Download PDF Version↓

Key Points of the 2025 Draft Revision to the Trademark Law

On December 27, 2025, the website of the National People's Congress (NPC) of the People's Republic of China published the "2025 Draft Revision to the Trademark Law" (hereinafter referred to as the "Draft") and opened it for public comment, attracting widespread attention across various sectors of society. This revision marks the Fifth Amendment since the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China came into effect on March 1, 1983, and it is also the first comprehensive revision. The changes are primarily reflected in systemic restructuring, refinement of definitions, expansion of regulatory scope, procedural optimization, and strengthening of legal liabilities. The Draft responds to highly concerning issues such as malicious registration and hoarding of trademarks, the scope of protection for well-known trademarks, procedural deadlocks in opposition and review proceedings, and misuse of trademarks that misleads the public.

The Draft introduces a new chapter entitled "Conditions for Trademark Registration," building on the current law’s eight chapters and 73 articles. After revision, the Draft will contain 84 articles across nine chapters, with a restructured system that is more scientific and rigorous. Below is an explanation of several key aspects of the Draft that have a significant impact on trademark authorization and validation practices.

I. Expanding the Types of Registrable Trademarks: Adding Protection for "Dynamic Marks"

For the first time, the Draft includes "dynamic marks" as a registrable trademark type. Article 14 stipulates that "any signs, including words, graphs, letters, numbers, three-dimensional symbols, color combinations, sounds, dynamic marks, etc., or any combination thereof, that are capable of distinguishing the goods of a natural person, legal person, or unincorporated organization from those of others, may be applied for registration as a trademark" (underlined portions indicate modifications or additions; same below).

This is not merely an addition of new elements but also a systemic innovation aligned with the digital age. It provides a clear legal basis for protecting dynamic marks created by enterprises in digital environments (e.g., startup or shutdown screens of mobile phones or computers, loading animations when an application launches, or an athlete's iconic celebration gesture).

II. Regulating Malicious Registration and Hoarding: Clarifying Examination and Penalty Rules

In trademark registration provisions, Article 18 of the Draft integrates the relevant rules from current Article 4 (rejection of malicious applications) and Article 44 (invalidation of registration obtained by improper means), stipulating that "trademark registration applications that are not intended for use and clearly exceed the needs of normal production and operation shall not be registered. Trademark registration shall not be applied for by deceptive or other improper means."

On one hand, the current provision—"malicious trademark registration applications not for the purpose of use shall be rejected"—is amended to "applications not for the purpose of use and clearly beyond the needs of normal production and operation shall not be registered." This clarifies that the core criterion for determining "malicious" intent is the degree of alignment between "purpose of use" and "needs of normal production and operation," making the examination standard more objective.

On the other hand, the act of registering a trademark "by deception or other improper means" is shifted from being a ground for invalidation (declared by the Trademark Office) to a ground for refusal of registration. This adjustment reflects a shift in maintaining trademark registration order from "post-registration relief" to "pre-registration prevention," thereby reinforcing the principle of good faith.

Moreover, the Draft clearly defines the specific circumstances and penalties for malicious trademark registration applications. Article 53 provides that if an applicant engages in malicious trademark registration applications and causes adverse effects, the department responsible for trademark law enforcement shall issue a warning and may impose a fine of not more than 100,000 RMB.

First, the specific circumstances of "malicious application" listed in this article include:

1. Applying for registration of a mark knowing that it violates Article 15 (Prohibited Marks) of the Draft (i.e., marks identical or similar to the name, flag, emblem, or medal of the Communist Party of China; the name or flag of the People's Republic of China; the name or flag of a foreign country; the name or flag of an intergovernmental international organization; official signs or inspection stamps indicating control or guarantee; the name or emblem of the Red Cross or Red Crescent; marks that are deceptive and likely to mislead the public as to the quality, characteristics, or origin of the goods; or marks detrimental to socialist morality or having other adverse effects). Notably, this article adds marks related to the Communist Party of China to the list of prohibited signs.
2. Applying for trademark registration in violation of Article 18 of the Draft (i.e., "applications not for the purpose of use and clearly exceeding normal production and operation needs," or "applications by deception or other improper means").
3. Intentionally applying for trademark registration in violation of Article 20 (protection of well-known trademarks), Article 21 (preemptive registration of another's unregistered trademark), or Article 23 (Trademark applications shall not infringe prior rights or be filed with intent to preemptively register).

Second, the new penalty of "warning + fine of not more than 100,000 RMB" for "malicious application" elevates the legal consequence from "non-registration" (refusal/invalidation) within the trademark registration system to an independent administrative penalty directly imposed by the market supervision and administration department. This means that "malicious application" is no longer merely a procedural issue of an individual application being denied, but constitutes a standalone administrative violation.

III. Strengthening Protection of Well-Known Trademarks: Expanding Protection to Unregistered Well-Known Marks

Paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the Draft amends the current provision—which states that "where a trademark applied for registration in respect of dissimilar or non-similar goods is a reproduction, imitation, or translation of a well-known trademark already registered in China, misleading the public and potentially causing damage to the interests of the registrant of such well-known trademark, it shall not be registered and its use shall be prohibited"—to read: "Where a trademark applied for registration is a reproduction, imitation, or translation of another person's well-known trademark, misleading the public and potentially causing damage to the interests of the holder of the well-known trademark, it shall not be registered and its use shall be prohibited."

This amendment removes the condition "registered in China," thereby extending cross-class protection for well-known trademarks from "registered" marks to "unregistered" marks, shifting from a registration-based to a reputation-based standard. For trademark holders, enforcement now requires only proving that "the trademark has attained well-known status in China," lowering the threshold for rights protection.

IV. Optimizing the Trademark Authorization and Validation Process: Shortening the Opposition Period, Clarifying Suspension Circumstances, Standardizing the Examination Basis, and Deleting the One-Year Grace Period

The Draft optimizes the trademark authorization and validation process mainly in the following respects:

First, Article 35 of the Draft provides: "For a trademark that has been preliminarily examined and published, within two months from the date of publication, if a prior rights holder or interested party believes that it violates the provisions of Articles 19, 20, 21, paragraph 1 of Article 22, or Article 23 of this Law, or any person who believes a violation of Articles 15, 16, 17, 18, or 24 of this Law may file an opposition with the trademark administration department of the State Council. If no opposition is filed upon expiration of the publication period, the registration shall be approved, a trademark registration certificate shall be issued, and a public announcement shall be made."

Thus, the opposition period is shortened from three months to two months. This adjustment aims to improve examination and registration efficiency. However, it tightens the timeline for decision-making and evidence submission, imposing higher demands on opponents, who must monitor the trademarks in advance and complete opposition preparations within a shorter period.

Second, Article 40 of the Draft provides: "In the process of trademark opposition examination, rejection review, non-registration review, and invalidation proceedings, if the determination of prior interests involved must be based on the result of another case being trialed by a people's court or handled by an administrative organ, the trademark administration department of the State Council shall generally suspend the examination and review. After the reasons for suspension are eliminated, the examination or trial proceedings shall be resumed in a timely manner."

