China Trademark Non-Use Cancellation: How to Protect Your Mark in 2026

If a trademark in China goes unused for three consecutive years, anyone can walk into CNIPA and cancel it. This is called the three-year non-use cancellation, known in Chinese practice as 撤三 (che san). It is the single most underrated risk in China trademark management, and the single most powerful tool for clearing registration obstacles.

In 2025, CNIPA raised the bar for filing non-use cancellations, ending the era of filing a few screenshots and getting accepted. Then in June 2026, China passed the first comprehensive revision of its Trademark Law in over a decade, effective January 1, 2027. The new law adds a whole new track: CNIPA will be able to cancel unused marks on its own initiative, no third-party application needed.

The era of "register it and forget it" is over. Brand owners need a use strategy, not just a registration strategy.

1. What Is China's Non-Use Cancellation (撤三)?

Article 49(2) of the PRC Trademark Law states that any entity or individual may apply to CNIPA to cancel a registered trademark that has not been used for three consecutive years without justifiable reason.

The three-year clock runs backward. It is counted from the date the cancellation application is filed, looking back three full years. If someone files on June 1, 2026, the relevant window is June 1, 2023 through May 31, 2026. Article 66 of the Implementing Regulations clarifies this. A mark actively used for years but then paused can still be vulnerable. The three-year window is always the three years immediately before the filing date.

The mark must be at least three years old, counted from the registration approval and publication date. A non-use cancellation cannot be filed against a newer mark.

Anybody can file. There is no standing requirement -- no need to be a competitor, prior rights holder, or have any commercial interest. This keeps the register clean but also enables harassment filings.

The burden shifts. Once CNIPA accepts the application, the entire burden of proof lands on the registrant, who receives a notice and gets two months to submit evidence of use or a justifiable reason for non-use. Miss that window and the mark is cancelled by default.

Related read: China Trademark Basics: What Foreign Brands Need to Know

2. The 2026 Trademark Law -- What Changes on January 1, 2027

The fifth revision of China's Trademark Law was passed on June 26, 2026, and takes effect January 1, 2027. It is the biggest structural overhaul since 2013.

Ex Officio Cancellation Power (Article 57)

Starting in 2027, CNIPA gains the power to cancel unused marks on its own initiative. Under the current purely application-based system, a defensive trademark that nobody cared about was relatively safe. That is over. CNIPA can initiate cancellation proceedings without waiting for a third party. The 34.7% of registered trademarks currently inactive face a real risk of being cleaned up. The exact triggering mechanisms are not yet defined, but the direction is clear: either start using marks or get rid of them.

Internet Use Codified (Article 2)

The new law expressly includes use conducted through the Internet and information networks within the definition of trademark use. This elevates e-commerce listings, social media posts, livestream mentions, and website content to the same statutory level as physical goods and traditional advertising. For DTC brands and e-commerce sellers this is positive: Taobao stores, Douyin presence, and Xiaohongshu accounts all count as trademark use as long as it is genuine commercial activity. However, the bar for valid electronic evidence is also rising -- screenshots alone will not suffice. Timestamps, platform records, and ideally notarized or blockchain-timestamped evidence are needed.

The One-Year Bar Got Narrower (Article 49)

Under current law, when a trademark is cancelled, declared invalid, or expires, CNIPA will not approve identical or similar marks from others for one year. The 2026 law narrows this significantly: it now applies only when the registrant voluntarily cancels their own mark. If a mark is cancelled for non-use by a third party, invalidated, or expires, there is no one-year bar. This means re-filing after a successful non-use cancellation can happen much faster. Strategically, arranging a voluntary cancellation with a prior registrant triggers the bar, so letting the non-use proceeding proceed may be the better path.

