Attheendof2025,toregulatetrademarkuse,theChinaNationalIntellectualPropertyAdministration(CNIPA)issuedtheNoticeonStrengtheningtheManagementofTrademarkUse(hereinafterreferredtoasthe"Notice")alongwithitsinterpretations(hereinafterreferredtoasthe"Interpretation").TheNoticefocusesonregulatingthefollowingseventypesofillegalornon-complianttrademarkuse,clarifyingthatlocallawenforcementauthoritiesmayimposecorrespondingadministrativepenaltiesundertheTrademarkLawforsuchacts:1.Usingunregisteredtrademarksthataredeceptiveorotherwiseprohibited;2.Deceptiveuseofregisteredtrademarks;3.Usingunregisteredtrademarksasregisteredtrademarks;4.Failuretousearegisteredtrademarkwhereuseisrequired;5.Prominentlydisplayingthewords"Well-knownTrademark"incommercialactivities;6.Improperuseofcollectivemarksorcertificationmarks;7.Illegalagencyactivitiesbytrademarkagencies.IntheCNIPA'sInterpretation,the"BPXYD"trademarkinfringementcase,representedbyLexFieldLawOffices,wasincludedasanexamplefor"deceptiveuseofregisteredtrademarks".Itsignifiesthatthepathofseekingimmediatecessationofinfringementthroughadministrativecomplaintsagainstsuchfree-ridingbehaviors,characterizedby"lawfulregistrationbutillegaluse,"hasreceivedauthoritativeconfirmation.Thisarticle,referencingthecasesintheCNIPA'sInterpretation,introducestheconnotationsandcurrentenforcementtrendsconcerningtwotypesoftrademarkuseviolationsthatareofgreatconcerntoenterprises.I.DeceptiveUseofRegisteredTrademarksThistypeofillegalactincludestwoscenarios:wheretheactualuseofaregisteredtrademarkcausesthepublictobemisledaboutthequalityofgoods,andwhereitconstitutesfree-ridingontherightsofanotherproprietor.1.MisleadingastotheQualityofGoodsThisprimarilyreferstosituationswherearegisteredtrademarkisusedincombinationwithproductnames,advertisingslogans,packaging,orget-up,orwhereothermisleadingtermsareaddedduringuse,leadingthepublictomisunderstandspecificcharacteristicsofthegoods,suchasquality,origin,orproductionprocess.Forexample,usingaregisteredtrademark"鲜土"(freshsoil)oneggproducts(amarklaterdeclaredinvalidbytheCNIPA)intheactualform"农家鮮土鸡蛋"(farmfreshsoileggs,whentranslatedinChinesemeansthattheeggslaidbychickenthatarenotedinafactorybutarefedinafarmwithmorespacestomovearound)causedthepublictomistakenlybelievetheeggswerefarmeggs.2.AlteringtheUseofaRegisteredTrademarktoFree-rideonOtherProprietors’Trademark(Acommonscenarioinpractice)LexField'sCaseasanExample:Apetroleumcompanyregisteredthetrademark"BPXYD"forlubricatingoilproductsbutaltereditsuseinpracticetotheform"BPXYD",intendingtofree-rideonthewell-known"BP"trademarkoftherightsholder.Whilesimultaneouslyfilinganinvalidationrequestagainstthe"BPXYD"mark,LexFieldlawyersfiledacomplaintwithlawenforcementauthoritiestoquicklystoptheinfringement,primarilybasedonArticle49,Paragraph1oftheTrademarkLaw(unauthorizedalterationofaregisteredtrademark).TheenforcementauthorityacceptedLexField’spetition,issuedadministrativepenaltiesincludingafine,therebyswiftlystoppingtheinfringement.II.UseofUnregisteredTrademarksthatareDeceptiveorOtherwiseProhibitedAccordingtotheInterpretation,enforcementauthoritiesprimarilyfocusonthefollowingthreecategoriesofmisconduct:1.Usingunregisteredtrademarkscontainingtermslike"exclusivesupply","specialsupply","superior",or"national",whichmisleadthepublicregardingthesupplychannelorqualityofthegoods;2.Usingunregisteredtrademarkscontainingtermslike"selenium-rich","organic","zeroadditives",or"100%,"wheretheactualattributesofthedesignatedgoodsdonotmatchthemeaningoftheseterms,misleadingthepublicregardingthemainingredients,composition,orothercharacteristicsofthegoods;3.Usingunregisteredtrademarkscontainingplacenames,years,ortermslike"handmade"or"hand-beaten,"whichmisleadthepublicregardingtheorigin,productiontime,productionprocess,orothercharacteristicsofthegoods.LexField'sComments:1.Whennamingproductsoradvertising,enterprisesshouldproactivelyavoidusingthetermsmentionedinpoint1above.2.Forthetermsmentionedinpoints2and3,orothertrademarksrejecteddueto"misleading"provisions,evenifthetrademarkapplicationisrejected,theriskassociatedwithitsuseisrelativelylow,providedthatinactualuse,theproduct'squalityandothercharacteristicsgenuinelycorrespondtothemeaningofthetermsused.