This provision clarifies the circumstances for procedural suspension, changing the rule from "may suspend examination" to "generally shall suspend examination and review" in cases where the determination of prior interests depends on another pending case. This increases the certainty and predictability of procedural suspensions.

Third, Article 40 of the Draft also states: "When hearing a decision on rejection review, a decision on non-registration review, or a ruling on invalidation made by the trademark administration department of the State Council in accordance with Article 19 of this Law, the people's courts shall base their judgments on the factual circumstances existing at the time the contested decisions or rulings were issued."

This means the "changed circumstances" principle will no longer apply in trademark administrative litigation. Taking rejection review as an example: even if the status of a cited trademark changes during the litigation stage (e.g., it is revoked or declared invalid), the court must still base its judgment on the fact that the cited trademark was legally valid at the original review stage. This requires applicants to conduct early and comprehensive risk assessments of all prior rights obstacles that may arise during trademark application and to remove those obstacles before the administrative decision is made, to avoid rejection due to improper planning.

Fourth, Article 48 of the Draft provides: "Where a trademark registrant applies for cancellation of its registered trademark, within one year from the date of the cancellation announcement, the trademark administration department of the State Council shall not approve the application for registration of another trademark that is identical or similar to that trademark on the same or similar goods."

Notably, the current law's one-year grace period for trademarks declared invalid, revoked, or cancelled due to non-renewal upon expiration has been deleted. This means that once a trademark is finally determined to be invalid, revoked, or not renewed upon expiration, the prior right obstacle is removed immediately.

V. Strengthening Management of Trademark Use: Adding Liability for Misleading the Public and Detailing Use Compliance Requirements

Paragraph 1 of Article 56 of the Draft states: "Where a trademark registrant, in the course of using the registered trademark, changes the registered trademark, the name or address of the registrant, or other registered particulars, or uses the registered trademark in a way that misleads the public, the department responsible for trademark law enforcement shall order it to make corrections within a specified time limit; if corrections are not made within the specified time limit, a fine of not more than 50,000 RMB shall be imposed; where the circumstances are serious, the trademark administration department of the State Council shall revoke the registered trademark."

In addition to the core grounds for revocation under the current law (i.e., changing by itself the registered trademark, registrant's name, address, or other registration particulars), this article adds "using a registered trademark in a way that misleads the public" and further clarifies the relevant legal liability, imposing a fine of up to 50,000 RMB for such unlawful use. Thus, a progressive disciplinary framework is formed: order to rectify within a time limit → fine (≤ 50,000 RMB) → revocation of the registered trademark.

Conclusion

Based on the above, it is evident that if the content of this Draft is ultimately implemented, it will reshape the operational logic of trademark practice at the procedural, substantive, and liability levels. We will continue to monitor subsequent legislative developments, adapt promptly to the changes brought by the law revision, and provide more professional and efficient legal services.

©2026　北京尚誠知識産権代理有限公司

The post Key Points of the 2025 Draft Revision to the Trademark Law first appeared on 北京尚誠知識産権代理有限公司.

Download PDF Version↓

Release of Draft Interpretation III Concerning the Patent Infringement Cases

On December 20, 2025, the Supreme People's Court (SPC) released a draft of the "Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Dispute Cases (III)" and solicited public comments.  The deadline for soliciting comments was February 2, 2026.

This Draft of the judicial interpretation forms part of a series of judicial interpretations since 2009, when the Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Dispute Cases was issued, and 2016, when the Interpretation (II) on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Dispute Cases was issued and later was amended in 2020.  As a result, this Draft is characterized by the systematic consolidation of the provisions scattered in previous individual judicial interpretations and the adjudicative rules adopted in judicial practice.  Among them, the criteria for determining malicious litigation proposed as a new content are particularly noteworthy.  The following briefly introduces the main contents of the 31 articles of the Draft Interpretation.

(1) Regarding Jurisdictional Objections (Articles 1 to 3)

Provisions are introduced to address situations where the plaintiff adds a defendant who has no substantive connection in order to have the case heard by a court in its favor, and where the defendant raises jurisdictional objections without a substantive basis in order to get more time.  It is further provided that the place of delivery of goods or the place of receipt of goods for online shopping shall not be regarded as the location of sales act for the purpose of determining jurisdiction.

(2) The relationship between infringement litigation and patent evaluation reports and/or invalidation proceedings (Articles 4-7)

According to current judicial interpretations, in infringement litigation involving utility model or design patents, courts may require the right holder to submit a patent evaluation report.  The Draft Interpretation further provides that if the plaintiff refuses to submit the evaluation report without justification within a reasonable period, the lawsuit shall be dismissed.  In addition, when the evaluation report contains a negative conclusion, the court shall ask the defendant whether a prior art defense is to be raised or whether a request for invalidation is to be filed; where the defendant requests suspension of the proceedings  on the ground of filing an invalidation request, the court shall rule to suspend the proceedings, unless it is obvious that the infringement cannot be established.

(3) Standing to sue in infringement litigation (Articles 8-9)

Under previous judicial interpretations, patent licensees are categorized as exclusive licensees, sole licensees, and non-exclusive licensees. An exclusive licensee under Chinese judicial interpretations has the right to exclude all others, including the patentee, from exploiting the patent, a sole licensee has the right to exclude third parties other than the patentee from exploiting the patent.  This Draft Interpretation provides that an exclusive licensee may file a lawsuit by itself; a sole licensee may file a joint lawsuit with the patentee or bring a lawsuit by itself if the patentee does not file a lawsuit; a non-exclusive licensee may file a lawsuit by itself with the explicit authorization of the patentee.  This is in line with the provisions of the current judicial interpretation.  Furthermore, it is provided that if an exclusive licensee obtains damages in litigation, the court shall not support a claim for damages by the patentee in a separate litigation for the same patent right unless the patentee can prove that the infringement has caused additional damages.

Furthermore, the Daft Interpretation provides that an assignee of a patent right may, upon authorization from the assignor, file a lawsuit in its own name for infringement that occurred before the date of the assignment registration.

(4) Claim Interpretation (Articles 10-16)

The Draft Interpretation provides that if the accused technical solution has a " technical defect in the prior art to be overcome" as described in the specification, the court shall find that such accused technical solution does not fall within the technical scope of the patent right, i.e., no infringement is found.

In addition, the Draft clearly provides that if the accused infringer can prove that a narrowing amendment or statement made by the applicant or patentee to the claims, specification and drawings has not been explicitly denied by the examiner, the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel shall apply, and the patentee shall be precluded from claiming that the narrowed subject matter is included within the scope of protection of the patent right.  It also provides that if a person skilled in the art can determine that a claim intentionally excludes a particular technical solution based on the description in the specification, etc., the patentee shall not assert that such specific technical solution falls within the scope of protection of the patent right.