3. The 2025 CNIPA Rule Tightening

Before 2025, filing a non-use cancellation was nearly trivial: a form, a fee, and a few Baidu screenshots were enough. Those days are gone. Revised Guidelines issued May 26, 2025 dramatically raised the filing bar in waves:

• February 2025: Basic registrant info plus business status report plus screenshots from at least 3 platforms, 5 pages each
• March 2025: Added declaration requirement and specific keyword rules (registrant name, the mark, mark plus goods combinations)
• April 2025: Expanded declaration to include truthfulness commitment and associated case disclosure
• May 2025: Official revised Guidelines formalizing all of the above

Current Filing Requirements

1. Registrant background information -- business scope, operational status, corporate existence, trademark portfolio, sourced from enterprise credit platforms like Qichacha or Tianyancha plus CNIPA's database.
2. Market investigation evidence -- if the registrant appears operational, investigation into actual business including official website, WeChat official account, e-commerce presence, and potentially on-site investigation.
3. Multi-platform search evidence -- at minimum three platforms with five consecutive full-page screenshots from each: major search engines (Baidu, Bing, Sogou), e-commerce platforms (Taobao, JD, Pinduoduo, Tmall), and social media (WeChat, Weibo, Xiaohongshu, Douyin). Keywords must include registrant name, the trademark itself, and trademark plus designated goods combinations.
4. Identity and declaration documents -- proper ID with official seal or signature, complete address, and a commitment that the applicant has not concealed true identity or material facts.
5. Associated case disclosure -- related trademark applications or refusal reviews connected to this cancellation may require disclosure.

From January to July 2025, CNIPA accepted 127,100 non-use cancellation applications (down 3.17% year-on-year), rejected 6,736 (up 58.91%), and cracked down on 841 malicious cancellation applications. The formality correction rate dropped from 38.55% in April to 6.88% in June as applicants adapted.

For offensive filers: non-use cancellation now requires real investigative work. A genuine belief the mark is unused plus solid homework will pass. Spray-and-pray approaches are over.

Related read: China Trademark Search CNIPA Guide

4. What Counts as Use -- CNIPA Evidence Standards

CNIPA applies a strict framework. Valid use evidence must satisfy five requirements:

1. Show the trademark -- the evidence must clearly display the registered mark
2. Show the goods or services -- use must be on the approved goods or services
3. Show the user -- the user must be the registrant or a licensed user with proof of license
4. Show the date -- within the three-year window before the cancellation filing date
5. Show the territory -- use must be within mainland China (Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan do not count)

On top of that, use must be genuine, public, and lawful -- the three-character test every examiner applies.

Genuine use means real commercial intent -- use for selling goods and building brand recognition, not merely maintaining the registration. Token sales, one-off transactions, and a single small sale all fail. Public use means the use enters commercial circulation accessible to consumers. Internal use, warehouse storage, and private gifts do not count. WeChat Moments posts by employees generally do not count as they are not sufficiently public. Lawful use means the use complies with trademark law and other regulations.

The Evidence Strength Hierarchy

VAT invoices showing the trademark are the gold standard. Chinese tax invoices (fapiao) are government-issued and extremely difficult to fabricate. An invoice clearly showing the trademark, goods, amount, and date, corresponding to a contract and logistics records, is nearly unbeatable.

Notarized e-commerce records are the next tier. Platform order histories, store pages, and product listings properly timestamped and notarized are strong because they come from third-party platforms.

Sales contract plus invoice plus logistics forming a complete transaction chain is the standard pattern examiners look for. A contract alone is weak. An invoice alone is better but still not ideal. Together, with matching dates, amounts, and product descriptions, they form a corroborating chain.

Advertising and promotional materials have moderate weight. A single ad will not save a mark with no sales. But a comprehensive campaign with contracts, payment proof, and ad samples is valuable supporting evidence.

Product photos and packaging are the weakest substantive evidence. Anyone can print packaging and take a photo. Without corroborating transaction evidence, photos alone are essentially worthless.

What Never Counts as Valid Use

• Symbolic or token use -- one small sale, a single invoice for a trivial amount, a lone ad used only to maintain registration
• Internal use -- internal memos, warehouse labels, employee-only materials never seen by consumers
• Only overseas use -- use that happens entirely outside China does not count (OEM manufacturing for export is a gray area discussed below)
• Modified marks -- different font, colors, design, or element changes that alter distinctive character do not count as use of the registered mark. Minor tweaks are acceptable; significant changes are not
• Use on different goods -- registered for clothing but evidence shows restaurant services does not count. Each class needs its own evidence
• License without recordal -- under the new law, unrecorded licenses cannot be asserted against bona fide third parties
• Fake evidence -- forged invoices or contracts do not just lose the case, they can result in judicial sanctions and taint all submitted evidence

The OEM and Export Manufacturing Question

If products bearing a trademark are manufactured in China but all exported and never sold domestically, does that count as use? CNIPA tends to say no, because goods never entering the Chinese market cannot let Chinese consumers identify source. Courts are more sympathetic, with some holding that OEM manufacturing constitutes commercial use in China. The trend is inconsistent. The safest approach is to never rely solely on OEM evidence and to build additional domestic use evidence: Chinese-language websites, social media presence, trade show participation, or some form of domestic commercial activity.

