In an extensive reform to improve the credibility and efficiency of trademark enforcement, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has progressively rolled out stricter standards for non-use cancellation applications — commonly referred to as “撤三” (Chè Sān, cancellation for non-use over three consecutive years). This marks a significant step toward curbing misuse of the cancellation system and promoting integrity in trademark procedures.
As of April 2025, we are now seeing what can be described as “撤三 Version 3.0”, building on two prior rounds of regulatory tightening introduced earlier in the year. Below is an overview of the evolving standards and their implications.
Version 1.0 (Early 2025): Preliminary Proof Obligations
Applicants seeking cancellation had to provide initial evidence showing that the disputed trademark had not been used in the last three years. This included:
Screenshots from at least three mainstream platforms
Full-page search results (minimum of 5 pages per platform)
Sources such as e-commerce platforms, search engines, and social media
Version 2.0 (March 2025): The Integrity Commitment
CNIPA began requiring a signed commitment letter, with official seals or signatures, affirming the truthfulness, accuracy, and completeness of submitted materials. Search efforts had to be extensive and industry-specific, including:
Keyword search results from industry-specific websites
Expanded proof across media and platforms
Version 3.0 (April 2025): Full Disclosure & Accountability
The most recent update now demands:
A disclosure of the true identity of the real cancellation applicant (not just the proxy)
Declaration of any related new trademark applications or ongoing review (re-examination) procedures connected to the disputed mark
Continued submission of a formal integrity commitment letter, now explicitly confirming that no material facts have been concealed
If necessary, an additional written report on the on-site investigation of the operating facts of the registrant needs to be provided
Honest Intentions Only: Why These Changes Matter
The updated system sends a clear message: no more anonymous or strategic abuse of cancellation actions for ulterior motives—such as clearing obstacles for new filings or attacking competitors without legitimate grounds.
To maintain fairness:
Applicants must disclose their own interests (e.g., whether they have filed a new mark that conflicts with the one being canceled)
Failure to comply can lead to disciplinary actions, including credit penalties under China’s national trustworthiness system
CNIPA now encourages withdrawal of cancellation requests if the applicant later finds their claims are inconsistent with facts
“Who Are You, and Why Are You Doing This?”
The CNIPA’s messaging is intentionally pointed. It challenges applicants and agents alike: “Who are you? And who are you doing this for?”
This reflects a push for transparency in motives, especially as some cancellation actions may be part of a broader trademark strategy. CNIPA wants all players to show their cards—no hidden actors, no shadow interests, no unfair tactical games.
Practical Takeaways for Trademark Owners and Agents
For rights holders:
Be prepared for more robust cancellation filings—complete with better evidence and known applicants
Expect fewer abusive filings from undisclosed competitors
For trademark agents:
Ensure all filings comply with the new evidentiary standards
Double-check disclosures about related applications or rejections
Prepare clients for the possibility that their identity and business strategy may need to be disclosed
For applicants:
If your goal is to clear the register for a new application, say so openly
If you’ve been denied a mark due to an existing one, and are now trying to cancel it, make that relationship clear
If the trademark has seen legitimate use, be ready to face counter-evidence and lose the case
Toward a Cleaner Trademark Landscape
These changes to the “撤三” process represent a shift from a loose procedural tool to a disciplined, transparent, and accountable system. While they add workload and complexity for both applicants and agents, they also offer protection to rightful trademark owners and help reduce strategic abuses of cancellation proceedings.
In the end, CNIPA's message is clear: file responsibly, disclose transparently, and act with integrity. The era of anonymous cancellation warfare is ending. Those who use the system must now own their claims—publicly and honestly.
Why the New Rules Have Sparked Concern
Despite the intention to improve fairness and transparency, the new “撤三” procedures have raised significant concern among trademark agencies and practitioners, for several key reasons:
1. Increased Administrative Burden
Agencies now face substantial documentation and procedural requirements, including:
Collecting evidence from at least three distinct platforms
Preparing multiple-page search records
Drafting and sealing formal commitment letters
Disclosing potentially sensitive client strategies and identities
In specific circumstances, additional on-site investigations may need to be conducted
This dramatically increases the time, cost, and complexity of filing even basic cancellation applications.
2. Client Confidentiality Concerns
Many trademark owners initiate cancellation actions to clear the register for new filings. Under the new rules, they must now publicly disclose their identity and related applications, which may reveal competitive strategies or business plans. For clients in industries with tight product cycles or stealth launches, this creates real commercial risks.
3. Risk of Credit Penalties
If a trademark cancellation application is found to contain inaccurate or incomplete information — even unintentionally — agencies and applicants could face “dishonest actor” penalties under China’s national credit system, damaging reputations and affecting future legal standing.
4. Reduced Flexibility and Strategic Use
In the past, “撤三” was used flexibly to manage portfolios, address stale marks, and test genuine use. Now, with higher procedural thresholds and mandatory disclosures, the strategic use of cancellation actions is heavily constrained.
5. Pressure to Withdraw Mid-Process
Applicants are now explicitly advised to withdraw cases if they later find inconsistencies. While this promotes integrity, it also places agencies in a difficult position of balancing client interests with risk management—especially when facts evolve during the case.