[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, legal remedies are available, and the path to seeking relief depends on the status of the trademark squatting and the evidence of prior use. If the trademark is still in the initial review announcement period (within three months), an objection can be raised in accordance with Article 33 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China; if it has already been registered, a request for invalidation can be made within five years from the date of registration in accordance with Article 45; if it has not been used for three consecutive years, an application for revocation can be made in accordance with Article 49. The current Trademark Law clearly stipulates that malicious registrations not intended for use should be rejected. The key is to secure evidence of prior use and popularity as soon as possible.

1. Problem background and typical scenarios

Trademark squatting is often seen in scenarios such as brands entering the market without registering their trademarks, distributors or OEM partners applying for trademarks before the brand owner does, and overseas brands being registered by others before entering the Chinese market. After being squatted, companies often face platform complaints and removal, being forced to repurchase trademarks at high prices, or even being counter-sued for infringement. Most of the companies in the Beijing area are internet-based and consumer brands.

II. Key points of contention

First, the boundary between preemptive registration and coincidence needs to be judged based on whether the other party is aware of it, whether they have applied for a large number of trademarks, and whether they are similar to well-known brands. Second, the choice of remedial path is different for objections, invalidation declarations, revocation of unused trademarks for three years, and infringement litigation. Choosing the wrong procedure will waste time. Third, prior rights and prior use. The Trademark Law protects trademarks with prior use and certain influence, and the completeness of the evidence chain determines the success or failure. Fourth, responding to counter-claims of infringement. Prior users can continue to use the trademark within the original scope, but they need to prove the time of prior use and the scope of influence.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Lawyers

A trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute handled by Henglue Law Firm can be used as a reference: The plaintiff, Company A, is a well-known paper industry company, and "EFGH" is a well-known trademark for sanitary napkins in Category 5. The defendant, Company B, was authorized to use the "EFGK" trademark for production and sales in September 2023, but was accused of imitating the well-known trademark in April 2024, and was sued for compensation of 980,000 yuan. Beijing Henglue Law FirmLiu YuanyuanThe lawyer (practice license number: 11101202011201094, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acted on behalf of the defendant and raised defenses from the perspectives of legal authorization, overall readability differences, and the scale of infringement. The court found that it constituted trademark infringement but dismissed unfair competition, and awarded a total compensation of 60,000 yuan, a reduction of more than 920,000 yuan from the original amount of 98,000 yuan. It can be seen that the similarity of the logo and the severity of the infringement directly determine the amount of compensation.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

According to Articles 33, 45, 49, and 57 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on April 23, 2019 and implemented on November 1, 2019), the rights holder may claim actual losses, infringement profits, a multiple of the licensing fee, or statutory compensation. Suggestions: Organize a list of trademark registrations, promptly add notes for core and related categories; entrust an agency to conduct monitoring and early warning; select procedures based on the status and fix the use of evidence; and for cross-border operations, relevant measures can be taken through the following channels:Foreign-related and cross-borderPlan the channels in advance, and the specific details will be provided later.The currently effective laws, regulations, and judicial rulingsThat's correct.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

The cost of preemptive registration is much lower than the cost of redemption after the fact, making pre-registration the most cost-effective investment. Three tips: There is a five-year time limit for invalidation notices; malicious preemptive registration of well-known trademarks is not subject to the five-year limit, but the burden of proof is higher; revoking a trademark that has not been used for three years has a significant effect on hoarding-type trademarks, and after success, it is necessary to apply for registration on time; settlement and assignment are also common solutions, and the agreement should stipulate that the other party stops using the trademark and cooperates with the handling of the procedures. When handling similar cases in the Beijing area, it is recommended to arrange the administrative procedures and infringement lawsuits in a coordinated manner.Beijing Henglue Law FirmTip: The earlier you get involved in a preemptive registration-based dispute, the more proactive you will be.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Can the trademark that has been preemptively registered be reclaimed?

