO introduced more rigorous reviews of NUC filings, especially if an applicant submitted a large number of NUCs within a certain period of time. According to the CTMO, some brand owners have been suffering from repeated NUCs filed in bad faith. The examination change aimed to address concerns regarding potential misuse of the NUC process for monetary gain and served as a first-line defense for brand owners.

Updated Requirements for Evidence

At the beginning of 2025, the requirements for evidence have become more comprehensive. The CTMO will first review the sufficiency and rationality of the submitted evidence. If the evidence is deemed insufficient, an Office Action (OA) will be issued, requesting the applicants to provide additional reasons and evidence. The required types of evidence include the following:

• Basic information of the trade mark registrant, including the scope and status of the business or operations, , and trade mark registration status.
• Evidence supporting the rationale for filing the NUC. This may consist of trade mark applications, refusal notices, and refusal appeals that demonstrate how the applicant’s mark is blocked by the disputed mark.
• Evidence from searches on comprehensive online platforms and industry-specific websites for the goods/services covered by the disputed mark. The searches should include continuous full-page screenshots of the first 5 pages starting from the homepage, and evidence from no fewer than 3 platforms should be provided.
• If the evidence submitted contains information related to the disputed mark, the applicant is required to provide a detailed explanation of this part of the evidence to prove that the disputed mark has not been used on the goods or services subject to cancellation.
• If the address of the applicant is in the same area as that of the registrant of the disputed mark, evidence of on-site investigation should be provided.

Comments

The CTMO’s stricter requirements aim to maintain a healthy market order. However, these new requirements are a double-edged sword. Although they increase the costs and burden of proof for applicants with genuine intentions in the short term, the higher evidence threshold is expected to reduce the occurrence of certain malicious NUCs to some extent. Brand owners will benefit from these changes, helping them avoid repeated NUCs.

The new requirements have also raised concerns among brand owners, such as whether their genuine cancellation intentions and related cases will be disclosed to the owners of the disputed marks. According to the CTMO, this information is only used for cancellation review and will not be disclosed to the owners of the disputed marks.

Conclusion

Overall, these changes reflect the CTMO's ongoing commitment to addressing bad-faith NUCs. The CTMO has emphasized that these measures and examination practices will be continually updated, optimized, and enhanced.

We do not think these new requirements are targeting NUCs filed with legitimate reasons. These should not be obstacles against filings with a legitimate basis. However, applicants need to be aware of the new requirements and take them into consideration when devising their trade mark strategies.

For those filing NUCs, we advise taking a proactive stance by preparing a thorough search report and submitting the required evidence at the very beginning of the filing process. This approach can help minimize the risk of receiving Office Actions and ensure a smoother examination process. Rouse will keep a close eye on the progress of the cancellation examination and offer timely updates.

TAGS

• China
• Trade Marks
• NonUseCancellation