So-called functional features in claims are generally interpreted as being limited to the embodiments disclosed in the specification and the equivalent thereof. The Draft Interpretation, however, specifies one exception: features that define the invention by function or effect but also limit or imply specific structures, components, steps, conditions, or their relationships corresponding to such functions or effects shall not be regarded as functional features.

The Draft Interpretation provides that if the accused infringer, for production and business purposes, embodies the substantive content of a patented method in an alleged product and plays an irreplaceable role in reproducing the patented technical solution, the court may determine that such act constitutes direct infringement of the patented method.  This is the legal principle applied in a well-known patent infringement case involving communication methods.  In the case, although the claims of the method patent include steps implemented by the user terminal, the act of operators providing router products capable of implementing the core steps of the patented method has also been considered to constitute direct infringement.

Regarding the clarity requirement, the Draft Interpretation provides that if a person skilled in the art cannot determine the meaning of the technical terms in the claims even by referring to the application documents such as the specification, prosecution history, as well as reference books and textbooks, the infringement lawsuit based on such claims shall be dismissed.  This standard has also been adopted in prior cases.

(5) Interpretation of design rights (Articles 17-18)

The Draft Interpretation provides that a people's court shall determine the scope of protection of a design patent in combination with the brief description. Where the reference view showing the state of use is apparently inconsistent with the brief description of the design, the reference view shall be taken into account.

The Draft Interpretation further provides that where the accused product can only display partial views, but a general consumer can infer the design features of the remaining parts based on such partial views and the characteristics of that type of product, such inferred design features may be used as a basis for infringement comparison, unless evidence to the contrary is provided by the accused party.

(6) Defenses to infringement (Articles 19-24)

Regarding the prior art defense in infringement litigation, the Draft Interpretation provides that the court shall not support a prior art defense based on a combination of two or more different technical solutions disclosed in the same reference document, but shall support a prior art defense if the contents disclosed in different parts of the same reference document are mutually interpretable in terms of context, mutually support each other in terms of technology, and jointly solve a technical problem.  The Draft Interpretation further provides that if a prior art defense is asserted based on the combination of one prior technology disclosed in a reference document and common knowledge, where such combination can be conceived of by a person skilled in the art without inventive effort, such prior art defense shall generally be supported by the Court.  This provision may relax the restrictions on the prior art defense.

If a party does not raise a prior art defense or prior design defense in the first instance but raises it in the second instance, such defense shall be examined.  However, a defense raised for the first time in retrial proceedings shall not be examined.  If a prior art or prior design defense is not supported by the court, and new evidence is submitted in subsequent proceedings, the issue may be reexamined.

The Draft Interpretation provides: where a party asserts a non-infringement defense based on a prior application filed with CNIPA and all technical features of the alleged infringing technical solution have been completely disclosed in the prior application, the court shall determine that it does not constitute patent infringement.  This provision may be understood as an extension of the scope of the prior art defense to so-called conflicting applications (i.e., applications filed before the filing date of the patent in dispute and were published thereafter). However, the specific criteria will need to be clarified through future judicial practice

Article 77 of the Chinese Patent Law provides for the " legitimate source defense", that is, "Any person, for production and business purposes, uses, offers to sell or sells an infringing product without knowing that it was made and sold without the authorization of the patentee, shall not be liable to compensate for damage of the patentee if he can prove that he obtained the product from a legitimate source".  The Draft Interpretation provides two options, for which public comments are invited,  regarding the compensation scheme to be borne by parties who have carried out the use, sale, etc. if the legitimate source defense is established: one option is that the party who carried out the use, sale, etc. shall neither be liable for the losses of the right holder, nor shall they bear the reasonable expenses (litigation costs, etc.) paid by the right holder to enforce the right, while the other option is that they shall bear corresponding expenses in light of the sales circumstances.

(7) Malicious litigation (Articles 25-26)

The Draft Interpretation provides that if a right holder, knowing that he lacks legal or factual bases, initiates a patent infringement lawsuit for the purpose of obtaining illegitimate interests and causes damage to others, he shall be liable for damages for malicious litigation. This includes: ① Filing a lawsuit based on a patent right obtained by the right holder knowing that it is prior art or prior design, or by deception or concealment of important facts; ② Filing a lawsuit knowing that the patent right is invalid or has expired; ③ Obstructing the listing of another person's stocks by initiating a lawsuit that is obviously lacking legal or factual bases; ④ Other circumstances that can be determined to constitute malicious litigation.  In recent years, the number of cases identified as malicious litigation has been increasing.  This Draft Interpretation can be understood as a summary of the criteria developed in practice over the years.  In addition, this Draft Interpretation provides that the compensation amount of damages resulting from malicious litigation shall be determined by considering factors such as the degree of malice, the extent of the damage and the causal relationship.

(8) Enforcement of judgments and damages compensation (Articles 27-30)

Article 47 of the Patent Law stipulates: "Any patent right which has been declared invalid shall be deemed to be non-existent from the beginning.  The decision declaring the patent right invalid shall have no retroactive effect on any judgment or mediation decision of patent infringement which has been pronounced and enforced by the court, or any decision concerning the handling of a dispute over patent infringement which has been complied with or compulsorily executed, or on any contract of patent license or of assignment of patent right which has been performed prior to the declaration of the patent right invalid; however, compensation should be given for the losses caused to others by the malicious actions of the patentee."  It is clearly provided in the Draft Interpretation that the term "invalidation decision" includes both invalidation in whole and invalidation in part, and the term "enforced" covers both full and partial enforcement.  Where a judgment has been enforced in part, the invalidation decision shall have retroactive effect on the part which has not been enforced.  In addition, if a decision of invalidation in whole is made after the judgment in an infringement lawsuit, any subsequent application for enforcement or retrial shall not be accepted, and any ongoing enforcement shall be terminated.

It is also provided that the court may, depending on the circumstances of the case, order delayed performance interest to non-monetary obligations.

Regarding damage claims in infringement lawsuits, the Draft Interpretation provides that if the right holder claims that the compensation amount shall be determined based on the actual losses suffered by them due to infringement, the benefits obtained by the infringer due to infringement, or a reasonable multiple of the patent license fee, and submits corresponding evidence from which the amount can be reasonably determined, the people's court shall support such claim, unless the defendant submits counterevidence that is sufficient to refute it.

Specific policy regarding some parts of this Draft Interpretation (such as above point (6)) will be determined based on the results of public comments.  It is expected that, after a period of deliberation following the end of the public comment period, the final version will be finalized and made public.

We will closely follow the developments regarding the Draft Interpretation and keep you informed if further updates are released.

©2026　北京尚誠知識産権代理有限公司

The post Release of Draft Interpretation (III) on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Dispute Cases first appeared on 北京尚誠知識産権代理有限公司.

Download PDF Version↓

Details of the Revised Patent Examination Guidelines

1. Overview

On November 10, 2025, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) announced revisions to the Patent Examination Guidelines, which set out the operational rules and examination standards governing patents, utility models, and designs in China. The revised Guidelines will take effect on January 1, 2026.

