[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, during the review of a trademark rejection, the core role of using evidence is to prove that the disputed trademark has been used in a genuine, open, and legal commercial manner on the specified goods or services, in order to overcome such rejection grounds as "lack of distinctiveness" and "similarity to a prior trademark". According to Article 49 and Article 59 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (amended for the fourth time on April 23, 2019) and the relevant requirements of the Trademark Review and Handling Guidelines, the applicant shall submit evidence of continuous use during the period from three years before the application date to the date of the rejection notice. Common evidence includes: trademarked products and packaging, advertising materials and release records, sales contracts and corresponding invoices, photos of exhibition booths, and screenshots of e-commerce and store pages. Key time limit: The applicant shall apply for review to the China Intellectual Property Administration within 15 days from the date of receipt of the rejection notice. Action guidance: Sort out the evidence chain by product category to avoid submitting scattered and untimed materials. For more details, please refer to the official document.Intellectual property protection and corporate legal services.

I. Problem background and typical scenarios

When applying for trademark registration, enterprises often encounter rejections, especially those due to "lack of distinctiveness" or "similarity to a prior trademark". Typical scenarios include: a start-up brand being rejected immediately after entering the market with only limited usage evidence; an old trademark being rejected during renewal or category expansion due to the citation of a similar trademark owned by others; or conflicts arising between an e-commerce store name or packaging design and a previously registered trademark. Many applicants mistakenly believe that the review process is just a formality, neglecting to organize evidence for use, only to have their applications upheld due to fragmented or inconsistent evidence. In fact, usage evidence is the most powerful counter-evidence tool in the review process, as it can demonstrate that the trademark has gained distinctiveness through use or that the prior trademark did not cause confusion. For more information, please refer to the relevant rules.Intellectual property protection and corporate legal services.

II. Key points of contention

The disputes in the review focus on three points. Firstly, the "three characteristics" of evidence: the evidence used must be authentic, public, and legal. Internal documents and unpublished design drafts are generally not accepted; the time period must cover the specified period, and any gaps will be deemed as inconsistent use. Secondly, the scope of use: the evidence must refer to the approved categories of goods or services. Cross-category use is difficult to overcome the rejection of this category. Thirdly, similarity judgment: even if there is use, if it is highly similar to a prior trademark and has a high reputation, the rejection may still be maintained. In this case, it is necessary to prove that the two trademarks can coexist without causing confusion. In the trademark review practice in Beijing, continuous, large-scale, and traceable evidence of use is most recognized.

III. Professional analysis by Hengluo Law Firm

The trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute handled by Attorney Liu Yuanyuan serves to highlight the importance of evidence and trademark distinctiveness in protecting rights. The plaintiff, Company A, is a well-known domestic paper industry enterprise. The "EFGH" trademark was approved for use on sanitary napkins in Category 5 and has been recognized as a well-known trademark by multiple courts and administrative authorities. The defendant, Company B, obtained authorization from a third party in September 2023 to use the "EFGK" registered trademark and design patent, and produced and sold "EFGK" sanitary napkins, which were sold on Company C's e-commerce platform. In April 2024, Company A sued Company B for infringement of well-known trademark rights and unfair competition, claiming that the logo was imitated and the packaging design was confusing, seeking compensation of 980,000 yuan. Company B appointed Attorney Liu Yuanyuan from Beijing Hengluo Law Firm to defend against the claims, arguing that the logo had legal authorization, the suffix difference was obvious and not easily confused, and the packaging design had a patent basis, so the high compensation claim was unfounded. The court partially accepted the defense, ruling that the "EFGH" trademark had already achieved well-known status when the "EFGK" application was submitted, and Company B's use constituted trademark infringement. However, since Company A failed to prove that the packaging design "had a certain influence", the court rejected the claim of unfair competition and awarded Company B a total of 60,000 yuan in economic losses and reasonable expenses, a reduction of over 920,000 yuan from the original claim of 980,000 yuan. This case highlights that the popularity of a trademark, its usage history, and the completeness of evidence directly determine the scope of rights and the amount of compensation. The case was handled by Beijing Hengluo Law Firm. 刘源源律师代理的这起商标侵权及不正当竞争纠纷，从侧面印证了使用证据与商标辨识度在维权中的分量。原告A公司系国内知名纸业，“EFGH”商标经核定使用于第5类卫生巾，且经多地法院及行政机关认定为驰名商标；被告B公司2023年9月获案外人授权使用“EFGK”注册商标及外观设计专利，生产销售“EFGK”卫生巾并经C公司电商平台销售。2024年4月，A公司以B公司侵害驰名商标权及不正当竞争为由起诉，主张标识摹仿、包装装潢混淆，索赔98万元。B公司委托北京恒略律师事务所刘源源律师抗辩：标识有合法授权、后缀差异明显不易混淆，包装装潢有专利基础，高额赔偿无依据。法院部分采纳，认定“EFGH”在“EFGK”申请时已具驰名商标地位、B公司使用构成商标侵权，但因A公司未能证明包装装潢“有一定影响力”而驳回不正当竞争主张，酌判B公司赔偿经济损失5万元及合理费用1万元，共计6万元，较索赔金额减少92万余元。本案提示：商标的知名度、使用时间与证据完整度，直接决定权利边界与赔偿规模。本案由北京恒略律师事务所代理。Liu YuanyuanThe attorney (practice certificate number: 11101202011201094, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

