China’s Trademark Law stipulates that if a registered trademark has not been used for three consecutive years without justifiable reason, any entity or individual may apply to the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) for the cancellation of that registered trademark, commonly known as “撤三” (chè sān, literally “cancellation after three years”). The core purpose of this system is to clear idle trademarks, release resources, and maintain fair market competition order. Recently, in its review of “three-year non-use cancellation” cases, CNIPA has demonstrated a significantly stricter standard. This trend, evident in the following key aspects, can be seen as the practical implementation of a substantive “stricter new regulation”:
More “Substantive” and “Stricter” Requirements for Evidence of Use:
Heightened Requirement for Evidence Relevance: Evidence of use submitted by the rights holder must clearly and directly point to the specific trademark subject to the cancellation application (including the mark itself and the specific goods/services classes for which it was registered). Evidence such as company brochures or vague sales documents that cannot be clearly linked to the trademark and class in question will have a significantly reduced chance of being accepted.
Raised Threshold for Evidence Effectiveness: Scrutiny over the authenticity, formation date, and legality of evidence has become stricter. The probative value of isolated evidence or self-generated evidence (such as unsupported internal sales records or un-notarized webpage screenshots) is diminished. Authorities now require the formation of an evidence chain that mutually corroborates and comprehensively reflects genuine commercial use.
Stricter Assessment of Token Use: Token use – such as minor, sporadic, non-public use, or use clearly conducted solely to circumvent cancellation – which might have been accepted in the past, now carries a significantly increased risk of being deemed “not genuine or effective use.” Reviews place greater emphasis on whether the use constitutes genuine commercial circulation and serves a market identification function.
Tighter Scrutiny of “Justifiable Reason” Defenses:
When rights holders claim inability to use the trademark due to “justifiable reasons” such as force majeure or government policy restrictions, they must provide sufficient and highly persuasive evidence. Review departments apply a stricter interpretation and narrower scope for “justifiable reasons,” making it less likely for such claims to be readily accepted.
Enhanced Uniformity and Transparency in Review Standards:
Although not a formal statutory amendment, CNIPA has effectively raised the overall review standard by unifying the criteria used by examiners across different regions to assess “genuine use” and “effective use.” This is achieved through internal review guidelines and the publication of typical cases, thereby reducing uncertainty stemming from discretionary judgment. This practical unification and clarification of standards itself represents a form of “new regulation.”
The substantive tightening of China’s “three-year non-use cancellation” standards is a crucial measure by the state to strengthen trademark usage obligations, clear idle resources, and optimize the business environment. Enterprises must abandon any sense of complacency and act immediately. They need to elevate the authenticity and standardization of trademark use, along with the systematic management of evidence, to a strategic level. Only then can they effectively safeguard their brand assets, avoid legal risks, and achieve sustainable brand development under the new rules. In the era of these stricter standards, genuine use and rigorous management are the only true “moat” protecting trademark rights.