A draft version of the revisions was released on April 30, 2025, followed by a public consultation. This article outlines the key contents of the final revisions and highlights the major changes to the draft version.

2. Summary of Major Revisions

The revisions cover a broad range of areas, including formal examination, substantive examination, PCT-related practices, reexamination and invalidation proceedings, as well as other procedural matters. We summarize the revisions into the following 18 key points.

Among these changes, the refinement of examination standards and introduction of illustrative examples for artificial intelligence (AI)-related inventions and inventions involving bitstreams have attracted particular attention. In addition, the enhanced requirements for inventor information in application forms, the further clarification of the criteria for assessing inventive step, and certain modifications to the rules governing the calculation of Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) extension periods are expected to have a significant impact on patent prosecution practice.

• ●Formal Examination
  (1) Stricter requirements for inventor eligibility
  (2) Expansion of inventor information required in the application form
  (3) Clarification of practice regarding priority claims in divisional applications
• Substantive Examination
  (4) Clarification of the definition of "plant varieties" excluded from patent protection
  (5) Partial revision of the same-day dual filing system for patents and utility models
  (6) Addition of examination criteria and illustrative examples for assessing inventive step
  (7) Addition of examination criteria and illustrative examples for AI-related inventions
  (8) Addition of examination criteria and illustrative examples for inventions involving bitstreams
• ●PCT-Related Matters
  (9) Clarification of the signatory for priority assignment documents upon national phase entry
• ●Reexamination and Invalidation Proceedings
  (10) Simplification and omission of the composition of examination decisions
  (11) Prohibition on filing invalidation requests in another party’ name
  (12) Clarification of the scope of the "res judicata" principle for invalidation grounds
  (13) Clearer rules on amendments during invalidation proceedings
• ●Procedural Matters
  (14) Conditional abolition of page-count surcharges for sequence listings
  (15) Revision of the rules on requests for refund of official fees
  (16) Explicit codification of expedited examination
  (17) Clarification of the information shown on registration certificates for PCT applications

(18) Partial revision of the calculation rules for PTA extension period

3. Details of the Revisions

• ●Formal Examination

(1) Stricter requirements for inventor eligibility

In response to the rapid development of artificial intelligence technologies, the revised Guidelines emphasize that inventors stated in a patent application form must be natural persons and must qualify as true inventors, defined as those who “have made creative contributions to the substantive features of the invention".

The revisions further clarify that inventor eligibility will generally not be examined during prosecution, unless there is evidence indicating that a listed inventor is not a true inventor.

(2) Expansion of inventor information required in the application form

Under the current practice, only the first inventor is required to provide identification information in the application form, namely nationality, and, for Chinese nationals, an ID card number. The revisions now require identification information to be provided for all inventors.

According to the explanations provided at a recent briefing session held by the CNIPA on the revisions, the underlying intent of the revision is to require the disclosure of identification information (including nationality and identification document number) for all inventors, including foreign inventors. However, based on our subsequent confirmation with CNIPA, for an initial period starting from January 1, 2026, only Chinese inventors will be required to provide both their nationality and ID card number, while foreign inventors will be required to provide nationality information only. Should there be any changes in CNIPA’s examination practice after the revised Guidelines come into effect, we will provide further updates in due course.

In addition, while the draft revisions released in April had provided that patent agencies would be responsible for the accuracy of inventor identification information, applicant identification information, and contact details included in the application form, the final revisions narrow this obligation. Under the revised Guidelines, patent agencies are required only to verify the authenticity of the applicant’s identification information and contact details.

(3) Clarification of practice regarding priority claims in divisional applications

The revised Guidelines clarify the handing of priority claims in divisional applications. Where a parent application claims priority but a divisional application derived from that parent does not claim priority at the time of filing, CNIPA will issue a notification stating that the priority claim is deemed not to have been made. The applicant may request restoration of the priority claim by paying the prescribed restoration fee within two months from the date of receipt of the notification.

In practice, even under the existing regime, priority restoration has generally been permitted where the parent application claimed priority, notwithstanding the absence of a priority claim in the divisional application at filing. Accordingly, this revision does not introduce a substantive change to current practice, but rather clarifies and formalizes the priority restoration procedure.

• ●Substantive Examination

(4) Clarification of the definition of "plant varieties" excluded from patent protection

Article 25, Paragraph 1, Item (4) of the Patent Law provides that "animal and plant varieties" are excluded from patent protection. Under the revised Guidelines, the term "plant variety" is now defined as "a group of plants that have been artificially selected and bred or discovered and subsequently improved, exhibiting consistent morphological characteristics and biological characteristics and relatively stable genetic traits". This definition is consistent with those adopted in China’s Seed Law and the Regulations on the Protection of New Varieties of Plants.

On the one hand, the revision ensures alignment in terminology with the Seed Law and the Regulations on the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, such that plant varieties meeting this definition fall within the scope of plant variety rights protection as defined under the Seed Law. On the other hand, it clarifies that breeding intermediate materials and other plant-related subject matter that do not meet this definition may still qualify for protection under the Patent Law. This revision thus provides a clear delineation of the complementary relationship between the two legal frameworks.

The revised Guidelines also clarify that naturally occurring wild plants discovered in nature without any technical processing constitute "scientific discoveries" under Article 25, Paragraph 1, Item (1) of the Patent Law and are therefore not patentable. However, wild plants that have undergone artificial selection, breeding, or improvement and thereby acquired industrial applicability are no longer regarded as "scientific discoveries" and may constitute eligible subject matter for patent protection.

In addition, the CNIPA’s Interpretation of the Revisions to the Patent Examination Guidelines, published on December 4, 2025, provides more detailed examples regarding the determination of whether a subject matter constitutes a "plant variety". These examples are not discussed in detail here.

(5) Partial revision of the "same-day dual filing" system

Under the so-called "same-day dual filing" system, an applicant may file both an invention patent application and a utility model application for the same invention on the same day, provided that the applicant expressly declares its reliance on this system in each respective application form.

Under the current system, once the utility model application has been granted, and where the corresponding invention patent application is found during examination to satisfy all other requirements for grant, the applicant will be notified to choose either to abandon the utility model right or to amend the patent application to avoid double patenting. If the applicant elects to forgo the utility model right in response to such notification, the invention patent will be granted, and the utility model right will terminate as of the publication date of the grant of the invention patent.

By contrast, under the revision, first, it is clarified that where an applicant files both an invention patent application and a utility model application for the same invention on the same day but fails to declare reliance on the same-day dual filing system in the respective application forms, such applications will be handled under the ground for refusal due to double patenting pursuant to Article 9, Paragraph 1 of the Patent Law. Second, where the applicant has properly declared reliance on the same-day dual filing system at filing, and no grounds for rejection are found during the examination of the invention patent application, the applicant will be notified to declare, within a specified time limit, whether to abandon the utility model right. If the applicant forgoes the utility model right, the invention patent will be granted, and the utility model right will terminate as of the publication date of the grant of the invention patent. If the applicant does not agree to abandon the utility model right, the invention patent application will be rejected. In addition, where the applicant fails to respond within the specified time limit, the invention patent application will be deemed withdrawn.

