News• Dec 30, 2025
[PRC Practice Update] CNIPA Tightens Evidentiary Requirements for Three-Year Non-Use Trademark Cancellation Applications in 2025
ExecutiveSummarySince2025,theChinaNationalIntellectualPropertyAdministration(CNIPA)hassignificantlyraisedtheevidentiarythresholdforfilingthree-yearnon-usecancellationactions.Itsendsaclearmessage:three-yearnon-usecancellationsarenowsubjecttoheightenedscrutiny,andnon-usecancellationmustbesupportedbysolid,verifiable,andmulti-sourceevidence.Trademarkownersshouldadoptproactivestrategiesfortrademarkuseandevidencepreservation,whilepetitionersmustwellpreparecomprehensiveandpersuasiveevidencedemonstratingthatthedisputedmarkwasnotusedduringthestatutoryperiod.Detailsaresummarizedasfollows:1.SubstantiallyHigherEvidentiaryThresholdUnderthe2025GuidelinesandcurrentCNIPApractice,petitionersshouldsubmitmaterialpreliminaryinvestigationevidenceatthefilingstage,includingbutnotlimitedto:Registrant’sbusinessprofileBusinessscope,operationalstatus,andcommercialactivitiesMarketinvestigationevidence,coveringOfficialwebsitesandsocialmediaaccounts(e.g.WeChat)E-commerceplatformsOfflinebusinesspremisesFormalplatformrequirementsSearchesonatleastthreeplatformsFiveconsecutivefullpagesofcompletesearchresultsperplatformSpecialscrutinymightbeappliedifthedisputedtrademarkwasmaintainedinapreviousthree-yearnon-usecancellationdecisionwithinthepastthreeyears.Undercurrentpractice,ifachallengedtrademarkhasalreadysurvivedanon-usecancellationactionwithinthepastthreeyears,anysubsequentapplicationfornon-usecancellationwillbeexaminedwithheightenedscrutiny.Insuchcases,theCNIPAmightissueanotificationofamendmentrequiringtheapplicanttosubmitadditionalprobativeandcredibleevidencedemonstratingthatthetrademarkhasnotbeenused,whichmayincludetheresultsofon-siteinvestigations.Failingthis,thenewnon-usecancellationapplicationmayberejected,ortheapplicantmaybeadvisedtowithdrawtheapplicationfornon-usecancellation.Overall,theevidentiaryburdenattheapplicationinitiationstagehasincreasedsignificantlycomparedwithpriorpractice.2.Rationale:PreventingProceduralAbuseBeforetheseadjustments,petitionersfornon-usecancellationwererequiredtostatespecificnon-usegroundsandlistpreliminaryevidence.Inpractice,theevidentiarythresholdremainedlow,andminimalonlinesearchresultswereoftensufficienttosupportfiling.By2025,theCNIPAtightenedthestandardstoaddresstheincreasingproceduralabuse,mainlydrivenby:maliciousfilings,suchastargetingtrademarksthatareclearlyinuseorusingnon-usecancellationasleverage;and,asurgeinnon-usecancellationcasesfollowingthereducedacceptanceofconsentletterssince2022,whichmadenon-usecancellationthemosteffectivewaytoclearpriormarks.ThesechangesaregroundedintheGuidelinesfortheTrialofThree-YearNon-UseTrademarkCancellationissuedonMay26,2025,andhavebeenfurtherimplementedinexaminationpractice.Theseadjustmentsarenotintendedtodiscouragelegitimateanonymousfilingsforthree-yearnon-usecancellationsperse.Undercurrentpractice,anonymousfilingsfornon-usecancellationremainfeasible.Rather,itspurposeistocurbabusiverelianceonthenon-usecancellationmechanism,preventproceduralmisuse,andenhanceprotectionfortrademarksthataregenuinelyusedincommerce.Aslongasthechallengedtrademarkisindeednotinuse,suchfilingsfornon-usecancellationshouldnotbeadverselyaffectedbytheseadjustments.3.ImpactAssessment:ADouble-EdgedSwordPositiveEffectsforTrademarkOwnersEffectivedeterrenceofbad-faithandharassingcancellationsReduceddefensiveburdenforlegitimatelyusedtrademarksChallengesforApplicantsforFilingCancellationEvidencerequirementsarestricter:Registrantbusinessinvestigations,multi-platformsearches,and,insomecases,on-siteinvestigationsarenowmandatory.4.PracticalGuidanceForTrademarkOwners:ActiveUse+ReservingEvidenceTrademarkownersshouldensuretheactivecommercialuseofthosetrademarksthathavebeenregisteredforthreeyearsormore,inordertomitigatetheriskofnon-usecancellationchallenges.Robustandwell-documentedevidenceoftrademarkuseincludesbutnotlimitedto:Salescontracts,VATinvoices,andadvertisingmaterials;Productpackaging,exhibitionortradefairrecords,andotherpromotionalmaterials,allofwhichshouldclearlyandconsistentlydisplaythetrademark.Itshouldbenotedthatthetrademarkauthoritynolongerrecognize“symbolicuse”,suchasinternaldocumentsorotherformsofusethatlackgenuinecommercialimpact.Inaddition,fortrademarksthathavebeenregisteredforthreeyearsormorebuthavenotyetbeencommerciallylaunchedinChina,trademarkownersmayconsiderestablishingChina-facingsocialmediaaccountstopromotesuchtrademarks.Perourlocalpractice,useoftrademarksonsocialmediaplatformsmayqualifyasvalidtrademarkuse,assuchusemaybeconsideredasaformof“advertising”whereitreflectsbonafidecommercialpromotion.Currently,themostwidelyusedsocialmediaplatformsinChinaincludeSinaWeibo,Xiaohongshu,andWeChat.ForPetitionersinNon-UseCancellationsEngageexperiencedcounseltoconductthoroughandcompliantinvestigationsClearlysubmitsoliduseevidencetomakesuretheapplicationfornon-usecancellationcanbeacceptedbytheCNIPAReviewthetrademark’scancellationhistorybeforefilingFileaReviewwiththeappealboardoftheCNIPAifthecancellationactionisnotsupportedbytheCNIPA,insteadofsimplyrefiling,because(i)filinganewcancellationinthecomingthreeyearsmaybeunacceptedbytheCNIPA,and(ii)Reviewproceedingsallowformorethoroughexaminationandmayprovideabetterchanceofsuccess.
News• Aug 14, 2025
Evidence collection and organisation in trademark infringement cases in China
InsummaryThequalityandquantityofevidencecanplayakeypartinatrademarkinfringementcase.ThisarticlesplitsthetypicaltrademarkinfringementcasesinChinaintothreeparts.Foreachpart,thearticlestartsfromlawsandregulationstoanalysiswhichfactorsaremostlyconsideredbythecourt,andthenintroduceswhichkeyevidencetobecollectedaccordinglyandhowtocollecttheevidenceefficientlywithproperresourcesandtools.DiscussionpointsFactorstobeconsideredintrademarkinfringementcasesTypicaltypesofevidenceintrademarkinfringementcasesCommonlyusedmethods,channelsandtoolstocollectevidenceHowtoorganiseevidencelogicallyandefficientlyReferencedinthisarticlePRCTrademarkLawSupremePeople'sCourtProvisionsonSeveralIssuesConcerningEvidenceinCivilLitigationofIntellectualPropertyRightsTheInterpretationoftheSupremePeople'sCourtonCertainIssuesConcerningtheApplicationofLawinCivilDisputeCasesInvolvingtheProtectionofWell-KnownTrademarksTheInterpretationoftheSupremePeople'sCourtonSeveralIssuesConcerningtheApplicationofLawintheTrialofCivilDisputesoverTrademarksThequalityandquantityofevidencecanplayakeypartinatrademarkinfringementcase.InChina,evidencecollectionandorganisationareusuallythemosttime-consumingpartinlitigationwork,asthequantityofevidencecanbehuge,especiallyincasesinvolvingwell-knowntrademarks.Generallyspeaking,atrademarkinfringementcasecanbesplitintothreekeyparts:theplaintiff’strademarkrightbasis,thedefendant’sinfringingactions,andthedamagesawards.So,herebelow,wewilldiscussineachparthowtocollectandorganiseevidence.Evidenceofrightbasisoftheplaintiff(trademarkholder)InChina,trademarkrightisobtainedthroughregistration,[1]andthisisthepremiseoftrademarkinfringement.Technicallyspeaking,avalidtrademarkregistrationshouldbeprotectedevenifitdoesnothaveanyreputation.So,insomeverystraightforwardcaseswithverylowdamages,ithappensthattheplaintiffsimplypresentsitstrademarkregistrationcertificatetoproveitsrightbasiswithoutanyadditionalreputationevidence.Onthecontrary,accordingtoarticle64ofChineseTrademarkLaw,[2]iftheplaintiffhasnotuseditstrademarkforthreeyearspriortothelawsuit,thedefendantonlyneedstostoptheinfringementanddoesnotbeartheliabilityforcompensation.Thisistosay,useandreputationarestillcriticalfortheplaintiffinatrademarkinfringementcaseandthehigherthereputationoftheregisteredtrademark,thehigherthelevelofprotectionitwillbeafforded.InChina,awell-knowntrademarkenjoysthehighestlevelofreputationandprotection,anditisonlyrecognisedwhennecessaryandwhenrequiredbytheplaintiffinacase-by-casemanner.Thisistosay,reputationevidenceiscrucialandwewillthereforetakeawell-knowntrademarkasanexampleinordertodemonstratewhatkindofevidenceisneededtoprovereputationoftrademark.Article14ofChineseTrademarkLawstipulatesthefactorstobeconsideredwhendeterminingawell-knowntrademark,including:thedegreeofawarenessofthetrademarkamongrelevantpublic;thedurationofuseofthetrademark;theduration,extent,andgeographicalscopeofanypromotionalworkforthetrademark;recordsofthetrademarkbeingprotectedasawell-knowntrademark;andotherfactorscontributingtothetrademark'sreputation.TheInterpretationoftheSupremePeople'sCourtonCertainIssuesConcerningtheApplicationofLawinCivilDisputeCasesInvolvingtheProtectionofWell-KnownTrademarksrequiresthefollowingevidencewhentheplaintiffclaimsawell-knowntrademarkright:Themarketshare,salesterritory,profits,taxes,etc.,ofthegoodsbearingthetrademark;Thecontinuousdurationofuseofthetrademark;Themethods,duration,extent,financialinvestment,andgeographicscopeofpublicityorpromotionalactivitiesrelatedtothetrademark;Recordsshowingthatthetrademarkhaspreviouslybeenrecognisedandprotectedasawell-knowntrademark;Themarketreputationenjoyedbythetrademark;Otherfactualevidencedemonstratingthatthetrademarkisalreadywellknown.InProvisionsontheDeterminationandProtectionofWell-KnownTrademarks,theChinaNationalIntellectualPropertyAdministrationmakesmoredetailedrequirementsonthecontentandvolumeofreputationevidence:[3]Materialsdemonstratingthedegreeofpublicawarenessofthetrademark.Materialsdemonstratingthedurationofuseofthetrademark,suchasdocumentsshowingthehistoryandscopeofitsuseandregistration.Ifthetrademarkisunregistered,materialsmustbeprovidedtoprovethatithasbeenusedcontinuouslyfornolessthanfiveyears.Ifthetrademarkisregistered,materialsmustbesubmittedtoprovethatithasbeenregisteredfornolessthanthreeyearsorhasbeencontinuouslyusedfornolessthanfiveyears.Materialsdemonstratingtheduration,extent,andgeographicscopeofanypromotionalactivitiesrelatedtothetrademark,suchasmethods,geographiccoverage,typesofmediaused,andadvertisingvolumeinadvertisingandpromotionalactivitiesoverthepastthreeyears.Materialsdemonstratingthatthetrademarkhaspreviouslybeenrecognisedandprotectedasawell-knowntrademarkinChinaorinothercountriesorregions.Otherevidentiarymaterialsprovingthatthetrademarkiswellknown,suchasmaterialsregardingthesalesrevenue,marketshare,netprofit,taxpayments,andsalescoverageofthemaingoodsassociatedwiththetrademarkoverthepastthreeyears.Asstipulatedbytheabovelawsandregulations,thereputationofatrademarkisusuallydeterminedbyitsdurationofuse,salesvolumeandpromotionscopeofproducts,andprotectionrecords.Inpractice,theaboverequirementsof‘threeyears’or‘fiveyears’isnotmandatory,suchasthe‘TikTokinChinese’case.Astheinternetindustryhasdevelopedquicklyinrecentyears,thetimelimitisnotasstrictasitwas.Consideringhowrapidlyanewproductorbrandcanbepromotedontheinternet,therecognitionofawell-knowntrademarkdoesnotneedtosticktothe‘threeyears’or‘fiveyears’,[4]thoughdurationofuseisstillanimportantfactortobeconsidered.Basedonourexperience,themostlycommonlyusedandalsothemostimportantreputationevidenceisanauditreportissuedbyanindependentaccountingfirm.Theauditreportwillstatehowmanyproductsbearingthetrademarkweresoldinthepastprescribedyearsandhowmuchmoneywasearned,howmuchmoneywasspentonadvertisingthebrand,howmanytaxeswerepaid,andsoon.Theseareallkeystatisticstoestablishatrademark’sreputation.Withsuchauditreportasafoundation,itisadvisabletosubmitsomecircumstantialevidencetoenhancetheevidencechain.Forexample,tosupportthesalesvolumeintheauditreport,theplaintiffcanalsosubmitsalescontractsandcorrespondinginvoices;fortheadvertisingpart,theplaintiffcansubmitthecontractswiththeadvertisers,theadvertisements(video,pictures,exhibition,etc)andstatisticsofviewersfromareliableinstitution;forthetaxespart,thecertificatesoftaxpaymentissuedbylocaltaxauthoritieswillbeveryhelpful,especiallyconsideringthatChinesecourtsusuallyplacemoretrustinofficialdocuments.Toprovethedegreeofpublicawarenessofthetrademark,acommonlyusedmethodistosubmitarticlesandonlinepostsofthetrademark.Inrespectofthis,ChinaNationalLibraryprovidesasearchserviceofnewspapers,magazinesandperiodicalsfortrademarkholders.Trademarkholderscansetsearchrequirements,suchaskeywordsandtime,andtheNationalLibrarywillsearchaccordinglyinthedesignateddatabases.Thesearchwilllocatethenews,articlesandthesesthatmentionthesaidtrademark.Uponreviewingandselectingbythetrademarkholder,theNationalLibrarywillissueareportconfirmingthesearerealpublishedarticlesaboutthetrademark.Forsomefamousbrands,thenumberofarticlescanrunintoseveralthousands.AstheNationalLibraryhasstrongpubliccredibility,thereporthasstrongprobativevalue.Aswementioned,trademarkreputationcanbeacquiredveryquicklythroughonlinedissemination.Therefore,therehavebeenmanytoolshelpingtrademarkholderstocollectposts,reports,advertisements,etcondifferentonlineplatforms.Thesetoolsareeffectivelyenhancedsearchenginesor‘webcrawlers’thatenablethetrademarkholdertocollectandorganiseevidenceefficiently.Somemayevenestablishapartnershipwithanotarypublicandthesearchresultscanbedirectlynotarisedtoenhancethecredibility.[5]ThesetoolscanbeveryusefulwhenthebrandismostlypromotedandestablishedthroughnewmediasuchasTikTokandRedNote.Recordsofprotectionarealsoveryimportant,especiallyifthetrademarkhasbeenprotectedasawell-knowntrademarkbefore.Aswementionedabove,well-knowntrademarkrecognitionisonacase-by-casebasis.Thisistosay,eventhoughatrademarkhasbeenrecognisedasawell-knowntrademarkinonecase,suchrecognitiondoesnotautomaticallyextendtothenextcaseandtheplaintiffneedstorequestwell-knowntrademarkrecognitionagain.Ontheotherhand,ifatrademarkhasbeenprotectedasawell-knowntrademark,theburdenofproofwillbelighterandthechancesthatitgetswell-knowntrademarkprotectionagainwillbehigherthanthetrademarkthathasneverbeenprotectedasawell-knowntrademark.Recordsofprotectionincludeofficialdecisionsinallkindsoflegalproceedings,suchascivillawsuits,administrativelawsuits,trademarkauthorisationandconfirmationproceedings,administrativeraidactions,criminallawsuits,etc.InsomeprovincesinChina,thereisanofficiallistofkeytrademarksforprotection,andthetrademarkholdercanfileanapplicationtojointhelist.