Recently, the China National IP Administration (CNIPA), the parent organization to the Trademark Office (TMO), began introducing new policies and procedures relating to non-use cancellations that may result in higher costs and uncertainties.

In short:

• Measures introduced in April 2025 were introduced to combat the abusive filing of cancellation petitions through proxies. As a result, clients seeking anonymity when filing cancellations may receive demands from the TMO seeking disclosure of the actual party behind the action and a statement confirming the reasons for filing through a proxy.  Fortunately, in early May 2025, TMO officials confirmed that they will not disclose the client’s name to the registrant of the mark targeted for cancellation, thereby helping to limit the risk of revenge measures from the registrant.

• On May 26, 2025, the TMO updated its official guidelines for non-use cancellations, specifying that all petitions for cancellation must include evidence that the petitioner conducted reasonable investigations into use of the targeted trademark registration and that such investigations did not reveal any use of the mark.

Background

Trademark owners have traditionally been advised to file non-use cancellation proceedings through a proxy (typically a company operated by an investigator or an individual employee of their trademark agent) and as a means of protecting the petitioner from revenge attacks from the registrant of the targeted mark.  However, beginning in the second half of 2024, CNIPA took measures to restrict the use of proxies, with the main aim of deterring parties from filing cancellations in an abusive manner, e.g., as a means of leveraging the payment of compensation.

As a result, the TMO has occasionally rejected cancellation petitions where:

• the petitioner has a record of having filed an unusually high number of cancellations in the past; and
• the petition does not include the information confirming that reasonable investigations have been conducted that raise a presumption of non-use of the targeted trademark registration.

To date, these measures have not caused severe problems to trademark owners seeking to cancel deadwood registrations, as it has been relatively easy to either refile petitions through a fresh proxy or to provide the results of use investigations (conducted either online or on-site).

Latest Objections

In late-April 2025, the TMO began issuing notices to petitioners in non-use cancellations demanding submission of an undertaking by the filer’s trademark agent confirming that the petitioner and the agency itself have not concealed the identity of the party responsible for the action.  These notices also demand an undertaking that the petitioner has not withheld other important facts and confirmation that all materials submitted are true, accurate and complete.

To TMO’s objections also require petitioners to provide data generated through prior investigations into non-use of the targeted mark in a set format, with online search results submitted that rely on keywords including the registrant’s name, the mark and the goods or services covered by the mark.  Such searches need to be conducted through general search engines (like Baidu) and where appropriate through other industry-specific platforms that are deemed appropriate for the industry concerned.  And where the petitioner and the registrant of the targeted registration are located in the same region, the TMO appears to be requiring more in-depth investigations, including site visits.

The TMO has been providing 30 days for petitioners to respond to these new objections, failing which petitions will be rejected.

May 2025 Guidelines

On May 26, 2025, the TMO published new guidelines for filing of non-use cancellations, replacing earlier rules issued in March 2023.  The main changes introduced are as follows:

• Under Article 66 of the Implementation Rules of Trademark Law, the petitioner is now required to provide an explanation about the status of use of the registered mark, and present preliminary evidence indicating the absence of use thereof.

• Such evidence should include – but shall not be limited to – business registration details of the registrant (indicating its registered business scope and the status of the business), the results of searches on relevant industry-specific platforms, the website of the registrant, the public WeChat account of the registrant, activity on e-commerce platforms, the results of on-site investigations and market surveys, etc.  It is for now expected that on-site investigations will not be deemed mandatory in most cases.

• The petitioner is required to undertake that it is acting in good faith and providing accurate and complete information in its petition.

Protecting Anonymity

Following expressions of concern from trademark attorneys (including East IP), the TMO clarified in May 2025 that anonymity can be maintained by disclosing the name of the instructing client and offering an explanation of their reasons for filing through a proxy. In the meantime, East IP is generally recommending that, for the time being, where the need to maintain anonymity is not critical, clients consider filing future cancellations in their own name. By doing so, they can avoid unnecessary cost of dealing with TMO objections.