According to explanations given at a recent briefing session on the revision held by the CNIPA on the revision, after the revision takes effect, where applications are filed under the same-day dual filing system, the patent application cannot be granted unless the previously granted utility model right is abandoned. This applies even if the claims of the invention patent application are amended to differ from those of the utility model. Moreover, this revised approach will apply to all applications which will be registered or after January 1, 2026, regardless of the filing date. At present, however, detailed operational practices remain unclear, and CNIPA’s actual practice following the implementation of the revisions remains to be observed.

In its interpretation, CNIPA explained that the same-day dual filing system was initially introduced to address examination backlogs and the lengthy time required to obtain patent grants. However, with the growing number of applications in high and new technology fields such as artificial intelligence, big data, and genetic technologies, use of this system has gradually declined. At the same time, the examination period for invention patent applications has been significantly shortened, and various examination acceleration mechanisms, such as prioritized examination, have been introduced, further reducing the practical need for reliance on this system. Against this background, the revisions to the Patent Examination Guidelines are intended to strengthen the procedural requirements of this system and to limit the applicants’ flexibility, so as to ensure that the system is used only in a manner consistent with its initial policy objectives.

(6) Addition of examination criteria and illustrative examples for assessing inventive step

The revised Guidelines introduce an explicit clarification in the inventive step examination criteria, stating that "features that do not contribute to the solution of a technical problem generally do not affect the assessment of the inventive step of an invention, even if they are written into the claims."

To illustrate the application of this principle, a specific example has been added.

 While this revision largely reflects existing examination practice, it may still have a non-negligible impact on future assessments of inventive step.

Under China's approach to inventive step, recognition of inventiveness based on a particular technical feature generally requires that the feature produce an improved technical effect. This requirement is especially pronounced in the chemical field, where such effects are typically expected to be supported by experimental data or similar evidence. In this sense, even prior to the revision, examiners have focused on whether claimed features meaningfully contribute to solving the technical problem addressed by the invention. The revised Guidelines provide explicit textual support for this existing examination approach. Following the revision, examiners may exercise broader discretion in distinguishing between technical features that contribute to solving the technical problem of the invention and those that do not, and to assess inventive step based solely on the former.

After the revision, where an examiner determines that a specific technical feature recited in the claims does not contribute to solving the identified technical problem, applicants should first consider whether the technical problem identified by the examiner is appropriate and, if they believe the identification to be incorrect, raise arguments to challenge it. Applicants may also rebut the examiner’s conclusion by relying on disclosures in the specification or by submitting supplementary experimental data. As a result, under the revised practice, it will become even more critical for specifications to clearly explain the relationship between each technical feature and the technical effects it achieves.

Furthermore, the new provision may also serve as a basis for rejecting applications in which amendments introduce technical features unrelated to the problem solved by the invention. In practice, when responding to an examiner’s opinion citing a lack of inventive step, applicants often amend the claims by adding non-essential features in an effort to avoid an immediate rejection, while simultaneously challenging the examiner’s determination through written arguments. After the revision, however, the likelihood of such applications being directly rejected is expected to increase. Given CNIPA’s ongoing efforts to shorten examination timelines, this revision also reflects a clear intent to conserve examination resources and enhance examination efficiency.

(7) Addition of examination criteria and illustrative examples for AI-related inventions

One of the most notable aspects of this revision is the expansion of the examination standards for inventions related to artificial intelligence (AI) and similar technologies.

The revisions primarily include a change to the title of Part II, Chapter 9, Section 6 of the Examination Guidelines, from "Provisions on the Examination of Patent Applications Containing Algorithmic Features or Business Rules and Methods" to "Provisions on the Examination of Patent Applications Involving Artificial Intelligence, Big Data, etc., that Contain Algorithmic Features or Business Rules and Methods".

In addition, examination standards and illustrative examples relating to the requirements of public order and morality, inventiveness, and implementability have been further supplemented. Some of the newly added content follows the approach set out in the "Guidelines for Patent Applications for AI-Related Inventions (Trial)" published by the CNIPA in December 2024.

The specific revisions involve the following items 1) to 4).

1) Clarification of examination principles

Previously, it was stipulated that "the subject of examination for inventions containing algorithmic features or business rules and methods is the solution as recited in the claims". The revised Guidelines further add that "when necessary, the content of the specification shall also be examined". This change merely clarifies the existing examination principle.

2) Addition of examination criteria and examination examples for violations of public order and morality

New examination standards relating to public order and morality under Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the Patent Law have been introduced. Specifically, it is provided that “where an invention patent applications that contain algorithmic features or business rules and methods, in aspects such as data collection, tag management, rule setting, recommendation decision-making, etc., contain content that violates the laws, public order and morality, or harms the public interest, the patent right shall not be granted in accordance with Article 5, paragraph 1 of the Patent Law.”

In addition, two illustrative examples have been added as cases constituting violations of Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the Patent Law. It should be noted that, in Chinese patent examination practice, not only for AI-related inventions but all inventions that violate other existing Chinese laws and regulations, such as the Personal Information Protection Law, will be deemed to violate the public order and morality.

3) Addition of illustrative examples for inventive step

Two illustrative examples have been introduced as part of the inventiveness examination for inventions related to artificial intelligence and similar technologies. The inventiveness examination standards themselves remain unchanged; the revision consists solely of the addition of these examples.

Both of the newly added examples involve the application of artificial intelligence algorithms or models to specific technical fields. In other words, they provided guidance on how inventive step is assessed in situations where the application scenarios differ from that of the cited prior art, while the underlying algorithms or models remains the same. In its Interpretation of the Revisions to the Patent Examination Guidelines, the CNIPA explains that “where the algorithm or model of the claimed invention differs from the prior art only in terms of the application scenario or processing object, but no substantive modifications have been made to the algorithmic flow, model parameters, or similar aspects, such an invention will generally be considered to lack inventiveness.”

In Example 18 titled "A Method for Identifying the Number of Ships from Images", when compared with a prior-art method for identifying the number of fruits on a tree disclosed in a cited reference, steps such as image information marking, dataset classification, and model training are not substantially changed. As a result, the method is deemed not to solve any technical problem specific to the field of ships, and is therefore determined to lack inventiveness.

Example 19, titled "A Method for establishing a neural network model for classifying scrap steel grades" is based on an actual examination decision. Although the application scenario of the method in Example 19—namely, the classification of scrap steel—is similar to that of the cited prior art, the claimed method addresses a different technical problem by adjusting the number of paths and level settings of convolutional and pooling layers during the model training process, thereby achieving effects distinct from those of the prior art. Accordingly, the invention is considered to have inventiveness, as it modifies the artificial intelligence algorithm or model to address technical problems in a specific application field and achieves beneficial technical effects. 