[6]Ifapproved,thiscanbestrongevidencetoprovereputation.Anotherimportantpieceofevidencethattheaboveregulationsdonotspecificallymentionisawardsandranking.Itisbetterthattheawardsandrankingarepresentedbyanauthoritativeinstitution,suchaslocalgovernment,industryassociation,FortuneGlobal500,orawell-knownmarketresearchinstitution(likeNielsen),etc.Assomereadersmightknow,anaffidavitisnotalegalformofevidenceinChina.Therefore,inrespectofreputationevidence,thecourtreliesmoreonindependentsourcesandsolidstatisticsotherthantheplaintiff’sownstatement.Thisrequiresalotofwork,collecting,categorisingandorganisingevidence.Insomewell-knowntrademarkcases,thereputationevidencecanbethousandsofpages.Evidenceofinfringementofthedefendant(infringer)Oncetheplaintiff’strademarkrightisestablished,thenextstepistoprovethereareinfringingactionsconductedbythedefendant.Foratrademarkinfringementcase,thispartisoftenstraightforwardastheplaintiffmusthavediscoveredinfringingproductsinthemarketorinfringingpromotionalcontentontheinternetbeforeconsideringinitiatingalawsuit.Theusualwaytopreserveevidenceofinfringingactionsistotestapurchasewithnotarisation:theplaintiffortheplaintiff’sagentpurchasestheinfringingproductsfromtheinfringerorthroughanonlinee-commerceplatformwithanotarypublictowitnessthepurchase.Thenotarypublicwilloverseethewholeprocess,reviewtheproducts,takepicturesandthensealtheproductsasevidence.Fortheonlineinfringingcontent,thenotarypubliccanalsomakeclippingsofthewebsitetopreserveevidence.Inrecentyears,anewmethodofpreservingonlineinfringingcontent,called‘blockchain’,or‘timetamp’notarisation,hasgainedpopularity.[7]Thismethodusesblockchaintechnologytopreservethewebpageandgenerateacertificatewithspecificverificationinformation.Blockchainnotarisationismuchcheaperthantraditionalnotarisationandisjustaseffective.[8]Itisnosurprise,then,thatblockchainnotarisationisbeingusedmoreandmorefrequently.Technicallyspeaking,theestablishmentoftrademarkinfringementdoesnotrequiretheinfringertohavebadfaithasanelement.Eveniftheinfringingactionsareconductedunknowingly,theinfringercanstillbeheldaccountable.Ontheotherhand,badfaithisacriticalfactorininfluencingthejudge’sdiscretionandshouldbeseriouslyconsideredwhencalculatingdamages.Therefore,itisrecommendedtocollectevidencetoprovetheinfringer’sbadfaith.Typicalevidenceofbadfaithincludes:Trademarkapplicationsoftheinfringershowingithasplagiarisedmanybrandsotherthantheplaintiff’strademark.Eventhoughtheinfringermaynotplagiarisetheplaintiff’strademarkapplication,thiskindoftrademarkpiratebehaviourwillbetakenintoconsideration.Officialdecisionsthatrecognisetheinfringer’sbadfaith.Forinstance,theinfringerhasfallenfouloftheAdministrationforMarketRegulationsfortrademarkinfringement,ortheinfringerhasbeenfoundtohaveoperatedinbadfaithintrademarkadministrativeproceedings,etc.Capitalisingontheplaintiff’sreputationbyothermeansinactualbusiness.Otherthancopyingtheplaintiff’strademark,theinfringermayimitatetheplaintiff’stradedress,specificcolourcombination,advertisingslogan,orimplyitisassociatedwiththeplaintiffinthemarket.Suchbehaviourisstrongevidenceofbadfaith.Theinfringerhasaconnectionwiththeplaintiffandknowsabouttheplaintiff’strademark,forexample,theinfringerwasatonetimetheplaintiff’sdistributororpartner,theirbusinesslocationsarenear,theysharethesamelabour,etc.Thiskindofconnectionprovestheinfringerhasknowledgeoftheplaintiff’strademark.Allthingsconsidered,theevidenceofinfringementusuallydoesnotrequiremuchdeskwork,butreliesmoreonfieldworklikesearch,investigation,talkingskills,etc.toprovetheinfringer’sbadfaith.Theplaintiffandtheattorneyneedtoworkcloselywiththeinvestigatorandthenotarypublic,andpreservedifferentkindsofevidence,includingwebpageclippings,actualproducts,advertisingmaterials,pictures,videos,conversationrecordings,etc.EvidenceofdamagescalculationArticle63ofthePRCTrademarkLawstipulatesthefollowingwaystocalculatedamages:theactuallossessufferedbytheplaintiff;thebenefitsobtainedbytheinfringerduetotheinfringement;andareasonablemultipleofthetrademarklicensingfee.Theabovecalculationmethodsshouldbeappliedinorderandaresubjecttofivetimesthepunitivedamagesatmostiftheinfringementissevereandinbadfaith.Ifthesemethodsareunabletodeterminethedamages,thecourtshallawarddiscretionarycompensationintherangeof5millionyuan(approximately£500,000)orunder(statutorydamages).Thedamagesawardsshouldalsocovertheexpensesspentbytheplaintifftodefenditstrademarkright.Whencalculatingthedamages,themostcommonlyapplicablemethodiscalculatingthebenefitsobtainedbytheinfringers.Althoughitisnotpossiblefortheplaintifftomakeanaccuratecalculation,thereareseveralmethodsthatarecommonlyused.Firstly,ase-commerceisverypopularinChinaandmostproductscanbeboughtfromonlinee-commerceplatforms,theplaintiffcanknowthepriceandsalesvolumeoftheinfringingproductsontheplatforms.Or,ifthenumberisnotpublic,theplaintiffcanapplyforaninvestigationorderwiththecourtandordertheplatformstoprovidesalesrecordoftheinfringingproducts.Withthisnumber,thesalesandprofitsobtainedbytheinfringercanbecalculated.Secondly,theplaintiffortheplaintiff’sagentmaytalktotheinfringerortheinfringer’sdistributoranonymouslyandtrytogleaninformationfromthem.RecordingtheconversationislegalinChinaandsuchrecordingcanbeusedasevidence.[9]Thirdly,theinfringermayhavesomeadvertisingmaterialsthatadmitthebusinessscope,numberoffranchisees,yearlyprofits,etc.Thisself-admissionisalsousefulevidence.Anotherproductivewayfortheplaintifftoclaimdamagesistorequiretheinfringertoprovidefinancialstatistics.ChineseTrademarkLawstipulatesthat:Inordertodeterminetheamountofdamages,whentherightholdershavemadeeveryefforttoprovideevidence,andtheaccountbooksandmaterialsrelatedtotheinfringementaremainlyinthepossessionoftheinfringers,thecourtmayordertheinfringerstoprovidesuchaccountbooksandmaterialsrelatedtotheinfringement;iftheinfringersdonotprovidethesameorprovidefalseaccountsandmaterials,thecourtmayrefertotherightsholders’claimsandprovidedevidencetodeterminetheamountofdamages.[10]Furthermore,theSupremePeople'sCourtProvisionsonSeveralIssuesConcerningEvidenceinCivilLitigationofIntellectualPropertyRightsstipulatesthat:Thecourt,inaccordancewiththelaw,requiresthepartiestosubmitrelevantevidence.Ifapartyrefusestosubmitwithoutjustifiablereasons,submitsfalseevidence,destroysevidence,orengagesinotheractsthatrendertheevidenceunusable,thecourtmaypresumethattheclaimsoftheotherpartyconcerningthematterstobeprovedbysuchevidenceareestablished.[11]TheabovelawsandregulationsbasicallyformthesystemofproofimpairmentinChinaandareveryhelpfulfortheplaintiffinreducingtheirliabilityofproof.Withtheabovesupport,theplaintifffirstlycollectssomebasicevidenceoftheinfringer’sprofits,suchassalesdatadisplayedone-commerceplatforms,theinfringer’sself-admissioninsomeeventsoradvertisingmaterials(especiallyTikTokvideosandRedNoteposts),ortheaveragerateprofitintheindustry.Basedonsuchevidence,theplaintifffurtherfilesarequestwiththecourtforaccountbooksandmaterialsrelatedtotheinfringementfromtheinfringer.Iftheinfringerdoesnotcooperatewiththecourt’sorder,itshallbearthenegativeconsequences,andtheplaintiff’sevidenceandcalculationwillbeverylikelytobeadmittedbythecourt.Inpractice,statutorydamagesaremostlyappliedbecauseithasalwaysbeenachallengefortherightholdertocollectsufficientevidencetoaccuratelycalculatetheinfringer’sbenefits,andthecourtusuallyinclinestodecidethedamagesawardsbydiscretion,whichiseasierwithoutmuchcalculationwork.AccordingtoInterpretationoftheSupremePeople'sCourtonSeveralIssuesConcerningtheApplicationofLawintheTrialofCivilDisputesoverTrademarks,whendeterminingstatutorydamages,thecourtshouldcomprehensivelyconsiderthenatureoftheinfringingact,thedurationoftheinfringement,theconsequencesoftheinfringement,thedegreeoftheinfringer'ssubjectivefault,thereputationofthetrademark,andthereasonableexpensesforpreventingtheinfringingact.[12]PunitivedamageshavebeenincreasinglyappliedbytheChinesecourtssince2019.Itispredicatedontheplaintiff'srequest,andthecourtshallnotapplypunitivedamagesonitsowninitiative.Punitivedamagesmustbeclaimedbeforetheconclusionofthecourtdebateinthefirstinstance.Applyingpunitivedamagesrequirestwopreconditions:theinfringementissevereandoutofbadfaith(intentional).TheSupremePeople'sCourtInterpretationontheApplicationofPunitiveDamagesinCivilCasesofIntellectualPropertyInfringement(‘thejudicialinterpretationonpunitivedamages’)makesdetailedexplanationontheapplicationofpunitivedamages.For‘severe’,thejudicialinterpretationonpunitivedamagesliststhefollowingconditions:committingthesameorsimilarinfringementagainafterbeingadministrativelypenalisedoradjudicatedbythecourtforinfringement,theinfringeragaincommitsthesameorasimilarinfringement;engagingintheinfringementofintellectualpropertyrightsasabusiness;fabricating,destroyingorconcealingevidenceoftheinfringement;refusingtocomplywiththepreservationrulings;theprofitsobtainedfromtheinfringementorlossessufferedbytherightholderaresubstantial;theinfringementmayendangernationalsecurity,publicinterestorpersonalhealth;andothercircumstancesthatcanbedeterminedassevere.[13]For‘badfaith’and‘intentional’,thejudicialinterpretationonpunitivedamagesliststhefollowingconditions:theinfringercontinuestocommittheinfringementafterbeingnotifiedorwarnedbytherightholderoraninterestedparty;theinfringeroritslegalrepresentative,administratoristhelegalrepresentative,administratororactualcontrolleroftherightholderoraninterestedparty;thereexistsalabour,service,cooperation,licensing,distribution,agency,representationorothersuchrelationshipsbetweentheinfringerandtherightholderoraninterestedparty,andtheinfringerhashadaccesstotheinfringedintellectualproperty;therehasbeenbusinessdealingsornegotiationsforthepurposeofreachingacontractbetweentheinfringerandtherightholderoraninterestedparty,andtheinfringerhashadaccesstotheinfringedintellectualproperty;theinfringerengagesinpiracyorcounterfeitingregisteredtrademarks;andothercircumstancesthatcanbedeemedasbadfaith/intentional.[14]Asisevident,theconsiderationsthatthecourtdecidestheamountofstatutorydamagesaresimilartothefactorsofconsideringpunitivedamages.Therefore,therequiredevidenceforclaimingstatutorydamagesandpunitivedamagesisalsosimilar.Thisismainlybecausethatwhenthecourtdecidesthenumberofstatutorydamageswithinthe5millionyuanlimit,itshouldhaveconsideredthefactorsofthereputationoftherightholder,theseverityoftheinfringement,thebadfaithoftheinfringer,etc,whichalreadyincludethefactorsofpunitivedamages.Usually,statutorydamagesandpunitivedamagesshouldnotbeadoptedsimultaneously.