Unveiling China's Regulation on Suspension of Trademark Procedure

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Cookies Settings

Unveiling China's Regulation on Suspension of Trademark Procedure

Sponsored by

GowlingWLG_UK_317410.jpg

Trademark applicants in China whose applications have been refused in examination will often seek to oppose, invalidate or cancel cited trademarks while simultaneously pursuing a review of the refusal as part of the examination process. If the examination process continues without suspension, applicants are compelled to assert their rights through legal procedures, including appeals before Chinese courts, or by filing fresh applications.

Trademark applicants in China whose applications have been refused in examination will often seek to oppose, invalidate or cancel cited trademarks while simultaneously pursuing a review of the refusal as part of the examination process. If the examination process continues without suspension, applicants are compelled to assert their rights through legal procedures, including appeals before Chinese courts, or by filing fresh applications.

Presently, requests for suspension of examination are rarely granted, with the result that obtaining trademark protection in China can be both lengthy and costly. Clear guidance on suspension procedures has been long over due. However, there is good news for trademark applicants.

On June 13, 2023, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) introduced the "Regulation on Suspension of Trademark Procedures" which seeks to alleviate the burden on applicants arising from multiple trademark filings and repeated court appeals in their pursuit of trademark protection. The regulation provides specific guidance on seven mandatory suspension circumstances and three discretionary suspension circumstances.

The regulation is founded on the principle of necessity. Cases will be suspended only when the circumstances involve the determination of prior rights. Suspension will not be granted where the examiner has objected to registration on absolute grounds or where the applicant is arguing that the marks at issue are dissimilar.

Seven mandatory suspension circumstances

The following table sets forth the circumstances where suspension is mandatory and the applicable case types:

9466.png

The Examiner must suspend examination when these circumstances apply. Indeed, the Examiner may suspend examination on his / her own initiative when the first six circumstance apply. However, circumstance seven requires a specific request for suspension by the applicant (the requirements for a suspension request are noted below).

Three discretionary suspension circumstances

The following table sets forth the circumstances in which suspension is discretionary and their applicable case types:

9466.png

In these scenarios, the applicant can request suspension but the examiner has the discretion to suspend trademark procedures without requiring an applicant's request.

Principles and procedures for requesting suspension

The regulation sets forth time limit prerequisites and suspension application procedures. It also sets for the procedures for resuming examination proceedings.

Where the applicant submits a request for suspension, the request must be made during the refusal review phase (and not later than the three-month supplementary submission period) and provide a written and detailed account of actions taken against the cited mark.

Generally, the applicant is responsible for lifting the suspension. Examination proceedings will recommence once the examiner receives the applicant's submissions and evidence verifying the cited mark's final status.

Conclusion

The regulation provides welcome and much-needed clarity and will reduce the time and costs incurred by applicants in acquiring trademark rights in China.

Should you have any specific questions about this article or would like to discuss it further, you can contact the authors.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Junior lawyers aren’t unwilling to work hard, as some seniors believe; rather, they are rejecting traditional career advancement models that have limited payoff
Rebekah Gay discusses overcoming self-doubt, supporting the next generation of women lawyers, and how changing client demands are reshaping IP practice
New filing data suggests Germany's grip on UPC litigation remains strong, while Bardehle Pagenberg, Arnold Ruess, Hogan Lovells and Carpmaels notch up notable cases
In 27 years, KASS has expanded to seven countries in southeast Asia and is now eyeing further growth opportunities. Its CEO shares her perspective
Mine Güner discusses bridging law and business, taking the initiative, and why Taylor Swift helped put copyright on the map
Cindy Goh discusses why she launched Cheang & Ariff's IP department, the improving litigation environment in Malaysia and what to consider when using AI
Increased focus on adding patent litigation depth to the firm’s Dallas office was behind the boutique’s most recent hires
IPH's Canadian acquisitions are paying off on paper, but a couple of strong years may not be enough to show that the group's strategy has truly won over the market
Examiner statistics could help patent prosecution practitioners tailor strategies, turning an area of high variability into a potential competitive advantage
The England and Wales High Court’s ruling in Accord v Novartis may not rewrite the law on plausibility, but it does signal a pragmatic approach that could provide greater certainty for life sciences innovators
Gift this article