Recently,LexFieldrepresentedarenownedforeignartificialintelligencecompanyintwotrademarkinvalidationadministrativelitigationcases,winningboththefirstandsecondinstances.TheBeijingIntellectualPropertyCourtandtheBeijingHighPeople'sCourt,basedonArticle32oftheTrademarkLawofthePeople'sRepublicofChina,ruledthattheregistrationofthedisputedtrademarksinfringedupontheclient'spriortradenamerights,andorderedtheinvalidationofthetwotrademarks,whichwereidenticaltotheclient'stradenameandappliedforregistrationin2015.Intheinvalidationstage,thecaseswerehandledbyanothertrademarkagency,andtheinvalidationswerenotsupportedbytheChinaNationalIntellectualPropertyAdministration(CNIPA).Aftertakingovertheadministrativelitigationproceedings,LexFieldteamconductedacomprehensiveandmeticulousreviewofthecasefacts,legalbasis,andevidencematerials.Byaccuratelyidentifyingthebreakthroughpointinthecases,theteamultimatelysuccessfullyoverturnedtheunfavorableinvalidationrulingsinthefirst-instanceofadministrativelitigations,withthesecond-instancecourtsubsequentlyaffirmingthefavorablejudgements.Thechallengesinthesecasesliein:1.Thereisariskof"doublejeopardy"inprocedure.Theseinvalidationproceedingsrepresentedthesecondattemptbytheclienttoinvalidatethedisputedtrademarks,andbothinvalidationrequestshadpreviouslybeenrejectedbytheCNIPA.2.Substantially,bothdisputedtrademarkswereappliedforregistrationin2015,withtheapplicationdateevenearlierthantheclient'sowntrademarkapplicationsinChina,makingtheclient'sbasisofrightsrelativelyweak.3.Asaforeignenterpriseprimarilyengagedincutting-edgeartificialintelligence,priortothefilingdateofthedisputedtrademarks,theclienthadnotdirectlyconductedbusinessinmainlandChina.Ithadnolocalbranches,andwasunabletoprovidetraditionalevidenceofreputation,suchassalescontracts,invoices,oradvertisingmaterials.Moreover,theapplicationdateofthedisputedtrademarkshasbeenoveradecade,makingtothecollectionofhistoricalevidenceparticularlychallenging.4.Theapplicantofthedisputedtrademarksisalocally-ownedprivateenterpriseofacertainscale,withoutobviouslarge-scaleinfringementormaliciousimitationofothers’trademarks.LexFieldteamconductedadetailedreviewofthecaseevidenceandultimatelydecidedtofocusonthebreakthroughpointofthepriorrightsofthetradenameunderArticle32oftheTrademarkLawofChinainthiscase.Inresponsetotheabovechallenges,LexFieldteamemphasizedandsupplementedtargetedpointsduringthetrialprocessandinpost-trialwrittenopinions,includingthefollowing:1.Toaddress"doublejeopardy"issue,LexFieldteammeticulouslycomparedthegroundsandevidencepresentedinthetwoinvalidationproceedings.Weparticularlysupplementedafavorablejudgmentfromanothercasethatrecognizedtheclient'stradenamehadachievedacertainlevelofrecognitionasearlyas2015.Weemphasizedthatthisjudgmentwasnewlygeneratedaftertheinitiationofthefirstinvalidationproceeding,constitutingsubstantialnewevidence.Thisclaimwasacceptedbythecourt.2.Regardingtheterritorialissueoftheclient'spriortradenameright,LexFieldteamarguedthat,althoughtheforeignenterprisewasneitherregisteredinmainlandChina,nordirectlyconductingbusinesshere,throughextensivemediacoverage,onlinediscussions,andtechnicalexchanges,asoleassociationbetweenthetradenameandtheclienthasbeenestablishedamongtherelevantpublicinmainlandChina.Assuch,theclient'stradenamehadgeneratedlegalinterestsinmainlandChinaandshouldbeprotected.Thecourtupheldtheseargumentsandruledthatthedisputedtrademarksinfringedupontheclient’spriortradenamerights.Thejudgmentsfurthernotedthatallowingtrademarksidenticaltothewell-knowntradenamesofotherstocoexistwouldnotonlyharmpriorrightsholders,butalsodamageconsumerinterestsanddisruptmarketorder.SuchcoexistencewouldbedetrimentaltotheeffectivecultivationofindependentbrandsbyChineseenterprisesandtheirparticipationinbroaderinternationalcompetition,therebynegativelyimpactingtheirlong-termdevelopment.ThesecasesareofsignificantimportanceforforeignenterprisestosafeguardtheirrightsinmainlandChina.Thecourtdidnotadherestrictlytotheliteralterritorialprinciple,traditionalmodesoftradenameuse,orconventionalevidentiaryrequirementsforreputation.Instead,thecourtinterpretedthelawinlightofitslegislativeintentandthespecificcharacteristicsoftheartificialintelligenceindustry.Indoingso,theyprovidedeffectiveprotectionforthepriortradenamerightsofforeignenterprises.Atthesametime,thecourtalsoprovidedguidancefromabroaderperspective,aimingtoregulatethemarketorderandassistthehigh-qualitydevelopmentofprivateenterprisesinChina,fullydemonstratingtheorganicunityoflegaleffectandsocialimpact.

Chambers&Partnersrecentlyannounced2026rankings.LexFieldandfivelawyershavebeenrankedintwocategoriesof"IntellectualPropertyLitigation"and"IntellectualPropertyNonlitigation".LexFieldhasbeenrankedfor13consecutiveyears,reflectingthatitsoverallstrengthcontinuestoremainamongthetoplawfirms.ListedFieldsIntellectualpropertylitigationIntellectualpropertynon-litigationListedLawyersSeniorpartnerJanLiuwasratedas"EminentPractitioner"in"Intellectualpropertynon-litigation";SeniorpartnerHongyiJiangwasratedas"Band1"leadinglawyerin"Intellectualpropertylitigation";PartnerDavidHuangwasratedas"Band4"leadinglawyerin"Intellectualpropertynon-litigation";PartnerHongbinZhangwasratedas"Band5"leadinglawyerin"Intellectualpropertylitigation";PartnerNancyZhangwasratedas"Band4"leadinglawyerin"Intellectualpropertynon-litigation".

ExecutiveSummarySince2025,theChinaNationalIntellectualPropertyAdministration(CNIPA)hassignificantlyraisedtheevidentiarythresholdforfilingthree-yearnon-usecancellationactions.Itsendsaclearmessage:three-yearnon-usecancellationsarenowsubjecttoheightenedscrutiny,andnon-usecancellationmustbesupportedbysolid,verifiable,andmulti-sourceevidence.Trademarkownersshouldadoptproactivestrategiesfortrademarkuseandevidencepreservation,whilepetitionersmustwellpreparecomprehensiveandpersuasiveevidencedemonstratingthatthedisputedmarkwasnotusedduringthestatutoryperiod.Detailsaresummarizedasfollows:1.SubstantiallyHigherEvidentiaryThresholdUnderthe2025GuidelinesandcurrentCNIPApractice,petitionersshouldsubmitmaterialpreliminaryinvestigationevidenceatthefilingstage,includingbutnotlimitedto:Registrant’sbusinessprofileBusinessscope,operationalstatus,andcommercialactivitiesMarketinvestigationevidence,coveringOfficialwebsitesandsocialmediaaccounts(e.g.WeChat)E-commerceplatformsOfflinebusinesspremisesFormalplatformrequirementsSearchesonatleastthreeplatformsFiveconsecutivefullpagesofcompletesearchresultsperplatformSpecialscrutinymightbeappliedifthedisputedtrademarkwasmaintainedinapreviousthree-yearnon-usecancellationdecisionwithinthepastthreeyears.Undercurrentpractice,ifachallengedtrademarkhasalreadysurvivedanon-usecancellationactionwithinthepastthreeyears,anysubsequentapplicationfornon-usecancellationwillbeexaminedwithheightenedscrutiny.Insuchcases,theCNIPAmightissueanotificationofamendmentrequiringtheapplicanttosubmitadditionalprobativeandcredibleevidencedemonstratingthatthetrademarkhasnotbeenused,whichmayincludetheresultsofon-siteinvestigations.Failingthis,thenewnon-usecancellationapplicationmayberejected,ortheapplicantmaybeadvisedtowithdrawtheapplicationfornon-usecancellation.Overall,theevidentiaryburdenattheapplicationinitiationstagehasincreasedsignificantlycomparedwithpriorpractice.2.Rationale:PreventingProceduralAbuseBeforetheseadjustments,petitionersfornon-usecancellationwererequiredtostatespecificnon-usegroundsandlistpreliminaryevidence.Inpractice,theevidentiarythresholdremainedlow,andminimalonlinesearchresultswereoftensufficienttosupportfiling.By2025,theCNIPAtightenedthestandardstoaddresstheincreasingproceduralabuse,mainlydrivenby:maliciousfilings,suchastargetingtrademarksthatareclearlyinuseorusingnon-usecancellationasleverage;and,asurgeinnon-usecancellationcasesfollowingthereducedacceptanceofconsentletterssince2022,whichmadenon-usecancellationthemosteffectivewaytoclearpriormarks.ThesechangesaregroundedintheGuidelinesfortheTrialofThree-YearNon-UseTrademarkCancellationissuedonMay26,2025,andhavebeenfurtherimplementedinexaminationpractice.Theseadjustmentsarenotintendedtodiscouragelegitimateanonymousfilingsforthree-yearnon-usecancellationsperse.Undercurrentpractice,anonymousfilingsfornon-usecancellationremainfeasible.Rather,itspurposeistocurbabusiverelianceonthenon-usecancellationmechanism,preventproceduralmisuse,andenhanceprotectionfortrademarksthataregenuinelyusedincommerce.Aslongasthechallengedtrademarkisindeednotinuse,suchfilingsfornon-usecancellationshouldnotbeadverselyaffectedbytheseadjustments.3.ImpactAssessment:ADouble-EdgedSwordPositiveEffectsforTrademarkOwnersEffectivedeterrenceofbad-faithandharassingcancellationsReduceddefensiveburdenforlegitimatelyusedtrademarksChallengesforApplicantsforFilingCancellationEvidencerequirementsarestricter​​:Registrantbusinessinvestigations,multi-platformsearches,and,insomecases,on-siteinvestigationsarenowmandatory.4.PracticalGuidanceForTrademarkOwners:ActiveUse+ReservingEvidenceTrademarkownersshouldensuretheactivecommercialuseofthosetrademarksthathavebeenregisteredforthreeyearsormore,inordertomitigatetheriskofnon-usecancellationchallenges.Robustandwell-documentedevidenceoftrademarkuseincludesbutnotlimitedto:Salescontracts,VATinvoices,andadvertisingmaterials;Productpackaging,exhibitionortradefairrecords,andotherpromotionalmaterials,allofwhichshouldclearlyandconsistentlydisplaythetrademark.Itshouldbenotedthatthetrademarkauthoritynolongerrecognize“symbolicuse”,suchasinternaldocumentsorotherformsofusethatlackgenuinecommercialimpact.Inaddition,fortrademarksthathavebeenregisteredforthreeyearsormorebuthavenotyetbeencommerciallylaunchedinChina,trademarkownersmayconsiderestablishingChina-facingsocialmediaaccountstopromotesuchtrademarks.Perourlocalpractice,useoftrademarksonsocialmediaplatformsmayqualifyasvalidtrademarkuse,assuchusemaybeconsideredasaformof“advertising”whereitreflectsbonafidecommercialpromotion.Currently,themostwidelyusedsocialmediaplatformsinChinaincludeSinaWeibo,Xiaohongshu,andWeChat.ForPetitionersinNon-UseCancellationsEngageexperiencedcounseltoconductthoroughandcompliantinvestigationsClearlysubmitsoliduseevidencetomakesuretheapplicationfornon-usecancellationcanbeacceptedbytheCNIPAReviewthetrademark’scancellationhistorybeforefilingFileaReviewwiththeappealboardoftheCNIPAifthecancellationactionisnotsupportedbytheCNIPA,insteadofsimplyrefiling,because(i)filinganewcancellationinthecomingthreeyearsmaybeunacceptedbytheCNIPA,and(ii)Reviewproceedingsallowformorethoroughexaminationandmayprovideabetterchanceofsuccess.

