China: Analysis of Practical Rules for Evidence in Trademark Refusal Review Cases
Published 29 January 2026
Sarah Xuan
To further standardize the submission of evidentiary materials in trademark refusal review cases, the National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) issued the Questions and Answers on Key Issues Regarding Evidence in Trademark Refusal Review Cases (the “Q&A”) on December 31, 2025. The promulgation of this document aims to resolve numerous perplexities faced by applicants during the evidence submission process—specifically regarding the form, type, and substantive requirements of evidence. Through a systematic Q&A format, it guides applicants to submit effective evidence in a proactive, comprehensive, and standardized manner, while explicitly requiring applicants to be responsible for the authenticity, accuracy, and completeness of their evidentiary materials.
I. Requirements for “Grounds for Refusal—Constitutive Facts—Chain of Evidence” The Q&A repeatedly emphasizes across multiple issues that “a single piece of evidence usually needs to be combined with other evidence to enhance its probative value”, and explicitly sets forth the requirement of “forming a complete chain of evidence” for propositions such as “intent to use” and “acquired distinctiveness”. This implies that the focus of producing evidence in refusal reviews should be centered on two aspects: first, addressing the issue of admissibility, i.e., “whether the materials are authentic and the sources are reliable”; and second, more importantly, addressing the issue of probative value, i.e., “whether the materials are relevant to the subject trademark and the designated goods/services”. Evidence can only truly function to “alter the conclusion” when the chain of evidence can provide a direct response to the logic of the examining authority’s refusal.
II. Refusals Directed at “Bad Faith Without Intent to Use” Regarding whether an application for a trademark constitutes a “bad faith application not filed for the purpose of use”, the Q&A provides a relatively systematic evidentiary framework. This includes: applicants may provide proof from dimensions such as the business status of the applicant, the overall status of trademark registrations, the commercial rationality of the selection of goods/services, actual use or intent to use, the necessity and urgency of rights protection, and references to prior cases. It further notes that “evidence from a single aspect usually needs to be combined with other evidence”. This framework converts “subjective intent to use” into externalized and verifiable objective indicators: for instance, materials such as corporate annual inspections, tax payments, and social security contributions are used to prove continuous operating capacity; the distribution of trademark application classes, the matrix of goods/services, and their attribution relationships are used to explain the alignment between trademark layout and business planning; evidence combined with the upstream and downstream of the industrial chain or potential directions of expansion is used to present the commercial logic of selecting cross-class goods/services; and e-commerce platform pages, promotional reports, and other materials are used to prove actual use or, at the very least, the existence of a bona fide intent to use.
The examination and collection of evidence in this section emphasize that evidence must fall upon the minimum unit of proof: “the subject trademark + the subject designated goods/services”. A common misconception in practice is substituting proof of the purpose of use with “strong subject-related materials” such as corporate scale, financing, or awards; conversely, the Q&A requires linking the subject’s capacity with specific use plans and specific delivery arrangements for goods/services to avoid a failure of mutual corroboration between pieces of evidence.
III. Proof of Bona Fide Intent to Use
On the issue of “how to prove bona fide intent to use”, the Q&A enumerates various types of evidence, including business plans and feasibility reports, internal decision-making communication records (emails, meeting minutes, naming approval processes, etc.), product development and sample production, packaging design and printing, intellectual property layouts such as patents or software copyrights, compliance qualifications and licensing documents, distribution negotiation materials, and advertising preparations. It again emphasizes that “a single piece of evidence usually needs to be combined with other evidence”.
The key to this approach lies in the “timeline”: a relatively isolated contract or screenshot can often only prove a point-like fact; however, if materials can be linked in the sequence of R&D project initiation—naming—prototyping—compliance—channels—marketing, the chain of evidence can more effectively support the core conclusion that “investment and preparation indeed exist, and there is an intent to use [the mark] in the relevant classes”.
IV. Evidence that is “Seemingly Sufficient but Difficult to Admit” The Q&A specifically points out circumstances in which evidence of intent to use is likely to be identified as lacking probative value, including: evidence that does not concern the subject trademark or the subject goods/services; evidence that does not constitute “use as a trademark” (for example, office supplies or work uniforms that lack a connection to the designated goods/services); and materials concerning business activities such as recruitment, accounting, legal affairs, or office space leasing that lack a reasonable explanatory connection to the applied-for trademark and designated goods/services.