[15]Asfortheexpensesspentbytheplaintifftodefenditstrademarkright,theyusuallyincludeattorneyfees,notarisationfees,translationfees,transportationfeesforthecase,etc.Theplaintiffshouldsubmitvalidandauthenticinvoicesforallthesefees.Amongthem,theplaintiff’sattorneyfeesarethemostimportant.Thecourtrequiresagencycontractbetweentheplaintiffandtheattorneys,andcorrespondinginvoicesasevidence.Butthenumbercannotbetoohigh,otherwise,thecourtwillexerciseitsdiscretiontodeterminethespecificamountthatshouldbebornebytheinfringer.Inthefuture,withtheadvancementoftechnology,manynewtoolswillemergeandevolve,includingtheArtificialIntelligenceandLargeLanguageModel.Thesetoolsmayfacilitatethetrademarkattorneys’workandreshapetheprocessoflitigation.Whencollectingandorganisingevidence,weexpectthesetoolstoreducethetrademarkattorneys’workloadandimprovetheirworkefficiency,andwewillkeepanopenattitudetowardfuturedevelopments.Endnotes[1]Undersomecircumstances,unregisteredtrademarkscanbeprotectedinChinaaswell,butveryrarely.UnderChineseTrademarkLaw,unregisteredwell-knowntrademarkscanbeprotectedinbothcivillawsuitsandadministrativelawsuits;unregisteredtrademarkswithcertaininfluencecanonlybeprotectedinadministrativelawsuits.UnderChineseAnti-UnfairCompetitionLaw,unregisteredtrademarkswithcertaininfluencecanbeprotectedincivillawsuits.[2]Article64ofChineseTrademarkLaw:Wheretheholderoftheregisteredtrademarkclaimscompensation,andtheallegedinfringerdefendsonthegroundthattheholderhasnotusedtheregisteredtrademark,thepeople'scourtmayrequiretheholdertoprovideevidenceoftheactualuseoftheregisteredtrademarkwithinthepreviousthreeyears.Iftheholderoftheregisteredtrademarkfailstoprovethattheregisteredtrademarkhasbeenactuallyusedwithinthepreviousthreeyears,norcanitprovethatithassufferedotherlossesduetotheinfringement,theallegedinfringershallnotbeartheliabilityforcompensation.[3]Article9ofProvisionsontheDeterminationandProtectionofWell-KnownTrademarks.AlthoughtheProvisionsaremadebytheCNIPA,inpractice,theycanalsobereferencedbythecourt.[4](2022)JingXingZhongNo.2944(oneoftheTop10trademarkadministrativelawsuitsin2022).[5]AsthecontentontheinternetmaybechangedordeletedatanytimeandtheChineseCourthighlyreliesonnotarisation,thecontentsfromtheinternetusuallyneednotarisationtobeadmittedincourt.[6]Forinstance,seetheguidelinesonjoiningthelistinBeijinghttps://www.bjta.com.cn/html/report/25060138-1.htm.[7]Thisisoneofthemostoftenusedblockchainnotarisationtoolshttps://www.tsa.cn/.[8]Chineseauthorities,includingcourtsandCNIPA,allacceptevidencewithblockchainnotarisation.[9]Therecordingshouldusuallybenotarisedtomakesureithasprobativeforce.[10]Article63oftheChineseTrademarkLaw.[11]Article25ofTheSupremePeople'sCourtProvisionsonSeveralIssuesConcerningEvidenceinCivilLitigationofIntellectualPropertyRights.[12]Article16.2ofTheInterpretationoftheSupremePeople'sCourtonSeveralIssuesConcerningtheApplicationofLawintheTrialofCivilDisputesoverTrademarks.[13]Article4oftheJudicialInterpretationonPunitiveDamages.[14]Article3oftheJudicialInterpretationonPunitiveDamages.[15]Inthepastfewyears,therehavebeensomecasesthatadoptpunitivedamagesandstatutorydamagesatthesametime.Forthedamagesthatcanbecalculatedandascertained(withevidencesuchassalesdata),thecourtcalculatesthesameandrulespunitivedamagesaccordingly;forthedamageswhichcannotbeaccuratelycalculated(withoutsufficientevidence),thecourtdecidestheamountbydiscretion.Thefinaldamagesawardswillbethesumoftheabovetwoparts.Thisisanewandmeaningfulexploration.
