[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, after a trademark is preemptively registered, three paths can be chosen at different stages: raising objections within three months of the preliminary review announcement; for registered trademarks, requesting a declaration of invalidation within five years from the date of registration; for maliciously registered trademarks, the owner of the well-known trademark is not subject to the five-year time limit; and for trademarks that have not been used for three consecutive years, any unit or individual may apply for their revocation. Articles 33, 45, and 49 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (amended for the fourth time on April 23, 2019, and implemented on November 1, 2019) stipulate the above-mentioned procedures. If a trademark is found to have been preemptively registered, it is necessary to immediately fix the evidence of prior use and popularity and initiate legal proceedings as soon as possible. For reference, please refer to the relevant provisions of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China.Intellectual property legal services.

I. Problem background and typical scenarios

There are mainly three types of situations involving trademark squatting: First, competitors or rivals apply for logos similar to the enterprise's trademarks on the same or similar products, free-riding and exploiting the enterprise's reputation; Second, distributors, contract manufacturers, or former employees use the channel information they possess to squat on the enterprise's trademarks; Third, "trademark dealers" bulk-purchase popular logos and resell them or use them as a threat. When the enterprise discovers this, the squatted trademarks may be in three stages: initial review announcement, approved registration, or actual use, each corresponding to completely different remedial procedures and time limits. Henglue Lawyers are specialized in handling such cases.Intellectual property legal servicesIn practice, a reminder: In disputes over preemptive registration, what really matters is not just legal grounds, but also evidence and speed.

II. Key points of contention

First, how to determine the "malice" of preemptive registration: whether the registrant knew or should have known about others' prior trademarks, and whether there were acts of fictitious use or resale coercion, directly affect whether the declaration of invalidity can be established. Second, the boundaries of prior rights: beyond trademark rights, can corporate names, copyrights (such as art-processed logos), and name rights serve as grounds for blocking preemptive registration? Third, the protection intensity of well-known trademarks: registered well-known trademarks can enjoy cross-class protection, and malicious registrations are not subject to the five-year time limit. However, the determination of well-known status requires supporting evidence of popularity. Fourth, procedural choices: objections, declarations of invalidity, and revocation procedures for non-use for three consecutive years can be conducted concurrently or sequentially. The combination of these paths directly affects the time required to recover the trademark.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Lawyers

The identification criteria for cybersquatting and imitation are consistent across administrative procedures and infringement litigation. Attorney Liu Yuanyuan of Henglue Law Firm once represented a dispute involving imitation of a well-known trademark: Plaintiff A Company, a well-known domestic paper industry enterprise, had its "EFGH" trademark approved for use on sanitary napkins in Category 5. It was recognized as a well-known trademark by courts and administrative authorities in multiple regions. Defendant B Company was established in November 2020 and obtained authorization from a third party in September 2023 to use the "EFGK" registered trademark and design patent to produce and sell "EFGK" sanitary napkins. In April 2024, A Company sued, alleging that "EFGK" imitated its well-known trademark and caused confusion due to similar packaging designs, seeking compensation of 980,000 yuan. Attorney Liu Yuanyuan defended B Company, arguing that the logo had a legitimate authorization source, the suffix difference was obvious and not easily confused, and the packaging design was based on a design patent. He also argued that the high compensation claim lacked basis. The court ruled that "EFGH" constituted a well-known trademark at the time of "EFGK"'s application, and B Company's use of "EFGK" constituted imitation and trademark infringement. However, as A Company failed to prove that the packaging design "had a certain influence," the court rejected the claim of unfair competition and awarded compensation of 60,000 yuan (50,000 yuan for economic losses and 10,000 yuan for reasonable expenses). This case provides two lessons for enterprises: First, the well-known status of a well-known trademark is determined at the time of the disputed trademark's application, and prior well-known evidence is crucial; Second, the determination of imitation and similarity should consider the overall recognition and the potential for confusion among the relevant public, rather than simply comparing the characters. This case was handled by Beijing Henglue Law Firm.Liu YuanyuanThe lawyer (practice license number: 11101202011201094, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent.

IV. Practical Suggestions and Legal Basis

If you discover that your trademark has been preemptively registered by others, it is recommended to take the following actions in the following order: First, immediately retrieve the application file of the trademark that was preemptively registered, verify the application date, category, identity of the applicant and the agent, and determine whether it is malicious; Second, classify and fix the evidence, including trademark use evidence (contracts, invoices, promotional materials), popularity evidence (sales scale, award records, audit reports), and creation and registration evidence (copyright registration certificates); Third, if the initial review announcement is within three months, raise an objection directly. If it is not established after the announcement period, continue to request a declaration of invalidation; Fourth, if the registration has been completed for three years and the preemptive registrant shows no signs of use, simultaneously apply for revocation due to non-use for three consecutive years; Fifth, if the preemptively registered trademark has already been put into use, concurrently claim compensation for infringement. If you are not sure about the combination of procedures, you canConsult Beijing Henglu Law FirmProfessional lawyer. The legal basis is mainly the "Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China" (amended for the fourth time on April 23, 2019, and implemented on November 1, 2019): Article 13 protects well-known trademarks; Article 30 stipulates that the Trademark Office shall reject identical or similar logos on identical or similar goods; Article 32 stipulates that it shall not infringe upon others' existing prior rights, and shall not register in advance by improper means the trademarks that others have already used and have a certain influence; Article 33 stipulates a three-month objection period; Articles 44 and 45 stipulate the invalidation declaration procedure (Article 45 includes a five-year time limit and exceptions for malicious registration of well-known trademarks); Article 49 Paragraph 2 stipulates the revocation for non-use for three consecutive years. The specific application shall be subject to the current effective laws, regulations and judicial rulings.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