OnDecember22,therenownedlegalmediaoutletAsianLegalBusiness(ALB)releaseditslistoftheTop15IntellectualPropertyLawyersinChinafor2025,showcasingagroupofelitelawyerswhohavebeenattheforefrontofintellectualpropertypracticeinChinaoverthepastyear.AttorneyNancyZhang,apartneratLexFieldLawFirm,wasincludedonthelistforherprofessionalexpertiseandoutstandingperformanceinthefieldofintellectualproperty.AttorneyNancyZhanghasbeendeeplyinvolvedinintellectualpropertylawfornearly20years,coveringtheentireprocessoftrademarkregistrationandprotection.Sheisparticularlyskilledintrademarkdisputeresolutionandbrandstrategyconsulting.Nancyservesadiverserangeofclients,includingFortune500companiesandstartups.Herexpertisespansvarioussectors,includinginformationtechnology,hospitality,electronics,pharmaceuticals,retail,andfashion.Inrecentyears,Nancyhasreceivedconsecutiverecommendationsfromseveralauthoritativelegalratingagenciesforhercomprehensiveandsolidprofessionalexpertise.AsianLegalBusiness(ALB),aThomsonReuterscompany,isoneoftheworld'smostinfluentiallegalinformationplatforms.Itaimstoprovideclientsandreaderswithcutting-edgelegalandbusinessinformationandlawfirmrankings.

Recently,WorldIntellectualPropertyReview(WIPR),aleadinginternationalintellectualpropertymediaoutlet,publishedits2025ChinaTrademarkRankingsand2025ChinaPatentRankings.LexFieldLawFirmandthreepartnerswererecognizedinmultiplerankingsfortheirprofessionalexpertiseandoutstandingperformanceinthefieldofintellectualproperty.ListedFieldsTrademarkNon-Contentious-HighlyRecommendedPatentContentious-HighlyRecommendedListedLawyersSeniorpartnerJanLiurespectivelyrankedasHighlyrecommended&RecommendedinthefieldofTrademarkNon-ContentiousandContentious;SeniorpartnerHongyiJiangrankedasHalloffameinthefieldofPatentContentious;PartnerDavidHuangrankedasRecommendedinthefieldofPatentNon-Contentious.WorldIntellectualPropertyReview(WIPR)isaleadingglobalonlinepublicationandnewsorganizationdedicatedtoprovidingprofessionals,academics,lawyers,andentrepreneurswithcontentongloballegaldevelopments,policies,casestudies,andindustrytrendsinthefieldofintellectualproperty.Itcoversareassuchasintellectualpropertyprotection,infringementlitigation,patentexamination,trademarkregistration,intellectualpropertytransactions,andchangesinlawsandregulations.WIPRRankingsisanauthoritativeandin-depthsourceofrankingsforintellectualpropertylawfirmsandlawyers,aimingtoprovidein-housecounselandprivatepracticelawyersworldwidewiththemostcomprehensiveandrigorousinsightsintothefieldofintellectualproperty.Asafull-serviceintellectualpropertylawfirm,LexFieldservesprimarilyleadingcompaniesacrossvariousglobalindustries.LexFieldprovidesclientswithcomprehensiveintellectualpropertylegalservicescoveringtrademarks,patents,copyrights,intellectualpropertylitigation,andantitrustmatters.TheinclusionofmultipleLexFieldpartnersintheserankingsdemonstratesLexField'sleadingunderstandingandcreativityinthefieldofintellectualproperty.Inthefuture,LexFieldwillcontinuetostriveforexcellence,safeguardingitsclients'intellectualpropertyrights.