China Will Now Cancel Your Unused Trademark on Its Own -- 6 Ways to Protect Your Registration

Until now, an unused Chinese trademark was only in danger if somebody wanted it. A competitor, a squatter, or an aggressive brand filed a three-year non-use cancellation -- known in Chinese practice as che san -- and the registration fell. If nobody filed, the mark sat there indefinitely.

Article 57 of the revised Trademark Law removes that precondition. From January 1, 2027, CNIPA can cancel an unused registered mark on its own initiative. No third party, no application, no fee, no motive required.

This is the change most foreign portfolios are least prepared for, because it does not fit the mental model most brands carry. Brands think of Chinese trademark risk as something a competitor does to them. Ex officio cancellation is something the office does while doing housekeeping. Housekeeping does not wait for a motive, and it does not send a signal first.

Quick answer: Article 57 of China's revised Trademark Law, effective January 1, 2027, keeps the existing rule that any entity or individual may cancel a mark unused for three consecutive years without justified reason, and adds a second power: CNIPA may revoke such a mark on its own initiative. Existing registrations remain valid under Article 87, but they become subject to the new rule. The defense is documented use on the covered goods, aimed at the Chinese market.

What Article 57 Actually Says

The provision has two limbs, and the second one is new.

Limb one -- the existing route. A registered mark that has not been used for three consecutive years without a justified reason may be cancelled on application by any entity or individual. This is the che san mechanism that has existed for years -- the practical route is laid out in China's three-year non-use cancellation process. The official fee is RMB 450 per class for electronic filing (about USD 67 at the October 2026 reference rate of 6.7180 CNY per USD) or RMB 500 on paper (about USD 74).

Limb two -- the new power. CNIPA may revoke such a mark itself.

The second limb changes the risk model in three ways.

It removes the gatekeeper. Under the old rule, an unused mark survived as long as nobody with standing cared enough to spend money. Under the new rule, the only question is whether the office notices.

It removes the warning. A competitor's cancellation request is adversarial and visible; a brand usually learns about it and can respond. An internal housekeeping action starts from the register, not from a dispute.

It changes who is exposed. Defensive portfolios built between 2015 and 2020 -- marks filed to block others, marks filed for classes a brand never entered, marks inherited in an acquisition -- are exactly the population an office cleaning up dead wood would look at first.

The register gives some sense of why the office might want the power. CNIPA's own figures put valid registered trademarks at 49.78 million at the end of 2024, with 6.97 million applications filed during 2024 alone. Managing a register that size by complaint alone is not realistic.

The Other Half of the Same Change

Article 57 is not the only new cancellation power in the revision.

Article 56 lets the enforcement authority order correction, and then revoke a registered mark, where the mark has been used in a way that misleads the public. Where illegal business volume exceeds RMB 50,000 (about USD 7,400), the fine can reach five times that volume; where there is no such volume or it is below RMB 50,000, the fine can reach RMB 250,000 (about USD 37,200).

Article 57 also covers genericness. A registered mark that has become the generic name of the goods for which it is registered can be cancelled on application or by the office. This is the failure mode brands forget: a mark that stops functioning as a mark.

Put together, the revision creates three separate ways a registration can be removed without a competitor suing anyone: non-use, misleading use, and genericness.

Six Ways to Protect the Registration

1. Use the mark on the goods in the registration

This sounds obvious and is routinely missed. Chinese use analysis looks at whether the mark was used on the goods and services covered by the registration. A brand that registers in Class 9 for electronics and uses its logo only on packaging for a Class 25 apparel line has a problem. The goods have to line up, which is why getting the class and the items right at filing matters -- China's subclass and similar-group system decides which goods actually count.

Article 2 of the revision also settles a long-running question: use includes use carried out through the internet and other information networks. E-commerce listings, social media, online advertising and app interfaces now count as statutory use. That is helpful -- and it also means the evidence has to show the mark working as a mark in a commercial channel aimed at the Chinese public, the same exposure that makes a mark worth protecting when an Amazon seller's listing is hijacked.