The greatest insight this section provides for practice is the explicit distinction between “relevance” and “trademark use”, while treating both as thresholds: even if the materials are authentic, they may lack probative value because they cannot point to the constitutive facts of the case; even if the sign appears, it may be difficult to evaluate it as effective use or effective preparation for use because the usage scenario is insufficient to perform the function of identifying the source. Therefore, the focus of evidence preparation should shift from “proving that I am operating” to “proving that I am using the sign on that category of goods/services for the purpose of source identification”.
V. Evidentiary Strategies under Refusals on Absolute Grounds The Q&A demonstrates a strong “public interest priority” orientation regarding the submission of evidence related to the absolute grounds under Article 10 of the Trademark Law.
First, regarding refusals involving trademarks similar to foreign country names, the Q&A states that, under general circumstances, proof of successful registration in that country may be submitted to presume the exception of “having obtained the consent of the government of that country”. However, it simultaneously emphasizes that a cautious attitude will be adopted and relatively strict standards of identification will be applied out of respect for foreign sovereignty. Furthermore, the applicant, the trademark sign, and the goods/services are required to be highly consistent with the extraterritorial registration certificate, and translation and certification procedures for extraterritorial evidence must be fulfilled. For countries with special requirements (such as Switzerland), a registration certificate alone is usually insufficient; explicit authorization materials issued by the competent authority of that country must also be submitted in conjunction with relevant agreements. It can be seen that the role of evidence in such cases is not to “weaken the reference to the country name” but to prove the statutory exception of “having obtained consent”, and the standard of proof is significantly higher than that for general factual determinations.
Second, regarding the circumstance under Article 10, Paragraph 1, Item (7) of the Trademark Law where a mark is “likely to mislead the public”, the Q&A emphasizes that the standard of general public perception should be used to judge whether it is likely to cause misidentification in combination with the designated goods/services as a whole. It provides evidentiary paths for different types such as differences in corporate names, descriptive elements, and the names or likenesses of public figures. For instance, proof that a short name has formed a unique correspondence with the applicant can be established through subject registration materials, advertising, and sales/use evidence; or the risk of misidentification can be reduced by making explicit limitations on the goods and declaring a disclaimer of the exclusive right to use non-distinctive parts; or explicit authorization documents from the rights holder can be submitted to exclude misidentification. The practical significance of this section is that the core of Item (7) does not lie in the “applicant’s self-statement that no misidentification will occur”, but in using evidence to prove that the “public identification path is clear and unique”.
Third, regarding “ill effects” under Article 10, Paragraph 1, Item (8), the Q&A defines the boundaries of evidence relatively clearly: when the relevant public, exercising ordinary attention, is likely to believe that one of the meanings or methods of use has an ill effect, the mark will usually still be determined to violate this provision even if the applicant submits evidence of other meanings or actual use. A “result-oriented” stance is also adopted toward foreign language meanings with ill effects, pointing out that the degree of public awareness in China is generally not considered when applying this clause. This means that in cases involving ill effects, it is often difficult to achieve a breakthrough by “expanding the semantic space” through evidence; strategically, risk assessment and sign adjustment should be prioritized upfront.
In addition, regarding the prohibition of the use of geographical names (Article 10, Paragraph 2), the Q&A allows for the construction of an evidentiary basis through materials such as reference book definitions, media reports, internet search results, and the location of the applicant under scenarios listed in the Trademark Examination and Adjudication Guidelines, such as “other meanings being stronger than the reference to a geographical name”, “the overall meaning being stronger than the geographical name”, or “the geographical name merely truthfully representing the location”.
VI. Evidentiary Standards for Geographical Indication Cases The evidentiary requirements for geographical indication (GI) collective trademarks and certification trademarks in the Q&A present significant systematic characteristics: from subject qualification, authorization documents, and supervision and testing capabilities to the specific scope of the production area, specific quality, the decisive relationship of natural/human factors, and long-term objective existence and reputation, all require that pieces of evidence mutually corroborate each other and remain consistent with the management rules. For example, when proving a specific production area, evidence may include county chronicles, agricultural chronicles, product chronicles, yearbooks, textbooks, or certificates from competent government departments; the definition of the geographical scope is required to be “clear, definite, and specific”, and must mutually corroborate other evidence and the rules for the use and management of the trademark. When proving specific quality, the Q&A emphasizes that the descriptions in the management rules must include both qualitative descriptions and quantitative indicators; otherwise, it is difficult to prove a specific quality that distinguishes the goods from similar goods outside the region. When proving the decisive role of natural or human factors, it is further required to explain the inseparable link and “focus on explaining the causal relationship”, providing a clear and complete explanation of how specific time, environmental elements, or processes affect the specific quality. Regarding reputation and objective existence, the Q&A tends to use public publications (books, national professional journals, ancient texts, etc.) that clearly record the name, quality, and reputation as key sources of evidence.
For the territorial extension of GI trademarks designating China under the Madrid system, the Q&A further proposes procedural evidentiary requirements: within three months from the date of recording in the International Register, proof of subject qualification and rules for use and management should be submitted to the International Division of the Trademark Office of the CNIPA through an agency; if not submitted, they should be supplemented during the refusal review procedure. Meanwhile, the Q&A notes that after the Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents enters into force in China, public documents from certain contracting states may be exempted from legalization procedures in accordance with the Convention, thereby reducing the cost of formal requirements for extraterritorial evidence.
Overall, because GI protection concerns the stable connection between a specific region and specific quality, the evidence must naturally cover the complete chain of “Region—Quality—Causality—Management—Reputation”. For applicants, using the management rules as the main thread and matching them item-by-item with reliable, cross-verifiable evidence will make it easier to meet evidentiary requirements and enhance probative force.
VII. Key Evidentiary Points for Special Procedures For international registration trademarks refused due to classification issues, the Q&A suggests that the refusal basis may be addressed by handling subsequent procedures such as limitation/cancellation with the International Bureau, applying for a stay of proceedings in the refusal review case, and submitting evidence of the subsequent application already filed with the International Bureau, with proceedings to be resumed after the status of the rights is adjusted.
Furthermore, the Q&A demonstrates the “extinguishing effect” of procedural acts such as limitation and abandonment on the basis of refusal, noting that no separate evidence needs to be submitted for the abandonment of some goods/services, and the partial refusal decision for the relevant part shall be deemed to have taken effect.
Regarding the procedural management of refusals on relative grounds, the Q&A imposes explicit time and content constraints on the evidentiary requirements for the “suspension of case proceedings”: the applicant should submit an explicit written request within three months from the date of the review application, specifying the registration number of the cited trademark, the procedure it is in, and its impact on the subject trademark; after the status of the rights of the cited trademark is determined, a request for resumption of proceedings should be submitted promptly along with the corresponding evidence. This reminds practitioners of the need to timely track changes in the status of cited trademarks and proactively submit the latest files and procedural documents during the refusal review stage, which often allows for changing the direction of a case at a lower cost.
Comment The Questions and Answers on Key Issues Regarding Evidence in Trademark Refusal Review Cases is not only an administrative guidance document but also a systematic consolidation of the rules of evidence in China’s trademark authorization and termination procedures. It emphasizes the logic of constructing a “chain of evidence” and transforms abstract legal provisions into specific checklists for producing evidence. For legal practitioners and enterprises, deeply understanding these practical points and performing “preventative” evidence preservation based on actual business operations will significantly enhance the success rate of trademark rights remedies.
I. Requirements for “Grounds for Refusal—Constitutive Facts—Chain of Evidence” The Q&A repeatedly emphasizes across multiple issues that “a single piece of evidence usually needs to be combined with other evidence to enhance its probative value”, and explicitly sets forth the requirement of “forming a complete chain of evidence” for propositions such as “intent to use” and “acquired distinctiveness”. This implies that the focus of producing evidence in refusal reviews should be centered on two aspects: first, addressing the issue of admissibility, i.e., “whether the materials are authentic and the sources are reliable”; and second, more importantly, addressing the issue of probative value, i.e., “whether the materials are relevant to the subject trademark and the designated goods/services”. Evidence can only truly function to “alter the conclusion” when the chain of evidence can provide a direct response to the logic of the examining authority’s refusal.
II. Refusals Directed at “Bad Faith Without Intent to Use” Regarding whether an application for a trademark constitutes a “bad faith application not filed for the purpose of use”, the Q&A provides a relatively systematic evidentiary framework. This includes: applicants may provide proof from dimensions such as the business status of the applicant, the overall status of trademark registrations, the commercial rationality of the selection of goods/services, actual use or intent to use, the necessity and urgency of rights protection, and references to prior cases. It further notes that “evidence from a single aspect usually needs to be combined with other evidence”. This framework converts “subjective intent to use” into externalized and verifiable objective indicators: for instance, materials such as corporate annual inspections, tax payments, and social security contributions are used to prove continuous operating capacity; the distribution of trademark application classes, the matrix of goods/services, and their attribution relationships are used to explain the alignment between trademark layout and business planning; evidence combined with the upstream and downstream of the industrial chain or potential directions of expansion is used to present the commercial logic of selecting cross-class goods/services; and e-commerce platform pages, promotional reports, and other materials are used to prove actual use or, at the very least, the existence of a bona fide intent to use.
