If your Chinese trademark faces a three-year non-use cancellation, start with the notice, the evidence period, and the records of real commercial use. A registration certificate or a statement that the brand is active does not by itself explain when, where, by whom, and for which goods or services the mark was used. Organize existing records into a clear, verifiable account before the response deadline.
This guide concerns defending an already registered mark. A challenge to a newly published application follows a different procedure; see our China trademark opposition preparation guide.
What triggers a non-use cancellation?
Under Article 49 of the Trademark Law currently applicable in China, any entity or individual may seek cancellation when a registered trademark has not been used for three consecutive years without a justified reason. Article 48 describes trademark use in commercial activities to identify the source of goods, including use on goods, packaging, transaction documents, advertising, and exhibitions.
A cancellation request is an allegation to answer, not a finding that the registration has already been lost. Keep the request, the official notice, its attachments, and service records together so your representative can confirm the case and required response.
Which dates matter?
Identify two separate periods. The evidence must address the specified three years looking backward from the cancellation application date, rather than an arbitrary recent three years. CNIPA's official use-evidence explanation identifies this backward-looking period. Check the exact dates against the notice.
Article 66 of the Trademark Law Implementing Regulations gives the registrant two months from receiving the notice to submit evidence of use before the cancellation application or explain justified non-use. Have your representative verify service and calculate the actual deadline. Do not wait for a distributor's complete archive before arranging the response.
CNIPA also explains that there is no automatic statutory three-month supplementary-evidence window in the initial cancellation proceeding. That clarification should not be confused with procedures in a separate review case. Do not plan a defense around discretionary acceptance of late material.
Five questions the evidence should answer
CNIPA's use-evidence explanation identifies five essential connections:
Which trademark sign was used? Connect the evidence to the registered mark and flag any differences for assessment.
Which designated goods or services were involved? Map the records to the challenged scope; a class number alone does not establish use across that class.
Who used the mark? Identify the registrant, licensee, or other relevant user, and document an asserted licensing relationship.
When did the use occur? Show dates within the relevant three-year period.
Where did the use occur? Establish use within the territorial scope of China's Trademark Law; do not assume U.S.-only sales answer this question.
These connections should be readable from the evidence and its explanation. They should not depend on an examiner guessing what an internal product code or an unexplained company name means.
Build a connected record, not a screenshot pile
Consider a preparation example, not a client case: a dated invoice identifies a product code but does not display the mark. A packaging record shows the sign but has no reliable date. A corresponding order and delivery record may help connect the product, customer, and transaction date. Your representative should assess the records together, their authenticity, and the gaps. This example is an organizational method, not a promise that any combination will be sufficient.
For each useful transaction or activity, make an evidence index that records:
A document number and a short description of what it actually shows.
Its original location, file owner, and available source records.
The relevant date and the goods or services it concerns.
The link to other documents, including an explanation of product codes or company relationships.
Any missing connection, translation need, or authenticity issue requiring review.
Preserve original files and context. Retain website addresses, capture dates, and the underlying platform records where available. Keep an unaltered original alongside any working copy. A current screenshot does not, by itself, establish historical use.
Common questions from overseas brand owners
Can a distributor's use count?
Article 66 includes use by the registrant and use by a person licensed by the registrant. Collect the relevant authorization and records linking that user to the mark and the commercial activity. A license agreement alone does not establish that actual use occurred.
Is an online order enough?
An order may be relevant, but its value depends on what it proves and how it connects to the mark, goods or services, user, dates, and territory. Do not treat an order screenshot as automatically sufficient. Identify missing links and preserve the available underlying records.
What if the mark genuinely was not used?
Raise that issue promptly with your representative. Article 67 lists circumstances such as force majeure, government policy restrictions, and bankruptcy liquidation, alongside other reasons not attributable to the registrant, as possible justifications. Whether a particular situation qualifies needs assessment and supporting evidence. Do not fabricate use or backdate records to fill a gap.
Prepare a focused first inquiry
For a first discussion, provide the public registration number, the challenged goods or services, the relevant dates, your general China-related need, budget, and intended timing. Initially describe the categories of evidence available. Arrange confidentiality and a secure transfer channel before sending private case files, transaction records, or sensitive business information.
Our China trademark portfolio page explains the broader maintenance scope. Cancellation and evidence work require a separate scope assessment; a renewal service price is not a cancellation-defense quote. Use the contact page to request that assessment without a promised outcome.
Official sources checked October 21, 2026: the Trademark Law, its Implementing Regulations, and the two CNIPA explanations linked above. This article provides general preparation information. The law applicable to a particular proceeding, the deadline, and the sufficiency of evidence require case-specific review.