In trademark non-use cancellation proceedings, many businesses encounter a seemingly simple yet highly challenging question:

If a company has been actively operating its business, why can it still lose its registered trademark?

A recent administrative trademark litigation case decided by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court addressed precisely this issue. Representing a leading international communications technology company, Michelle XU and her team successfully secured a favorable judgment regarding the use of a core trademark in connection with technical services, thereby preserving the client's valuable trademark rights.

At first glance, the case appeared to be a routine non-use cancellation dispute. In reality, however, it highlighted a long-standing challenge faced by many technology and service-oriented enterprises in trademark protection and enforcement.

Under the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, a registered trademark may be revoked if it has not been used for three consecutive years without justifiable reasons. Accordingly, trademark owners must not only demonstrate that their businesses are genuinely operating, but also establish that their activities constitute legally recognizable trademark use.

For traditional product-based businesses, this requirement is often relatively straightforward. Sales contracts, invoices, shipping records, product packaging, and related transaction documents can usually provide direct evidence of trademark use.

The situation is markedly different for technology-driven service providers.

Technical consulting, system design, network planning, solution development, and technical support services are inherently intangible and are often delivered through ongoing professional engagement rather than discrete product transactions. As a result, evidence reflecting genuine business activities frequently takes the form of technical documentation, promotional materials, industry conference participation, customer support records, and similar materials, rather than traditional transaction documents.

For this reason, the central issue in the case was not whether the submitted evidence was authentic. Rather, the key question was whether the evidence could demonstrate that the disputed trademark had actually been used in connection with the registered technical services.

During the proceedings, the evidence was subjected to strict scrutiny. The administrative authority considered that a substantial portion of the materials had been generated by the trademark owner itself and therefore possessed limited evidentiary weight. In addition, the authority noted the absence of conventional transaction documents, such as service contracts and invoices directly corresponding to the designated services, and consequently concluded that actual trademark use had not been sufficiently established.

Faced with these challenges, Michelle XU’s team chose not to focus solely on the evidentiary value of individual documents. Instead, the team directed its arguments toward the underlying business realities of the technical services industry.

The team emphasized that the delivery of technical services differs fundamentally from traditional product sales. In the process of providing network architecture planning, system design, technical consulting, and related support services, trademarks do not merely serve a promotional function. Rather, they continuously identify the source of the services and enable customers and industry participants to recognize the service provider.

Accordingly, the team argued that the assessment of trademark use in technical service industries should not mechanically rely upon evidentiary standards developed primarily for product-based transactions. Instead, the analysis should take into account the actual characteristics of the relevant industry, the nature of the services provided, and the source-identifying function performed by the trademark in real commercial practice.

Based on this approach, the team systematically organized and presented evidence demonstrating the company's long-standing technical service activities. By connecting the company’s business model, service offerings, market activities, and trademark usage scenarios, the team established a comprehensive evidentiary framework showing the relationship between the trademark and the designated services.

Ultimately, the court accepted these arguments, recognized the trademark's actual use in connection with the relevant technical services, and ruled in favor of the trademark owner.

The significance of the case extends beyond the preservation of a single trademark registration. It underscores a broader issue facing technology companies, digital service providers, and innovation-driven businesses in today's economy: genuine commercial activity does not automatically translate into legally sufficient proof of trademark use. As business models continue to evolve, the ability to convert real-world commercial activities into evidence that satisfies legal standards has become an increasingly important aspect of trademark portfolio management and brand protection.

Michelle XU and her team have extensive experience in trademark prosecution, administrative litigation, and brand protection matters, particularly in the fields of technology, telecommunications, internet services, and emerging industries. The team remains committed to helping domestic and international clients safeguard their intellectual property rights and strengthen the value of their brands in an increasingly complex commercial environment.