The examination and collection of evidence in this section emphasize that evidence must fall upon the minimum unit of proof: “the subject trademark + the subject designated goods/services”. A common misconception in practice is substituting proof of the purpose of use with “strong subject-related materials” such as corporate scale, financing, or awards; conversely, the Q&A requires linking the subject’s capacity with specific use plans and specific delivery arrangements for goods/services to avoid a failure of mutual corroboration between pieces of evidence.
III. Proof of Bona Fide Intent to Use
On the issue of “how to prove bona fide intent to use”, the Q&A enumerates various types of evidence, including business plans and feasibility reports, internal decision-making communication records (emails, meeting minutes, naming approval processes, etc.), product development and sample production, packaging design and printing, intellectual property layouts such as patents or software copyrights, compliance qualifications and licensing documents, distribution negotiation materials, and advertising preparations. It again emphasizes that “a single piece of evidence usually needs to be combined with other evidence”.
The key to this approach lies in the “timeline”: a relatively isolated contract or screenshot can often only prove a point-like fact; however, if materials can be linked in the sequence of R&D project initiation—naming—prototyping—compliance—channels—marketing, the chain of evidence can more effectively support the core conclusion that “investment and preparation indeed exist, and there is an intent to use [the mark] in the relevant classes”.
IV. Evidence that is “Seemingly Sufficient but Difficult to Admit” The Q&A specifically points out circumstances in which evidence of intent to use is likely to be identified as lacking probative value, including: evidence that does not concern the subject trademark or the subject goods/services; evidence that does not constitute “use as a trademark” (for example, office supplies or work uniforms that lack a connection to the designated goods/services); and materials concerning business activities such as recruitment, accounting, legal affairs, or office space leasing that lack a reasonable explanatory connection to the applied-for trademark and designated goods/services.
The greatest insight this section provides for practice is the explicit distinction between “relevance” and “trademark use”, while treating both as thresholds: even if the materials are authentic, they may lack probative value because they cannot point to the constitutive facts of the case; even if the sign appears, it may be difficult to evaluate it as effective use or effective preparation for use because the usage scenario is insufficient to perform the function of identifying the source. Therefore, the focus of evidence preparation should shift from “proving that I am operating” to “proving that I am using the sign on that category of goods/services for the purpose of source identification”.
V. Evidentiary Strategies under Refusals on Absolute Grounds The Q&A demonstrates a strong “public interest priority” orientation regarding the submission of evidence related to the absolute grounds under Article 10 of the Trademark Law.
First, regarding refusals involving trademarks similar to foreign country names, the Q&A states that, under general circumstances, proof of successful registration in that country may be submitted to presume the exception of “having obtained the consent of the government of that country”. However, it simultaneously emphasizes that a cautious attitude will be adopted and relatively strict standards of identification will be applied out of respect for foreign sovereignty. Furthermore, the applicant, the trademark sign, and the goods/services are required to be highly consistent with the extraterritorial registration certificate, and translation and certification procedures for extraterritorial evidence must be fulfilled. For countries with special requirements (such as Switzerland), a registration certificate alone is usually insufficient; explicit authorization materials issued by the competent authority of that country must also be submitted in conjunction with relevant agreements. It can be seen that the role of evidence in such cases is not to “weaken the reference to the country name” but to prove the statutory exception of “having obtained consent”, and the standard of proof is significantly higher than that for general factual determinations.
Second, regarding the circumstance under Article 10, Paragraph 1, Item (7) of the Trademark Law where a mark is “likely to mislead the public”, the Q&A emphasizes that the standard of general public perception should be used to judge whether it is likely to cause misidentification in combination with the designated goods/services as a whole. It provides evidentiary paths for different types such as differences in corporate names, descriptive elements, and the names or likenesses of public figures. For instance, proof that a short name has formed a unique correspondence with the applicant can be established through subject registration materials, advertising, and sales/use evidence; or the risk of misidentification can be reduced by making explicit limitations on the goods and declaring a disclaimer of the exclusive right to use non-distinctive parts; or explicit authorization documents from the rights holder can be submitted to exclude misidentification. The practical significance of this section is that the core of Item (7) does not lie in the “applicant’s self-statement that no misidentification will occur”, but in using evidence to prove that the “public identification path is clear and unique”.
Third, regarding “ill effects” under Article 10, Paragraph 1, Item (8), the Q&A defines the boundaries of evidence relatively clearly: when the relevant public, exercising ordinary attention, is likely to believe that one of the meanings or methods of use has an ill effect, the mark will usually still be determined to violate this provision even if the applicant submits evidence of other meanings or actual use. A “result-oriented” stance is also adopted toward foreign language meanings with ill effects, pointing out that the degree of public awareness in China is generally not considered when applying this clause. This means that in cases involving ill effects, it is often difficult to achieve a breakthrough by “expanding the semantic space” through evidence; strategically, risk assessment and sign adjustment should be prioritized upfront.
