By Victoria Lei, Maarten Roos

Since 2025, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has implemented stricter formal requirements for trademark cancellation requests based on "three years of non-use." Applicants are now required not only to submit specific evidence of investigations targeting the trademark registrant but also to disclose their true identity and any related proceedings (such as new trademark applications or review cases against rejections). These heightened requirements have increased the evidentiary burden and operational complexity for genuine rights holders, while also elevating the risk of retaliatory actions and additional trademark squatting.

I. The Traditionally Lenient Cancellation-by-Non-Use Mechanism

According to China's Trademark Law, anyone may file a cancellation petition against a registered trademark that has not been used for three consecutive years. This reflects the principle that "rights must be based on use." Compared with opposition or invalidation proceedings—which require the applicant to be a prior rights holder or an interested party—cancellation for non-use traditionally imposes no specific standing requirement. The burden of proof rests primarily with the registrant to demonstrate use.

As a result, upon discovery that their marks had been maliciously registered in China for over three years, foreign brand owners often relied on cancellation petitions filed via special-purpose vehicles (SPVs) to avoid being identified and retaliated against by the squatter.

II. The Original Intention Behind the Reform vs. Practical Challenges

The CNIPA's recent tightening of the cancellation process is aimed at curbing abuse of the system, particularly repetitive malicious filings intended to disrupt normal business operations. However, whether these new rules can truly achieve that goal, and whether they are consistent with the legislative intent and procedural fairness, remains debatable.

1. Restricting "any person" from filing contradicts legislative intent

Under current law, there is no standing requirement for a non-use cancellation applicant. However, in practice, CNIPA now often demands disclosure of applicant identity and related cases, effectively shifting the system from "open to any party" to one with limited eligibility—contradicting the statutory principle.

2. Questionable efficacy and fairness of the new system

In the following two common scenarios faced by overseas brand owners, the updated requirements do not seem to effectively prevent malicious behavior:

• When an overseas rights holder has not yet registered its mark in China but seeks to cancel a malicious registration, it is now required to conduct detailed online research and, in some cases, offline investigations into business and use evidence relating to the registrant. If it uses an SPV to file, it may also be required to disclose the true identity of the applicant and related cases. This significantly increases enforcement costs and exposes the brand owner to retaliatory risks.

• When an overseas rights holder has already registered its trademark in China but becomes the target of a malicious cancellation, bad-faith actors may still exploit the process with relative ease. They may submit a formally-compliant application by conducting only superficial online research. As the rights holder is based overseas, the CNIPA tends to impose a lower offline evidentiary burden on the applicant that is filing the cancellation. Moreover, it is not difficult for the applicant to meet the relevant disclosure requirement. We expect that the CNIPA may still accept the cancellation application, forcing the genuine trademark owner to respond and submit use evidence—meaning although the rules appear tighter on paper, experienced bad faith actors can still maneuver around them.

III. Practical Recommendations for Rights Holders

Based on the current landscape, the CNIPA's new requirements appear to have limited effect in deterring malicious filings, while simultaneously raising enforcement hurdles for genuine rights holders. We therefore offer the following practical recommendations for overseas brand owners:

1. Ensure continuous use and preservation of evidence

Regardless of whether a trademark is under immediate threat, brand owners should ensure ongoing, legitimate use of their registered marks and regularly preserve use evidence.

2. Proactively assess and mitigate risk

If a brand discovers that its mark has been squatted, it should carefully plan any cancellation strategy through legitimate means, aiming to reduce exposure and the risk of retaliatory action.

3. Pursue a comprehensive enforcement strategy

In addition to cancellation actions, brand owners should consider combining oppositions, invalidations, backup application, acquisition and infringement lawsuits based on the case specifics, in order to build a coordinated and robust IP protection approach.

Conclusion

While the CNIPA's new non-use cancellation requirements are intended to curb system abuse, their practical impact appears uncertain. For overseas brand owners, these changes have introduced new compliance burdens and potential vulnerabilities. Careful planning, strategic enforcement, and strong internal evidence management will be essential for navigating the evolving Chinese trademark landscape.

For support to build and protect your trademark portfolio in China, contact Victoria at [email protected] or your trusted contact at R&P. Our IP team focuses on portfolio management and disputes, and the enforcement of trademarks and other intellectual property rights in China.