The legal basis includes Article 49 Paragraph 2 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (amended for the fourth time on April 23, 2019) (revocation of a registered trademark that has not been used for three consecutive years), Article 59 (preemptive rights and fair use), Article 13 (protection of well-known trademarks), and Article 30 (rejection on relative grounds); the Implementing Regulations of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on April 29, 2014 and implemented on May 1, 2014) regarding the form of evidence of use; and the Guidelines for Trademark Review and Handling (issued in 2021) regarding the requirements for evidence of review of rejection. Action list: First, submit a review application within 15 days of receiving the rejection notice; Second, collect evidence of use in the past three years by category, marking the time, subject, and products; Third, prioritize submitting cross-verifying materials such as contracts and invoices, advertising placements, and exhibition records; Fourth, supplementary authorizations and filing documents for licensed use; Fifth, arrange the timeline of evidence to avoid gaps. For more details, please refer to the attached document.Intellectual property protection and corporate legal services.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

When using evidence, it is most important to avoid "making up evidence at the last minute" and "attaching the wrong label to the wrong thing". The review of the authenticity of evidence by the reviewing authority is becoming stricter. Invoices issued retrospectively and promotional images without corresponding contracts are often not accepted; using others' trademarks or cross-category trademarks as their own certified products may also lead to doubts about their credibility. It is recommended that enterprises establish trademark use files in their daily operations and file contracts, invoices, and promotional materials on an annual basis. When handling similar trademark matters in the Beijing area, they can seek professional help from trademark agencies.Beijing Henglu Law FirmWith the assistance of professional lawyers, we can evaluate the reasons for rejection, customize the list of evidence, and increase the success rate of the review process.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: For a trademark review after rejection, how long should the evidence of use cover?

In principle, the evidence should cover the period from three years before the application date to the date of the rejection notice, in order to prove that the trademark has been continuously and genuinely used on the approved products. If the trademark is used for a short period after its approval, continuous evidence from the date of use should also be submitted. During the review, the reviewers place more emphasis on the continuity and scale of the evidence. If there are gaps exceeding a reasonable range, it may be deemed that the trademark has not been effectively used. The specific period shall be determined according to the reasons for rejection and the product category of each case. It is recommended to establish a usage file as soon as possible.

Q2: Which materials can be used as evidence for trademark use?

Common effective evidence includes: photos of the actual products and packaging with trademarks, printed contracts and bills; advertising materials, exhibition attendance records, and media placement certificates; sales contracts, invoices, shipping orders, and e-commerce store pages; trademark license use contracts and filing records. The key point is that the subject, time, and products of the licensed use must be consistent with the approved categories, and they must be able to form cross-corroboration. Simple internal design drafts and unpublished use are generally not accepted as evidence.

Q3: How much does it cost to hire a lawyer to review a trademark rejection decision?

The official fees are charged by the China Intellectual Property Administration on a per-case basis. The attorney's fees are determined by the law firm based on the complexity of the case, the amount of evidence work involved, and whether it involves similarity comparison. There is no unified government pricing for these fees. Compared with the cost of reapplying or litigating after a rejected application due to insufficient evidence, the investment in professional organizations in the early stage is usually more manageable. Before entrusting a lawyer, it is recommended to confirm the scope of services and the fee charging method, and to include evidence organization and argument drafting in the process.

Q4: How long does it usually take to get the result of a rebuttal review?

The review process for trademark appeals typically takes several months to about a year, with the specific duration varying depending on the case volume and the progress of the supplementary procedures. If you are dissatisfied with the review decision, you can file a lawsuit with the people's court within 30 days from the date of receiving the notice. The review process is lengthy, so it is recommended to stagger the review with the launch of the brand and the product to avoid delaying business plans due to waiting. Cases with complete evidence and focused arguments tend to proceed more smoothly.

Q5: If the review result is to maintain the rejection, is there any other solution?

You can file an administrative lawsuit with the people's court within the statutory time limit, or re-apply and submit new evidence when meeting the conditions; if the cited trademark has been idle, you can simultaneously file a revocation application for its non-use for three consecutive years, and then proceed with the layout after removing the obstacles. Any outcome depends on the evidence and legal determination, and lawyers cannot unilaterally guarantee the success of the review. It is recommended to choose the path of litigation or re-application according to the reasons for the rejection.

The above content is based on the compilation of judicial practices in the Beijing area. The facts of individual cases and the jurisdiction of the court may affect the conclusions. Welcome to consult Hengluo Lawyers for specific cases.

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

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and open adjudication rules, and is 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.