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

The firm’s involvement in prominent AI cases drew litigator Christian Mammen to join from Womble Bond Dickinson, as US firms continue to bolster AI-focused practices
Two judicial appointments confirmed in Paris and Mannheim, while cross-border injunctions and high-profile procedural rulings keep major patent practices occupied
Patent and trademark practitioners say arrival of barrister will help maintain the UK's reputation as a leading forum for complex IP disputes
Qantm CEO speaks to Managing IP about the business's first deal since it was acquired by a private equity firm and explains why top-tier Malaysian firm Henry Goh & Co was the group's ‘plan A, B and C’
György Pintz, founder of Pintz & Partners, talks through the challenges of founding a firm and explains why lawyers and table tennis players have more in common than you might expect
Kate Nuehring Su, partner at Marshall, Gerstein & Borun, explores a successful PTAB appeal and why the Federal Circuit reached an opposite outcome on the same doctrine
From BTS to Squid Game and kimchi to memory chips, the Korean wave is reverberating around the world and IP work is also seeing a boom, say two Yoon & Yang partners
Managing IP will host a ceremony in Kuala Lumpur on November 5 to reveal the winners
Recent lateral moves raise a bigger question for full-service firms – can patent litigation remain a strategic priority when competing practices generate larger profits?
As counterfeiters grow increasingly sophisticated, Gibson Dunn is differentiating its trademark practice through a focus on payment tracing, judgment enforcement and asset recovery
Gift this article