 4) Addition of examination criteria and examination examples related to implementability

With respect to the disclosure requirements for drafting specifications for inventions related to artificial intelligence and similar technologies, the revised Guidelines provides that, if an invention involves the construction or training of an AI model, the specification generally needs to clearly describe the necessary modules, the hierarchical structure or connections of the model, as well as the specific steps and parameters required for training.

Furthermore, for inventions in which an artificial intelligence model or algorithm is applied to a specific technical field or application scenario, the specification generally needs to clearly describe how the model or algorithm is integrated with that technical field or application scenario, and how the input and output data of the algorithm or model are set to demonstrate their intrinsic connection, so that a person skilled in the art can implement the invention based on the content disclosed in the specification.

The provision aims to address the so-called “black box” problem in the specifications for AI-related inventions.

In addition, two new illustrative examples have been added in this regard.

(8) Addition of examination criteria and illustrative examples for inventions involving bitstreams

In this revision, following Part II, Chapter 9, Section 6 titled “Provisions on the Examination of Patent Applications Involving Artificial Intelligence, Big Data, etc., that Contain Algorithmic Features or Business Rules and Methods” as introduced in item (7) above—a new Section 7, “Examination Criteria for Inventions Involving Bitstreams” has been added.

1) Addition of examination criteria relating to patentable subject matter

Firstly, with respect to patentable subject matter, it is stipulated that claims directed merely to a simple bitstream, or claims in which substantially all content other than the subject matter of the claim refers solely to a simple bitstream, fall under “rules and methods for intellectual activities” as defined in Article 25, Paragraph 1, Item (2) of the Patent Law, and therefore are not eligible for patent protection. Examples provided include claims such as "A bitstream characterized by comprising syntax element A, syntax element B, ..." or "A method for generating a bitstream characterized by comprising syntax element A, syntax element B, ...".

In the technical field of digital video encoding and decoding, if a video encoding/decoding method for generating a specific bitstream falls under an "invention" as stipulated in Article 2, Paragraph 2 of the Patent Law, then the method for storing or transmitting the bitstream, as defined by that encoding/decoding method, or a computer-readable storge medium for storing it, may achieve optimal allocation of storage or transmission resources. Accordingly, the storage or transmission method and the computer-readable storage medium also fall within the scope of "invention" under Article 2, Paragraph 2 of the Patent Law and are eligible for patent protection.

2) Addition of examination criteria relating to implementability

It is stipulated that, for patent applications involving a bitstream generated by a specific video encoding/decoding method, the specification should describe the specific video encoding/decoding method clearly and completely so that a person skilled in the art to implement it.

In addition, where protection is sought for methods of storing or transmitting the bitstream, or for computer-readable storage media storing the bitstream, corresponding explanations must be provided in the specification.

3) Addition of examination criteria for claim drafting

It is stipulated that in patent applications involving a bitstream generated by a specific video encoding/decoding method, claims may be drafted in the form of method claims, apparatus claims, and computer-readable storage medium claims. In a single application, such claims should generally be drafted based on claims directed to the specific video encoding method used to generate the bitstream, and should be formulated by referencing such encoding method claims or by including all of their technical features.

The revision provides specific examples of acceptable claim formats.

• ●PCT Application Related

(9) Clarification of the signatory for priority assignment documents upon national phase entry

With respect to priority claims made in PCT applications, the current Examination Guidelines provide that where the applicant of a PCT application is not included among the applicants of the priority application, but has obtained the priority right through assignment, gift or the other means from the applicant(s) of the priority application, the PCT applicant must submit to the CNIPA documentary proof signed/sealed by the "assignor".

The recent revision changes the signatory from the "assignor" to "all applicants of the priority application". This revision merely aligns the wording with other parts of the examination guidelines and does not entail any substantive change in practical procedures.

• ●Reexamination and Invalidation Proceedings

(10) Simplification and omission of the composition of examination decisions

For examination decisions in reexamination proceedings (appeals against rejection) and invalidation proceedings, the current Examination Guidelines require inclusion of the following components: 1) bibliographic data, 2) legal basis, 3) main points of the decision, 4) brief of the case, 5) grounds of decision, 6) conclusion, and 7) drawings. For decisions revoking a rejection in reexamination proceedings, component 4) "brief of the case" may be simplified or omitted.

Whereas, the revised Guidelines stipulate that examination decisions shall "generally include" components 1) to 7), thereby granting the adjudication panel greater discretion in drafting the content of the decision. Correspondingly, the provision allowing simplification or omission of the "brief of the case" in reexamination decisions revoking rejections has been deleted. This revision is generally not expected to result in substantive changes in practice.

(11) Stricter qualification requirements for invalidation requesters

A new ground for non-acceptance of invalidation requests has been added: "the invalidation request is not made based on the true intention of the requester". The Interpretation of the Revisions to the Patent Examination Guidelines pointed out that: In practice, cases have arisen where invalidation requests were filed under another person’s name. In such cases, the invalidation request is not made based on the true intention of the requester and is often accompanied by the submission of forged signatures, forged power of attorney, and other related documents. Such conduct violates the principle of good faith and undermines both the credibility of the patent invalidation system and the order of market competition.

Prior to this revision, there had already been a practical trend toward stricter scrutiny of qualifications of invalidation requesters. In recent CNIPA practice, when an invalidation request is filed in the name of a natural person, a notification may be issued requesting verification of the requester’s identity information and confirmation that the invalidation request represents his or her true intention. To comply, the requester must either appear in person at the CNIPA with valid identification documents, or submit notarized documents providing that the notary has verified the requester's identity, certified that the requester has confirmed the invalidation request reflects his or her true intention, and witnessed the requester’s signing of the declaration form attached to the aforementioned notification. If neither procedure is completed within 15 days from receipt of the notification, the invalidation request will be deemed withdrawn.

Shortly after the publication of the revised Guidelines, on November 15, 2025, the CNIPA issued an invalidity trial decision in a case concerning the qualification of an invalidation requester, attracting attention within the patent community (Decision No. 4W119542). In that case, the patentee argued that the invalidation requester, born in 1949 and residing in Taiwan, lacked any academic or professional experience in pharmaceuticals or patent-related fields, yet had repeatedly filed invalidation requests against pharmaceutical-related patents. On this basis, the patentee contended that the invalidation request did not reflect the requester’s true intention and should therefore be deemed invalid. The invalidation requester submitted a notarized affidavit stating that the request was a true expression of intent. However, the patentee submitted a handwriting verification report indicating a high probability that the signature on the affidavit and the signature on the power of attorney filed with the request for trial were made by different persons. Consequently, the examination panel concluded that the invalidation request, having been based on forged legal documents, was invalid and should not be accepted.

According to the Interpretation of the Revisions to the Patent Examination Guidelines, the CNIPA is considered to take a critical view of invalidation requests filed by so-called "straw man" as illustrated by the above decision. While this does not mean that invalidation requests filed in such a manner have become entirely impossible, it is expected that scrutiny of requester eligibility will become increasingly stringent going forward. 