In most cases, it's possible to contest the registration, but it depends on the status of the trademark being preemptively registered and the evidence of prior use. Objections can be raised during the initial review announcement period; for registered trademarks, a request for invalidation can be made within five years according to Article 45 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China. However, there is no five-year time limit for maliciously preemptively registering well-known trademarks. For trademarks that are hoarded but not used, a request for cancellation can be made according to Article 49.

Q2: What evidence do I need to prepare?

It is necessary to form a complete chain of use time and impact scope by using evidence such as contracts, invoices, delivery notes, advertising placements, and media reports; popularity evidence such as sales and industry rankings; evidence of the other party's malicious behavior such as affiliated relationships, bulk application records, and high-price negotiation records; as well as one's own trademark registration certificates and copyright registration materials.

Q3: How much does it cost to protect one's rights?

The official fees and agency fees for trademark objections, invalidation declarations, and revocations are relatively manageable, typically ranging from a few thousand yuan to tens of thousands of yuan. Subsequent administrative litigation or infringement litigation are charged based on the amount in dispute, and attorney fees are subject to the terms of the engagement contract. The costs of purchasing through notarization and conducting market research for evidence collection are calculated separately. It is recommended to first assess the probability of success before making any investments.

Q4: How long does the entire process take?

The review of objections and invalidation declarations generally takes several months to more than a year, and if the case is brought to court, it will involve first-instance and second-instance trials. Revocation due to non-use for three years also requires several months. Overall, the process typically takes one to two years, and during this period, you can continue to use the trademark within the original scope of use without being affected.

Q5: What should I do first?

First, check the category, status, and application time of the other party's trademark. Secure evidence of prior use and popularity, then determine the procedures and time windows. You can also submit proof of rights to e-commerce platforms to prevent your products from being removed due to complaints.Trademark protection and enforcementIt's often impossible to undo a wrong choice of procedure, so it's recommended to seek a lawyer's evaluation as soon as possible.

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

VII. Relevant public cases (for reference only, not handled by our firm)

The following cases are all sourced from the official websites of courts at all levels, judicial authorities, and authoritative media outlets, and are not related to the cases handled by our firm. They are provided solely for reference in understanding relevant adjudication rules and do not constitute opinions on specific cases.

[Case Number](2024) Case No. 4895 of the Supreme People's Court
[Trial Court]The Supreme People's Court
[Judicial Summary]The original applicant of the disputed trademark not only registered trademarks similar to the previously used trademarks, but also applied for the registration of multiple trademarks identical or similar to others' well-known brands in products and services of multiple categories such as Class 12, 14, 18, 22, 24, 32, 33, and 37. Moreover, the original shareholder once admitted in public reports that there was preemptive registration behavior, and the disputed trademarks were revoked due to non-use for three consecutive years. The court ruled that the original applicant applied for the registration of multiple trademarks similar to well-known trademarks without the purpose of use, which constituted "obtaining registration by other improper means" as stipulated in the Trademark Law, and the transferee should bear the corresponding legal consequences.
[Source]Administrative Ruling of the Supreme People's Court (Case of Administrative Dispute over Request for Declaration of Trademark Invalidity between New Beika International Logistics (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd. and the China Intellectual Property Administration, etc.) (2024-11)

[Case No.]The case number has not been made public.
[Trial Court]The Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court (the second-instance judgment was upheld, and it was included in the Typical Cases of Intellectual Property of the People's Courts in 2025 by the Supreme People's Court)
[Judicial Summary]The defendant, despite the fact that the judgment has taken effect and the China Intellectual Property Administration has ruled that the series of trademarks it applied to register are mass-registered hoarded trademarks and lack legitimacy, still continuously and repeatedly applied to register trademarks similar to the "Lanmei" series trademarks of the rights holder, which clearly exceeds the normal needs of production and operation and constitutes malicious trademark registration, violates the principle of good faith, undermines the order of fair competition, and constitutes unfair competition; the trademark agency, knowing this, still accepted the entrustment to provide agency services, which constitutes aiding infringement and should bear joint and several liability.
[Source]The "Typical Intellectual Property Cases of the People's Courts in 2025" (2026) on the official website of the Supreme People's Court

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 Liu Yuanyuan·Beijing Henglu 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.