5. The Complete Process and Timeline

Stage 1: Pre-Filing Investigation (1-3 days)

Verify the target mark is at least 3 years old from registration publication date. Confirm the registrant identity and operational status. Gather preliminary non-use evidence. Decide whether to cancel all goods or only conflicting items. Strategy tip: if only some goods conflict, file partial cancellation targeting just those items -- the registrant must prove use on the challenged items specifically, and narrowing the field increases odds.

Stage 2: File the Application (1 day)

Submit the application form, preliminary evidence, identity documents, and official fee through the trademark service system or via a trademark agent (mandatory for foreign applicants).

Stage 3: Acceptance and Notification (1-3 months)

CNIPA conducts formality review. If accepted, CNIPA sends the registrant the Notice of Providing Evidence of Use. The registrant gets two months from receipt to respond. Many cancellations succeed because the registrant never received the notice, did not understand it, or procrastinated.

Stage 4: Registrant Evidence Response (2 months)

The registrant must submit evidence of use or a justifiable reason within two months. Justifiable reasons are narrow: force majeure, government policy restrictions, bankruptcy liquidation, and other legitimate reasons not attributable to the registrant. Being busy or having cash flow problems do not qualify. A 2026 Beijing IP Court model case clarified that voluntary company self-liquidation does NOT count as a justifiable reason, unlike bankruptcy liquidation.

Stage 5: Cross-Examination and Substantive Examination (2-4 months)

After registrant submission, CNIPA sends copies to the cancellation applicant who can file written cross-examination pointing out evidence flaws. The examiner then reviews everything.

Stage 6: Decision (1-2 months)

Two outcomes: cancelled (full or partial, trademark right terminates from announcement date) or maintained (evidence was sufficient).

Stage 7: Review Appeal to TRAB (15 days to file, 9 months to decide)

Either side can appeal within 15 days. The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board has 9 months (extendable by 3). About 30% of marks are maintained at first instance, but review is where many results flip as registrants supplement stronger evidence.

Stage 8: Administrative Litigation

Appeal to Beijing IP Court within 30 days, then Beijing High Court. Courts are more flexible on evidence standards but litigation costs time and money.

Total timeline: 12 to 18+ months from filing to final decision.

Related read: China Trademark Timeline 2026

6. Success Rates and Statistics

Filings Exploded

Non-use cancellation applications grew from about 56,000 in 2017 to roughly 229,000 in 2024, a more than fourfold increase. Two drivers: China's register hit 46.1 million active registrations by 2023 (42.8% of all global registrations), so new applications hit more prior obstacles; and practitioners increasingly recognize non-use cancellation as the most reliable obstacle-clearing tool.

What the Data Shows

Approximately 65-75% of non-use cancellation cases result in full or partial cancellation at CNIPA first instance. Many are default cancellations where the registrant never responds. Success rates against squatters are especially high, often 80-95%, because squatters rarely use their marks.

At the review (TRAB) stage, about 84% of marks are fully or partially cancelled and only about 16% are fully maintained. But when a registrant fights back with a complete evidence chain -- contract plus invoice plus logistics plus promotion, all consistent -- maintenance rates jump to 70-90%. Review is where many results flip as registrants supplement stronger evidence.

The Beijing IP Court noted that 87% of non-use cancellation appeals from 2021 to 2023 focused solely on disputes over evidence sufficiency -- not whether the mark was used or whether the cancellation was valid, but whether the evidence was good enough.

The single biggest predictor of outcome is evidence quality. In non-use cancellation cases, evidence is everything. Legal arguments are almost secondary; the case lives or dies on documentation quality.

7. Strategic Use Cases

1. Clearing Registration Obstacles

This is the number one use case. When a trademark application is refused due to a prior similar mark that appears unused, file a non-use cancellation. Strategy tip: file the cancellation in parallel with a new application or refusal review. If cancellation succeeds the obstacle disappears; if it fails nothing is lost.