(12) Clarification of the scope of the "res judicata" principle for invalidation grounds

The revised Guidelines stipulate that not only invalidation requests based on grounds that are "the same" as those on which an examination decision has already been rendered will not be accepted pursuant to the principle of res judicata, but invalidation requests filed based on "substantially the same grounds" will likewise not be accepted or examined.

The Explanation of the Revised Patent Examination Guidelines provides the following two specific examples to illustrate how “substantially the same grounds” are to be determined.

Example 1:
Grounds in the earlier invalidation: Feature B of claim 1 broadly encompasses multiple embodiments; however, the specification describes only one of those embodiments, and therefore Claim 1 fails to satisfy the support requirement.

Decision of the examination panel: claim 1 satisfies the support requirement.

Grounds in the later invalidation: Feature B of claim 1 includes functional limitations, and a person skilled in the art cannot understand that the function may also be achieved by other alternative means not described in the specification; therefore, Claim 1 fails to satisfy the support requirement.

Example 2:
Grounds in the earlier invalidation: Claim 1 lacks inventive step over Evidence 1 in combination with common general knowledge.

Decision of the examination panel: claim 1 has an inventive step.
Grounds in the later invalidation: Claim 1 lacks novelty over Evidence 1.

In both examples above, when the examination decision is rendered on the earlier invalidation grounds, the determination of the later invalidation grounds has already been made clear. Accordingly, such later grounds are deemed to constitute "substantially the same grounds".

This revision aims to curb the practice of repeatedly filing invalidation requests based on substantially the same grounds as a means of prolonging disputes with patentees. It also serves the purpose of conserving examination resources and improving procedural efficiency.

(13) Clearer rules on amendments during invalidation proceedings

The revised Guidelines expressly stipulates that when amendments are made during invalidation proceedings, the party must submit full replacement pages together with a comparison table showing the amendments.

In addition, it is stipulated that where multiple amended texts are submitted during the same invalidation proceeding and all such texts comply with the amendment requirements, only the last-submitted amended text should prevail, and other amended texts will not serve as the basis for examination.

• ●Procedural Matters

(14) Conditional abolition of page-count surcharges for sequence listings

It is stipulated that sequence listings submitted in the prescribed electronic data format shall not be counted toward the number of the specification pages and shall not be subject to additional page-based filing fees. It should be noted, however, that sequence listings submitted in paper form will continue to be subject to the original rules for calculating additional fees.

In line with this change, the list of official fees applicable to the national phase of PCT applications has removed the provision stating that "where a nucleic acid sequence and/or amino acid sequence listing, as an independent part of the specification, exceeds 400 pages, the sequence listing shall be counted as 400 pages".

(15) Revision of the rules on requests for refund of official fees

For the following situations 1)~3), which under the current practice allow the CNIPA to proactively refund fees, refunds will, under the revised rules, be made only upon request by the relevant party.

The stated reason for this change is to ensure accuracy and timeliness in fee refunds and to protect the interests of the parties. Accordingly, it should be noted that, after the implementation of the new rules, if no refund request is filed by the party in situations 1)~3), the official fees will not be refunded.

1) Where a patent application is deemed withdrawn, a divisional application is deemed withdrawn, or a request for withdrawal of a patent application is approved before the Patent Office issues a notification that the invention patent application has entered the substantive examination stage, the party may request a refund of the substantive examination fee already paid.

2) Where annuity fees are paid after the announcement of a decision terminating the patent right or declaring the patent right invalid in its entirety, the party may request a refund of the annuity fees already paid.

3) Where a restoration of rights procedure is initiated and a decision rejecting the request is issued, the party may request a refund of the restoration request fee and related fees already paid.

(16) Explicit codification of expedited examination

It is stipulated that, upon applicant's request, an application may be subject to prioritized examination, expedited examination, or deferred examination.

It is further stipulated that patent applications submitted after passing preliminary examination by an Intellectual Property Protection Center or a Rapid Rights Protection Center may be subject to expedited examination, provided that the relevant requirements are satisfied.

For applications filed by domestic Chinese applicants, prioritized examination and accelerated examination have been widely used in practice, and this revision formally incorporates such practices into the rules.

(17) Clarification of the information shown on registration certificates for PCT applications

It is clarified that, for international applications and their divisional applications, the "inventor(s)/designer(s)/applicant(s) at the time of filing" listed on the registration certificates refer to the inventor(s)/designer(s)/applicant(s) at the time of the international application enters the Chinese national phase or, in the case of a divisional application, at the date of submission of the divisional application.

(18) Partial revision of the calculation rules for PTA extension period

Article 78, paragraph 3, item (1) of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law provides that "delay caused by reexamination procedure where patent application documents are granted after being amended in accordance the provisions of Rule 66 of these Implementing Regulations" are "reasonable delays" and therefore are not eligible for patent term compensation.

This revision further clarifies that even if no amendments are made during the reexamination process, the period spent on reexamination will likewise not be included in the compensable patent term if the prior rejection is overturned based on new grounds or evidence submitted by the requester after receiving the decision of refusal.

4. Conclusion

This revision was finalized within a relatively short period following the public consultation on the draft revision conducted through June 15, and the changes from the draft version were relatively limited in scope. While many of the revisions are confirmatory in nature and are not expected to cause significant practical changes, certain modifications—such as the change to the same-day dual filing system for patents and utility models, and the stricter eligibility requirements for invalidation requesters—may have uncertain practical implications. The impact of these changes will require observation of how the CNIPA handles related matters in practice. My office will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates as soon as clear progress is observed.

The post Revisions to the Patent Examination Guidelines Effective as of January 1, 2026 first appeared on 北京尚誠知識産権代理有限公司.

Download PDF Version↓

Key Updates on New Rules for Three-Year Non-Use Trademark Cancellation Applications and Practical Insights

To further enhance the efficiency of trademark non-use cancellation proceedings and promote standardized filing practices, the Trademark Office of the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) released a revised Guidelines for Applications for Cancellation of Registered Trademarks Not Used for Three Consecutive Years Without Justifiable Reasons on May 26, 2025. The revised Guidelines further clarify documentary requirements for non-use cancellation filings and specify the scope of preliminary investigation evidence required to demonstrate non-use of the challenged trademark during the relevant three-year period.

1. Background of the Revision
2. Surge in Three-Year Non-Use Cancellation Filings and the Rise of Bad-Faith Applications

Since 2017, the number of three-year non-use cancellation applications in China has increased dramatically, rising from approximately 56,000 filings in 2017 to about 229,000 filings in 2024. Alongside this rapid growth, a noticeable increase in applications filed for improper purposes has emerged, including those aimed at unfair competition or the intentional infringement of others’ legitimate rights and interests.