In addition, regarding the prohibition of the use of geographical names (Article 10, Paragraph 2), the Q&A allows for the construction of an evidentiary basis through materials such as reference book definitions, media reports, internet search results, and the location of the applicant under scenarios listed in the Trademark Examination and Adjudication Guidelines, such as “other meanings being stronger than the reference to a geographical name”, “the overall meaning being stronger than the geographical name”, or “the geographical name merely truthfully representing the location”.
VI. Evidentiary Standards for Geographical Indication Cases The evidentiary requirements for geographical indication (GI) collective trademarks and certification trademarks in the Q&A present significant systematic characteristics: from subject qualification, authorization documents, and supervision and testing capabilities to the specific scope of the production area, specific quality, the decisive relationship of natural/human factors, and long-term objective existence and reputation, all require that pieces of evidence mutually corroborate each other and remain consistent with the management rules. For example, when proving a specific production area, evidence may include county chronicles, agricultural chronicles, product chronicles, yearbooks, textbooks, or certificates from competent government departments; the definition of the geographical scope is required to be “clear, definite, and specific”, and must mutually corroborate other evidence and the rules for the use and management of the trademark. When proving specific quality, the Q&A emphasizes that the descriptions in the management rules must include both qualitative descriptions and quantitative indicators; otherwise, it is difficult to prove a specific quality that distinguishes the goods from similar goods outside the region. When proving the decisive role of natural or human factors, it is further required to explain the inseparable link and “focus on explaining the causal relationship”, providing a clear and complete explanation of how specific time, environmental elements, or processes affect the specific quality. Regarding reputation and objective existence, the Q&A tends to use public publications (books, national professional journals, ancient texts, etc.) that clearly record the name, quality, and reputation as key sources of evidence.
For the territorial extension of GI trademarks designating China under the Madrid system, the Q&A further proposes procedural evidentiary requirements: within three months from the date of recording in the International Register, proof of subject qualification and rules for use and management should be submitted to the International Division of the Trademark Office of the CNIPA through an agency; if not submitted, they should be supplemented during the refusal review procedure. Meanwhile, the Q&A notes that after the Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents enters into force in China, public documents from certain contracting states may be exempted from legalization procedures in accordance with the Convention, thereby reducing the cost of formal requirements for extraterritorial evidence.
Overall, because GI protection concerns the stable connection between a specific region and specific quality, the evidence must naturally cover the complete chain of “Region—Quality—Causality—Management—Reputation”. For applicants, using the management rules as the main thread and matching them item-by-item with reliable, cross-verifiable evidence will make it easier to meet evidentiary requirements and enhance probative force.
VII. Key Evidentiary Points for Special Procedures For international registration trademarks refused due to classification issues, the Q&A suggests that the refusal basis may be addressed by handling subsequent procedures such as limitation/cancellation with the International Bureau, applying for a stay of proceedings in the refusal review case, and submitting evidence of the subsequent application already filed with the International Bureau, with proceedings to be resumed after the status of the rights is adjusted.
Furthermore, the Q&A demonstrates the “extinguishing effect” of procedural acts such as limitation and abandonment on the basis of refusal, noting that no separate evidence needs to be submitted for the abandonment of some goods/services, and the partial refusal decision for the relevant part shall be deemed to have taken effect.
Regarding the procedural management of refusals on relative grounds, the Q&A imposes explicit time and content constraints on the evidentiary requirements for the “suspension of case proceedings”: the applicant should submit an explicit written request within three months from the date of the review application, specifying the registration number of the cited trademark, the procedure it is in, and its impact on the subject trademark; after the status of the rights of the cited trademark is determined, a request for resumption of proceedings should be submitted promptly along with the corresponding evidence. This reminds practitioners of the need to timely track changes in the status of cited trademarks and proactively submit the latest files and procedural documents during the refusal review stage, which often allows for changing the direction of a case at a lower cost.
Comment The Questions and Answers on Key Issues Regarding Evidence in Trademark Refusal Review Cases is not only an administrative guidance document but also a systematic consolidation of the rules of evidence in China’s trademark authorization and termination procedures. It emphasizes the logic of constructing a “chain of evidence” and transforms abstract legal provisions into specific checklists for producing evidence. For legal practitioners and enterprises, deeply understanding these practical points and performing “preventative” evidence preservation based on actual business operations will significantly enhance the success rate of trademark rights remedies.