Trademark Non-Use Cancellation Second-Instance Reversal Case | Complete Evidence Chain Proves Genuine Use and Successfully Preserves Core Trademark

Case Overview

A Shanghai investment holding group owns the No. 17XX1632 combined trademark, which is registered in Class 36 covering real estate management, commercial housing sales and real estate leasing services. A third party filed a non-use cancellation application against the trademark on the ground of non-use for three consecutive years. Both the National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and the first-instance court held that the submitted evidence was insufficient to prove genuine commercial use and ruled to cancel the trademark.

As a core intangible asset registered and used by the enterprise for many years, the trademark bears important brand value. Entrusted by the client, Shanghai Boxiang Law Firm filed an appeal with the Beijing Higher People’s Court. The legal team fully reorganized case materials and constructed a complete and mutually corroborative evidence chain. The second-instance judgment successfully reversed the original rulings, setting aside both the first-instance court judgment and the CNIPA cancellation decision, and finally sustained the trademark registration.

Core Case Elements

Core Evidence: Trademark licensing contracts, site leasing agreements, property management contracts, rent payment records and invoices, on-site trademark display materials, recruitment publicity documents, and affiliation certification materials of associated enterprises.

Applicable Legal Provisions: Article 48 and Paragraph 2 of Article 49 of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China, as well as relevant judicial interpretations on trademark authorization and confirmation cases.

Three Core Disputes

1. Whether trademark use by affiliated licensed companies constitutes valid statutory use;

2. Admissible evidence standards for proving genuine use of service trademarks;

3. Judicial criteria for forming a complete evidence chain in trademark non-use cancellation cases.

Core Litigation Strategies

Based on the provisions on “trademark use” stipulated in Article 48 of the Trademark Law and the judicial rule that licensed use constitutes valid trademark use specified in the Judicial Interpretations on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Trademark Authorization and Confirmation Administrative Cases, the Boxiang legal team comprehensively restructured and reorganized the client’s evidence system.

First, clarify and standardize the trademark licensing relationship.

The legal team verified the trademark licensing contracts between the client and its affiliated industrial company, reviewed the authorization scope of each project entity, and clarified the licensing term, authorized scope and legal relationship between operating entities. The evidence fully proved that the disputed trademark had been continuously used in commercial operations under the effective control of the trademark owner.

Second, reconstruct the complete logic of genuine commercial operation.

Focusing on the client’s core business of real estate leasing, the team conducted item-by-item verification and matching analysis on housing leasing contracts, property management agreements, rent payment vouchers and enterprise registration information. The evidence confirmed the actual performance of leasing contracts and the consistency between the tenant’s business address and the involved property, forming a closed-loop commercial chain of trademark licensing — property leasing — rent collection — sustainable business operation.

Third, strengthen mutual corroboration and overall probative force of the evidence chain.

In response to the administrative authority’s challenge that partial evidence was unilaterally formed, the team avoided isolated argument on single evidence. Instead, we focused on the mutual corroboration of all evidence materials: licensing contracts proved legitimate authorization; leasing agreements proved commercial acts; bank payment records proved actual contract performance; on-site trademark display proved public commercial use. All evidence jointly confirmed that the trademark had been continuously and genuinely used to identify service sources during the disputed period.

During the court hearing, the focus of debate centered on the judicial determination criteria for “genuine commercial use” of trademarks.

Attorney Fu Kun emphasized that the legislative purpose of the trademark three-year non-use cancellation system is to clean up idle and abandoned trademarks, rather than denying genuine commercial acts of normally operating enterprises due to imperfect evidence organization. For enterprises with sustainable business activities, trademark use shall be comprehensively evaluated based on business models, transaction behaviors and complete evidence systems, instead of mechanically isolating individual evidence materials.

Judgment Result

The second-instance court fully adopted the above litigation opinions.

The court held that, based on comprehensive verification of trademark licensing contracts, housing leasing agreements, property management documents, rent payment vouchers and project operation records, it could be confirmed that the disputed trademark had obtained genuine, legal and public commercial use in real estate leasing services through the licensed entity. Real estate leasing constitutes similar services to the approved items of real estate management and commercial housing sales. Accordingly, the trademark registration should be sustained.

Finally, the Beijing Higher People’s Court revoked the first-instance administrative judgment and the CNIPA reexamination decision, and ordered the CNIPA to make a new administrative decision.

Enterprise Risk Warning on Trademark Non-Use Cancellation

In trademark non-use cancellation cases, many enterprises mistakenly believe that simple submission of contracts and photos is sufficient to prove trademark use. However, judicial practice adopts far stricter review standards. The core judicial examination focus is not “whether evidence exists”, but “whether the evidence can prove genuine commercial use”.

Common defects of simple and fragmented use evidence include: inconsistent use subjects, incomplete trademark licensing records, unmatched contracts and payment vouchers, disassociation between trademark logos and commercial activities, and lack of mutual corroboration among evidence. In non-use cancellation disputes, the outcome depends on the completeness and logic of the evidence system, rather than the quantity of evidence.

In this case, Attorney Fu Kun from Shanghai Boxiang Law Firm successfully reversed the unfavorable administrative and trial results by restructuring the client’s evidence system and sorting out the logical chain of trademark use, completely preserving the enterprise’s core trademark assets.

In the event of receiving a trademark non-use cancellation notice, enterprises shall promptly organize the following materials to build a complete evidence chain:

• Commercial cooperation contracts • Bank transaction records and payment vouchers • Special VAT invoices • On-site photos of trademark display on storefronts and promotional materials • Trademark licensing and authorization documents • Equity and affiliation certification of actual operating entities • Complete timeline of continuous business operation

Shanghai Boxiang Law Firm specializes in trademark authorization & confirmation, trademark cancellation reexamination, and IP administrative litigation. In handling non-use cancellation cases, we prioritize the internal legal logic and mutual corroboration of evidence rather than mere evidence quantity. For complex cases involving group enterprises, multi-subject operation, trademark licensing and real estate business scenarios, we conduct systematic analysis on use subjects, use manners, commercial behaviors and evidence integrity, helping enterprises build standardized evidence systems that fully comply with judicial review criteria.