2. Fighting Bad-Faith Squatters

Invalidation based on bad faith has a 5-year time limit from registration (unless the mark is well-known). After 5 years, non-use cancellation is often the only tool, and squatters almost never use their marks. The Schiff case illustrates the scale of the problem: Reckitt Benckiser spent 13 years fighting a squatter who registered 82 copies of the Schiff brand across 17 classes, using 45 cases across opposition, invalidation, and non-use cancellation before winning at the Supreme Court in 2026.

Related read: Trademark Squatters in China: The Complete Guide

3. Cleaning Up the Register

Sophisticated brand owners periodically scan for conflicting dormant marks and cancel them proactively to keep their category clean. Less common but increasingly valuable as the register crowds.

4. Defending Against Infringement Claims

If sued for infringement, check whether the plaintiff's mark is in actual use. If not, file a non-use cancellation -- a cancelled mark cannot support an infringement claim. Article 64 also provides a separate non-use defense in infringement cases if the plaintiff cannot prove use in the preceding three years, but a full cancellation is stronger because it eliminates the right entirely.

5. Parallel Multi-Tool Strategy

When a blocking mark has multiple defects, attack on all fronts. The framework: unused mark leads to non-use cancellation; bad-faith registration under 5 years leads to invalidation; multiple defects lead to parallel proceedings; time-sensitive situations call for choosing the faster procedure.

6. Partial Cancellation as a Precision Tool

There is no requirement to cancel the entire mark. Target specific goods or services where the registrant has no evidence. This is a precision strike, not a carpet bomb -- cheaper, faster, and with a higher success rate.

Related read: CNIPA Trademark Review Suspension Rules 2026

8. Defense Playbook -- How to Protect a Mark from Cancellation

The most important advice: do not wait for the cancellation notice to start collecting evidence. By then the two-month response window makes it extremely difficult to build a strong case. Build a use evidence archive continuously.

Build a Systematic Use Evidence Archive

Every three years, conduct a full review of the China trademark portfolio and compile evidence for each mark. Categories in priority order:

1. Sales and transaction evidence (most important): Sales contracts clearly identifying the trademark and specific goods; VAT invoices (fapiao) showing the trademark or corresponding to trademark-bearing contracts; logistics records including shipping documents, delivery notes, and waybills; bank payment records matching contracts and invoices; e-commerce platform records including store pages, order histories, and customer reviews, ideally notarized. The goal is a complete chain: contract to order to invoice to payment to delivery, with consistency on amounts, dates, product descriptions, and parties.

2. Product and packaging evidence: Photos of products with the trademark clearly visible; packaging, labels, and hangtags; product manuals, catalogs, and brochures; production samples retained with date codes. This is supporting evidence, not primary evidence.

3. Advertising and promotion evidence: Advertising contracts with media outlets or platforms; payment receipts for ad spend; samples of the ads themselves; social media content on official WeChat, Weibo, Douyin, and Xiaohongshu accounts with timestamps; exhibition and trade show participation including booth photos and contracts. For digital evidence, notarization or timestamping is critical -- simple screenshots are easy to challenge.

4. Licensee evidence: Trademark license contracts; license recordal with CNIPA (required under the new law to assert against bona fide third parties); evidence of the licensee's actual use. If a mark is used by a subsidiary, distributor, or franchisee, a proper recorded license agreement is essential.

5. Other evidence: Company website with the mark prominently displayed; product quality inspection reports mentioning the mark; industry association memberships or awards; press coverage.

Electronic Evidence Done Right

A webpage screenshot alone is virtually worthless. Required: timestamped captures via notary or electronic evidence preservation platform; full-page captures including URL and date; platform backend records including order histories and analytics; periodic captures quarterly or semi-annually showing continuous use. Under the 2026 new law, internet use is explicitly recognized as valid trademark use, but evidence quality still must pass scrutiny.

When the Two-Month Notice Arrives

Immediately confirm the deadline from receipt date. Audit existing evidence and identify gaps. Fill gaps fast but never submit garbage evidence -- one fabricated invoice taints the entire submission. Evaluate whether a justifiable reason exists (force majeure, government restrictions, bankruptcy). Get professional help; this is not a DIY situation.

9. Landmark Cases

The Liuyu Case -- SPC Adopts Holistic Review (2026)

The Supreme People's Court held that when sales contracts show the trademark and all other documents (invoices, payments, logistics) match on product descriptions, amounts, dates, and parties, the absence of the mark on every single receipt does not break the evidence chain. The SPC even verified invoice authenticity directly with the tax bureau. This softens CNIPA's strict formalism, though a complete chain remains necessary.

