First, check what the record actually says
A filed application is not a registration. A preliminary-approval publication is also different from a registration announcement. Keep the application or registration number and verify the latest official status, the mark itself, the applicant or owner, and the specified goods and services.
- Still pending, before publication: establish the facts and review monitoring and filing strategy; do not assume an opposition can already be filed.
- Published for preliminary approval: identify the opposition deadline and potential grounds promptly.
- Already registered: compare validity grounds with any non-use route. The two procedures ask different questions.
If you only need to understand the class or goods covered, start with the China classes and subclasses guide. A conflict assessment goes beyond choosing a class.
Choose a route by status and evidence
Use these starting points to prepare for an assessment. They do not determine that you have a valid claim or that a filing will succeed.
01 · Published application
The mark is open to opposition
Confirm the preliminary-approval publication and the live deadline. Under the current law, the opposition period is three months. Eligibility and grounds still need review.
Explore opposition filing02 · Registered mark
You have an earlier right or relationship
Invalidation may address a registration that should not have been granted. Prior rights, authorisation, knowledge and supporting records matter; suspicion alone is not enough.
Explore invalidation03 · Registered, potentially unused
There may be three years of non-use
Check registration age and the relevant three-year period. Non-use cancellation depends on evidence and possible legitimate reasons for non-use, not just an empty search result.
Explore non-use cancellationIf someone has opposed your application, go to opposition response. If you received a non-use notice or infringement demand, preserve it and contact us to check the deadline and whether we can assist.
What if my supplier or distributor filed the mark?
The relationship can matter, but it does not decide who owns the brand. Establish how the name or logo was created, what each party knew, what was authorised and which party used it first. Earlier use, earlier rights and the precise goods or services can change the analysis.
Keep contracts, product designs, dated correspondence, invoices and marketing records. Preserve originals and their dates; avoid editing the evidence into a story that leaves out contrary facts. An overseas registration can be relevant background, but it does not automatically invalidate a China registration.
Keep the commercial objective in view
Removing an obstacle, acquiring a registration and securing your own filing are different outcomes. Negotiation, a new filing or a change of brand may also need consideration. A challenge does not automatically transfer the mark to you or pause another proceeding.
Two public cases: evidence changes the answer
These are independent public decisions, not Trademarkora client results. They illustrate questions to investigate, not predicted outcomes.
Historical public case
Jiangxiaobai: a business relationship does not settle ownership
SPC Guiding Case 162 · (2019) 最高法行再224号 · 26 December 2019
Mark 10325554 · Class 33
The dispute concerned the origins of the brand and whether it belonged to the party claiming protection against its distributor. The Supreme People’s Court examined brand creation, authorisation and use. A distribution relationship by itself did not establish that the disputed sign was the principal’s trademark.
Recorded outcome: The Court set aside the second-instance judgment and upheld the first-instance judgment requiring a new administrative decision. This is a procedural outcome, not verification of the mark’s current ownership.
Practical lesson: Preserve evidence showing who developed the name, who authorised its use and when each party first used it.
Historical decision applying the earlier law, including the 2001 version of Article 15. It does not establish that every supplier or distributor filing is lawful or unlawful.
Read the Supreme People’s Court guiding case (Chinese)Historical public case
Castel: use by a licensee can defeat cancellation
SPC retrial review · (2010) 知行字第55号 · 17 November 2011
Mark 1372099 · Class 33
The evidence included a licence agreement, sales invoices and related commercial records. Taken together, those materials supported genuine public use of the mark by a licensee during the relevant period.
Recorded outcome: The Supreme People’s Court rejected the application for retrial; the non-use challenge did not succeed at that stage.
Practical lesson: Investigate licensed and commercial use. A registration that looks inactive online may still have relevant use evidence.
Historical case under the earlier Trademark Law and regulations. The linked source is a court-published case account, not the original signed ruling or a current register extract.
Read the Shanghai IP Court case account (Chinese)Prepare a short, factual account
Before requesting an assessment, collect the record number, the current status, key dates, the goods or services affected and what you want to achieve. Add a short chronology explaining your connection with the other party.
For a rights or relationship dispute
Identify the earlier right and its date. Keep evidence of brand creation, use, reputation, authorisation and dealings with the applicant or registrant.
For suspected non-use
Keep dated investigation findings about the business, market and relevant sales channels. Include signs of actual use. CNIPA requires preliminary supporting materials; absence from one website is not proof of non-use.
The filing Free Check does not assess trademark disputes. A dispute starts with a separate inquiry and conflict check. Any professional assessment, price and engagement must be agreed separately; sending an inquiry does not instruct a filing.
Sources and next steps
The official Chinese texts control. These English explanations are summaries. Case-specific advice requires review of the actual record and evidence.
- Trademark Law (2019 amendment)
Current-law framework: Articles 15, 32–33, 44–45 and 49. Chinese original.
- Trademark Law Implementing Regulations
Non-use procedure and evidence context, including Articles 66–67. Chinese original.
- CNIPA: non-use cancellation application guidance
2025 clarification of preliminary investigation and evidence requirements. Chinese original.
- 2026 Trademark Law promulgation notice
Promulgated 26 June 2026; effective 1 January 2027. Chinese original.
Not sure which description fits?
Start with the mark’s record number and a short, non-confidential summary. Keep detailed documents for an agreed review process.