The cycle of preemptive registration disputes lasts for years. Enterprises should avoid the passive mindset of "waiting for the other party's trademark to expire", and should also avoid blindly initiating multiple rounds of procedures without sufficient evidence to support them. The determination of malicious preemptive registration increasingly relies on the completeness of evidence of prior use. It is recommended that enterprises standardize the retention of evidence of use from the inception of the brand and regularly monitor trademark announcements. After discovering that the trademark has been preemptively registered, it is recommended to choose a combination of objection, invalidation declaration, and revocation procedures.Consult Beijing Henglu Law FirmProfessional lawyers develop strategies based on the case's category, stage, and evidentiary requirements to avoid missing the three-month objection period and the five-year invalidation time limit.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Is it certain that a trademark can be recovered if it has been preemptively registered by others?

It depends on the evidence and the choice of legal procedures. If it can be proven that the other party was aware or should have been aware of the prior trademark, or that there were circumstances such as imitation or resale threats, there's a higher likelihood of an invalidation declaration or an objection being successful. If the prior trademark has been used and gained some influence, the right holder can also claim rights based on Article 32 of the Trademark Law (amended on April 23, 2019). In the aforementioned case, the court determined that the disputed logo constituted infringement of the prior well-known trademark. However, if the company's evidence of prior use is fragmented, the trademark lacks sufficient recognition, or the company fails to take action within the objection period or the five-year time limit, the difficulty of restoring rights will significantly increase. A professional evaluation of the prior evidence is the first step in this process.

Q2: What evidence do I need to prepare if I want to file a preemptive registration application?

The core evidence includes four categories: First, rights evidence, such as the registration certificate of the trademark, the copyright registration certificate, or the enterprise name registration; Second, use evidence, including contracts, invoices, packaging, promotional materials, and e-commerce pages bearing the trademark logo, which should date back to before the date of the preemptive registration application; Third, popularity evidence, such as sales data, audit reports, tax records, awards, or rankings; Fourth, malicious evidence, such as the other party's historical cooperation with the enterprise and records showing their knowledge of the prior trademark. The more complete the evidence chain is, the more it can support the determination of "preemptive registration by improper means". It is recommended to entrust a lawyer to sort out the evidence before choosing the procedures of objection, invalidation, or revocation.

Q3: How much does it cost to file an objection, request a declaration of invalidity, or initiate a revocation procedure?

In terms of official fees, trademark objections and invalidation declarations are charged on a per-case basis. Applications for revocation of unused trademarks for three consecutive years also have fixed official fees, the amount of which is subject to the current standards of the China Intellectual Property Administration. Lawyer's fees are determined based on the complexity of the case, the number of categories, and the amount of evidence organization work, and are generally higher than ordinary legal consultations. If the case proceeds to subsequent administrative litigation, litigation fees will also be incurred. For small and medium-sized enterprises, it may be more economical to evaluate multiple categories or related cases as a package rather than initiating individual cases separately. Before initiating the case, it is recommended to conduct a round of evidence and winning probability evaluation to avoid wasting resources on futile efforts.

Q4: How long does it usually take to resolve a cybersquatting dispute?

The objection procedure usually takes several months to about a year, depending on the progress of the review by the China Intellectual Property Administration; the review period for invalidation declarations is generally longer. If the party is not satisfied with the ruling, they can also initiate administrative litigation, and the entire process may take one to several years; the cycle for revoking cases of non-use for three consecutive years is relatively shorter. In the aforementioned case of imitating a well-known trademark, from the authorization in September 2023 to the lawsuit in April 2024, the court ruled that it constituted imitation infringement and determined the compensation amount. Overall, preemptive registration disputes require strong evidence and patience. The three-month objection period after the initial announcement and the five-year invalidation period after registration are two crucial deadlines that cannot be missed. If they are exceeded, the corresponding procedural rights will be lost.

Q5: If you discover that your trademark has been preemptively registered by others, what should you do first?

First, immediately check the status of the other party's trademark: Use the online trademark search to determine its application date, announcement status, category, and process nodes to determine whether it is in the initial review announcement stage, has been registered, or is in the use stage. Second, freeze the evidence: Notarize and preserve the other party's sales pages and promotional materials, and at the same time, organize evidence of prior use and popularity of your own trademark. Third, evaluate the legal path: Raise objections within the three-month announcement period; file a declaration of invalidation if it has been registered; request cancellation if it has not been used for three years; and parallelly claim infringement compensation if the other party has actually used it. Fourth, simultaneously check other categories and related logos to prevent squatters from conducting bulk registrations. The time window is limited, so it is recommended to engage a professional lawyer as soon as possible after discovering the issue.

This article is written based on the common judicial interpretations in the Beijing area. If the case occurs in other regions, it is recommended to consult local lawyers to verify the regional differences.

If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the evidence materials, to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Intellectual property protection legal services·Attorney Party Pei·Beijing Henglue Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on current laws and regulations and publicly available adjudication rules, and is provided for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. In case of disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.