The proliferation of bad-faith cancellation applications can largely be attributed to the absence of clear evidentiary requirements imposed on applicants under the previous non-use cancellation framework, in which the burden of proof was primarily placed on trademark registrants. Such abusive filings not only increase enforcement costs for trademark owners and undermine fair market competition, but also place a substantial and unnecessary burden on administrative resources.

2. Shift of the Burden of Proof in Three-Year Non-Use Cancellation Proceedings

The allocation of the burden of proof lies at the core of the three-year non-use cancellation system. In China, the evidentiary requirements imposed on applicants in such proceedings have undergone the following stages of development:

(1) Before 2022—Reversed Burden of Proof Stage

Applicants were only required to provide a reasonable explanation regarding the alleged non-use of the registered trademark, without the obligation to submit supporting evidence. The burden of proof was largely placed on the trademark registrant.

(2) Early 2022 to the End of 2024—Preliminary Evidence Requirement Stage

The Trademark Office began requiring applicants to submit preliminary online investigation evidence together with the application, such as screenshots of search results from mainstream search engines and e-commerce platforms (typically covering the first several pages of results). This marked an initial departure from the long-standing reversed burden of proof approach.

(3) Early 2025 to the Issuance of the Revised Guidelines—Enhanced and Systematized Burden of Proof Stage

Starting in early 2025, the Trademark Office significantly raised the evidentiary threshold for applicants by issuing Notifications of Amendment for Applications to Cancel Registered Trademarks for Non-Use for Three Consecutive Years. This development marked a move away from “pro forma evidence” toward “systematic proof by evidence” in examination standards.

During this phase, evidentiary requirements were progressively strengthened as follows:

• From February 2025: Applicants were required to submit basic information on the trademark registrant, a report on the registrant’s business status, and full-page screenshots covering at least five consecutive pages starting from the homepage on no fewer than three platforms (such as comprehensive online platforms and industry-specific websites).
• From March 2025: In addition to the February requirements, applicants were required to submit a declaration. Further clarification was also provided regarding acceptable search keywords, including the registrant’s name, the trademark itself, and combinations of the trademark with the designated goods or services.
• From April 2025: The declaration was further expanded to include a statement confirming that the applicant had not concealed the identity of the true cancellation applicant or any other important facts. Applicants were also required to submit information relating to associated cases, such as new trademark applications or reexamination of rejections.

3. Purpose of the Revision

In response to issues that have emerged in practice since early 2025, this revised Guidelines aim to reaffirm and reinforce the original legislative intent of the three-year non-use cancellation system—namely, to promote genuine trademark use—while curbing abusive or bad-faith applications that disrupt market order. The revision also seeks to reduce unnecessary consumption of administrative resources and more effectively safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of trademark owners.

1. Key Points of the Revised Guidelines
2. Legal Basis

Article 49 of the Trademark Law provides the statutory basis for three-year non-use cancellation proceedings, stipulating that any entity or individual may apply to cancel a registered trademark that has not been used for three consecutive years without justifiable reasons.

Article 66 of the Implementing Regulations of the Trademark Law further refines this mechanism by requiring applicants to “state the relevant facts” when filing a non-use cancellation request.

2. Highlights of the Revised Guidelines

The revised Guidelines expressly require applicants to set out the relevant facts in the grounds for cancellation and to submit preliminary investigation evidence demonstrating that the challenged trademark has not been used during the relevant three-year period.

Such preliminary evidence includes, but is not limited to, the following:

• Information regarding the registrant’s business scope, operational status, or corporate existence;
• Market investigation results relating to the challenged trademark, which are not limited to searches conducted on professional platforms;
• Evidence obtained through online searches, market research, or on-site investigations, including the registrant’s official website, WeChat official account, e-commerce platforms, and offline production or business premises.

3. Changes in Practice

While the revised Guidelines clarify the applicant’s burden of proof, the use of the phrase “including but not limited to” together with the broad scope of listed evidence, may introduce a degree of uncertainty in practice. In particular, it raises the question of whether applications that do not include all categories of the listed evidence—especially on-site investigation reports—could be subject to amendment requests or non-acceptance of the application.

However, based on examination practice observed since June 2025, the Trademark Office’s approach to evidentiary requirements has generally become more moderate, except in cases involving clearly abusive or bad-faith non-use cancellation filings. In practice, the number of amendment notifications has decreased, the threshold for preliminary evidence have been relaxed, and on-site investigation reports are not uniformly mandated as a strict necessity.

III. Practical Recommendations

To help ensure a smooth and effective three-year non-use cancellation process, we recommend that applicants prepare evidentiary materials with a focus on the following aspects:

1. Basic Information of the Trademark Registrant

Obtain the registrant’s basic corporate information—such as business scope and operating status—through public enterprise information platforms (e.g., the National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity System, Tianyancha, Qichacha). Official documents, including business licenses and annual reports, should be downloaded and retained as supporting evidence.

2. Investigation into the Use of the Subject Trademark

Review the registrant’s official website and social media accounts (such as WeChat official accounts, Douyin and Weibo) to determine whether its actual business activities relate to the designated goods or services covered by the subject trademark. Where feasible, publicly available information (e.g., from government platforms) regarding the registrant's tax or social security records may also be collected to corroborate the registrant’s operational status.

3. Multi-Platform Search Evidence

Conduct searches on at least three platforms, such as:

• General search engines (e.g., Baidu, 360 Search, Sogou, Bing);
• E-commerce platforms (e.g., Taobao, Tmall, JD.com, Pinduoduo, 1688);
• Lifestyle service platforms (e.g., Meituan, Dianping); or
• Social media platforms (e.g., Xiaohongshu).

For each platform, provide full-page screenshots covering five consecutive pages starting from the homepage, clearly showing the search date, platform name, and search keywords.

4. Trademark Portfolio of the Registrant

Search the China Trademark Office database to review the registrant’s trademark portfolio. A comprehensive analysis of its filing patterns may help assess the registrant’s overall intent to use the marks and the likelihood of actual use of the challenged trademark.

5. Declaration

Although the revised Guidelines do not mandate submission of a declaration, it is advisable to include a truthful declaration as a precautionary measure. Depending on the circumstances, applicants may also consider filing anonymously and adjusting the wording of the declaration accordingly.

6. On-Site Investigation Report (Optional / Contingency Use)

As on-site investigation reports are not currently required in most cases, they need not be submitted proactively. It can be prepared and provided later if an amendment notification is issued.

1. Conclusion

The revised Guidelines help rebalance the rights and obligations of both parties in three-year non-use cancellation proceedings and have significantly reduced procedural abuse. Given the complexity of non-use cancellation practice and the rapid evolution of relevant policies, applicants should not only strictly comply with current filing requirements but also closely monitor examination trends and policy developments, adjusting their strategies as necessary to enhance the likelihood of success.

©2025　北京尚誠知識産権代理有限公司

The post Key Updates on New Rules for Three-Year Non-Use Trademark Cancellation Applications and Practical Insights first appeared on 北京尚誠知識産権代理有限公司.