The FUSTE Case -- Fake Evidence, Severe Consequences (2024)

A Beijing High Court top 10 trademark case of 2024. The registrant submitted doctored sales contracts and invoices. When the court pulled the original contract from the other company, the trademark was not in it at all. The court cancelled the mark and called out the bad faith. One piece of fake evidence poisons the entire submission and triggers heightened scrutiny of all evidence.

The Schiff Saga -- Multi-Tool Enforcement (2013-2026)

Reckitt Benckiser's Schiff brand was targeted by a squatter who registered 82 copies across 17 classes. The brand owner used 45 cases across opposition, invalidation, and non-use cancellation over 13 years before finally winning at the Supreme Court in March 2026. No single tool suffices against determined squatters; a combination and a long fight are often required.

The Heng Da Case -- Gifts Can Count as Use

The registrant had silver medallions made with the trademark and gave them away as promotional gifts. CNIPA cancelled the mark, but the court reversed, holding that whether goods are sold or given away, if done in the course of business for promotional purposes, it constitutes trademark use. Courts are more flexible than CNIPA on this point.

The Suntory Hibiki Case -- Character Consistency Matters

Suntory registered simplified Chinese "响" but used traditional "響" in China. Evidence of use of the traditional character did not prove use of the registered simplified form. For foreign brands, the character version registered must match the version actually used.

The Foshan Case -- Self-Liquidation Is Not a Justifiable Reason (2026)

A Beijing IP Court model case held that voluntary company self-liquidation does not qualify as a justifiable reason for non-use, unlike bankruptcy liquidation where a trustee takes control. If shutting down a Chinese entity but keeping the trademark, transfer it to another entity before dissolution.

Related read: LV vs Molly Tea Verdict: What Foreign Brands Can Learn

10. Non-Use Cancellation vs. Other Remedies

General guidance: If the mark is still in the publication window, oppose. If under 5 years and clearly bad faith, pursue invalidation. If over 5 years and possibly unused, non-use cancellation is the best and often only tool. For marks with multiple problems, use multiple tools in parallel.

For a full walkthrough of the filing process itself, see How to Register a Trademark in China, and for the underlying priority rules, read China's First-to-File Trademark System.

11. Preparing for the 2027 Ex Officio Cancellation Era

Audit the Portfolio

Pull every China trademark registration. For each, ask: is it actually used in China; on which goods or services; is there evidence proving that use; is the evidence within the last three years. Most companies hold more registered marks than they use -- defensive registrations, old product line marks, legacy names, and "just in case" filings.

Prioritize and Triage

Bucket 1: Core marks in active use -- ensure the evidence archive is airtight and collect evidence at least annually.

Bucket 2: Marks to keep but not actively using -- build a genuine use plan including a Chinese-language website, online store, or trade show participation. Registration alone is not enough.

Bucket 3: Marks no longer needed -- voluntarily cancel them. Under the new law, voluntary cancellation triggers the one-year bar, giving a buffer if circumstances change. Proactive cleanup is better than waiting for CNIPA.

Build Evidence Continuously

Set up a system: quarterly, capture e-commerce pages, social media content, and website screenshots with notarization or timestamps; semi-annually, collect and organize sales evidence including contracts, invoices, and logistics records; annually, conduct a full portfolio review and update evidence archives; every three years, do a deep audit pulling everything together. Losing a trademark built over years in the world's second-largest economy costs far more than systematic evidence collection.

For budgeting the ongoing cost of maintaining a portfolio, see China Trademark Registration Cost 2026. Brands selling through Chinese factories should also review China Trademark Amazon Sellers Hijacking for the supply-chain risks that make portfolio hygiene urgent.

Final Thought

China's trademark system is shifting from registration first to use first. The 2026 new law is the clearest signal yet. Registration is the starting line, not the finish line. What matters is what happens with the mark after registration.

Non-use cancellation is the mechanism that makes the system work -- clearing dead trademarks, helping new brands reach the market, and stripping squatters of ill-gotten marks. It is coming for inactive marks whether from a competitor, a squatter, or now from CNIPA itself.

The best time to start building a use evidence archive was three years ago. The second-best time is today.

Got questions about China trademark non-use cancellation? Leave them in the comments below.