2. Build a dated evidence file and refresh it quarterly

The file should contain contracts, invoices, logistics and customs documents, dated platform listings, advertising records, packaging photographs with dates, and social media evidence. Dates matter more than volume. A thin but well-dated file beats a large undated one.

Article 78 makes this file do double duty. In a damages claim, an accused infringer can argue that the trademark owner has not used the mark; if the owner cannot show actual use in the three years before the infringement, the defendant is not liable for damages. The same evidence answers both that defense and an ex officio action -- how that rule plays out in a real dispute is covered in the guide to defending China trademark disputes.

3. File only where the business actually goes

Article 19 of the revision denies registration to an application filed without intent to use and clearly beyond normal business needs, and prohibits applications filed by deception or other improper means. Article 54 adds a warning and a fine of up to RMB 100,000 (about USD 14,900) for bad-faith applications. The patterns that draw that kind of attention are the same ones behind trademark squatting in China, just viewed from the register.

A foreign brand building a real China strategy often files across several classes to protect a launch. That is legitimate and should be documented. What invites attention is a portfolio of 20 classes with no plausible commercial link to any of them. Review the portfolio against actual and planned use, and be able to explain the link in one sentence per class.

4. Keep the record clean -- renewals, owner details, licenses

A registration that looks abandoned on paper is easier to cancel than one that looks actively managed.

Article 43 sets the term at ten years. Article 44 allows renewal within the 12 months before expiry, with a six-month grace period and a late fee. Article 45 covers changes of name and address. Article 55 requires license agreements to be recorded, and provides that an unrecorded license cannot be asserted against a bona fide third party. Recording a license is also what makes a licensee's use visible on the register; the filing mechanics are in the China trademark license recordal guide.

Three housekeeping points follow. Diary the renewal window for every mark. Update owner details after any corporate change, so that CNIPA notices actually arrive. Record licenses, so that a licensee's use counts toward the registration rather than sitting only in a private contract.

5. Make sure you receive the notice, and know the 15-day clock

If CNIPA revokes a mark, the registrant is not without a route. Article 58 allows a party dissatisfied with a revocation decision to apply for review within 15 days of receipt, with CNIPA deciding within nine months, extendable by three. That short reopening sits alongside the office's normal review timing, which is tracked in the CNIPA review and suspension rules.

Fifteen days is unforgiving, and it runs from receipt. A foreign brand whose registered address for service is an old agency, a defunct mailbox, or a former employee's email can lose the mark without ever seeing the notice. Confirm where CNIPA notices are actually delivered, and confirm that somebody opens them.

6. Do not let the mark become generic

A mark that becomes the everyday name for a product category stops doing trademark work and starts doing dictionary work. Once that happens, Article 57's genericness limb applies.

The practical defense is ordinary brand discipline: use the mark as a mark, keep it visually distinct from descriptive text, avoid using it as a product noun in Chinese marketing, and act when distributors or platforms start using it generically. This is a slow-moving risk, which is exactly why it gets ignored until it is expensive.

A Deliberate Alternative: Cancel It Yourself First

There is one scenario where the right answer is to cancel rather than defend.

Article 49 of the revision provides that where a registrant voluntarily cancels its own trademark, CNIPA will not approve third-party applications for identical or similar marks on identical or similar goods for one year from publication of the cancellation.

That is a real shield. A brand that has a genuinely unused mark, no plan to use it, and a concern about competitors filing in that space can give the mark up and get a one-year block on similar filings as a parting benefit. An ex officio revocation provides no such block -- the space simply opens.

The choice between holding, cancelling and defending should be made deliberately, mark by mark, rather than by inertia.

Third-Party Cancellation vs. Ex Officio Revocation

The last row is the one to sit with. A competitor's che san is expensive, slow and visible. An ex officio action costs the competitor nothing, and the competitor does not have to exist.

The Veteran's View: This Is a Portfolio Problem, Not a Legal Problem

Most foreign brands that will be hurt by Article 57 will not be hurt because they misread the law. They will be hurt because of a decision made years earlier by someone who is no longer at the company.

The pattern is familiar. A brand entered China in 2017, filed in eight classes to be safe, launched in two, and left six marks sitting. The person who filed them left in 2020. Nobody has a use record for the six unused marks because nobody ever needed one. Under the old rule, those marks were harmless. Under the new rule, they are a list of candidates.

The fix is not to abandon defensive filings. Defensive filing is a legitimate and sometimes necessary strategy in a first-to-file system -- the logic is explained in how China's first-to-file rule works. The fix is to know which marks are defensive, why they were filed, and what the plan for each one is -- and to be able to answer that question in writing, per mark, in under a minute.

A brand that cannot answer that question today has roughly two months to answer it.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What does ex officio cancellation mean in China's 2027 Trademark Law?

Under Article 57 of the 2026 revision, CNIPA may revoke a registered trademark that has not been used for three consecutive years without a justified reason, acting on its own initiative rather than on an application from a third party. The provision takes effect January 1, 2027.

2. How is ex officio revocation different from a regular three-year non-use cancellation?

A regular che san requires a third party to file, pay the official fee and accept that the owner can respond. An ex officio revocation requires none of that. The office acts on its own, and the owner's first contact with the process is typically the decision itself.

3. How much does it cost to file a non-use cancellation against someone else's mark?

The official fee is RMB 450 per class for electronic filing -- about USD 67 at the October 2026 reference rate of 6.7180 CNY per USD -- or RMB 500 per class on paper, about USD 74. Defending against a che san by submitting use evidence carries no CNIPA fee.

4. If CNIPA cancels a Chinese trademark, can the owner challenge it?

Yes. Article 58 allows the party concerned to apply for review within 15 days of receiving the revocation decision. CNIPA must decide within nine months, extendable by three. The 15-day deadline is strict and runs from receipt, which is why the address for service on the register has to be current.

5. Will existing Chinese trademarks be cancelled on January 1, 2027?

No. Article 87 confirms that trademarks registered before January 1, 2027 remain valid. They are not cancelled by the transition. But they become subject to the new rules going forward, including ex officio non-use revocation, which is why the preparation matters now.

6. What counts as use evidence for a Chinese trademark?

Contracts, invoices, logistics and customs records, dated platform listings, advertising materials, packaging photographs, and social media evidence. Article 2 of the revision confirms that internet use counts as statutory use. The critical test is that the evidence shows the mark used on the goods or services covered by the registration and directed at the Chinese public.

7. Should a brand voluntarily cancel marks it no longer needs?

Sometimes yes. Article 49 gives a registrant who voluntarily cancels a one-year block on third-party applications for identical or similar marks on identical or similar goods. An ex officio revocation gives no such block. For a genuinely unused mark with no plan behind it, voluntary cancellation converts a liability into a year of protection.

The Bottom Line

Article 57 does not punish foreign brands. It punishes unused registrations, and it no longer needs a competitor to be the trigger.

Six actions cover the exposure: use the mark on the covered goods, keep dated evidence and refresh it, file only where the business goes, keep renewals and owner details current, make sure notices arrive and know the 15-day review clock, and stop the mark from becoming generic. Brands that do those six things are not at risk. Brands that cannot produce a use record for a mark have a decision to make before January 1, 2027 -- defend it, or give it up deliberately.

Sources:

• Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (2026 Revision) -- CNIPA official text, adopted June 26, 2026, effective January 1, 2027
• CNIPA official portal -- 2024 key figures: 49.78 million valid registered trademarks, 6.97 million applications filed
• CNIPA Trademark Fee Guide -- official fees for cancellation, review and renewal
• CNIPA notice on the draft Trademark Examination Guidelines -- published September 28, 2026