[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, you can continue to use it for a while, but it may be reset to zero or even result in a loss at any time. Even if the trademark you preemptively registered is successfully registered, it may still be subject to objections or invalidation by prior right holders. Declarations of invalidation based on infringing prior rights or preemptively registering trademarks by improper means are not subject to a five-year time limit. After the trademark is invalidated, the trademark rights will not exist from the outset, and continued use will turn from "registered trademark use" to infringing use. A more realistic risk is that the real right holders may directly sue you for infringement and demand compensation. Preemptively registering a trademark may even be deemed as unfair competition. Preemptively registering a trademark is not a protective talisman, but a ticking time bomb.

1. Problem background and typical scenarios

I've seen situations where people register a brand name that others have worked hard to develop before it's even been registered, then file an application to obtain a certificate and later demand that the other party stop using it or transfer it at a high price—cybersquatting has never disappeared in the business world. Cybersquatters often believe that obtaining a registration certificate makes them safe, but they don't realize that objections, invalidation declarations, prior use defenses, and anti-unfair competition lawsuits are all potential threats from the other party.

II. Key points of dispute

First, the possibility of invalidation: proof of prior use and reputation. Second, exceptions to the five-year time limit: rules that do not restrict malicious cybersquatting. Third, the defense of continued use by the prior user: conditions for use within the original scope. Fourth, the infringer's own liability for compensation and the liquidation of goodwill.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Lawyers

A trademark infringement and unfair competition case handled by Henglue Law Firm, although from the defendant's perspective, fully demonstrated the defensive and offensive structure of trademark confrontation: A well-known paper company holds the well-known trademark EFGH on sanitary napkins in Category 5; B Company, authorized by a third party, uses the registered trademark EFGK and design patent to produce similar products. A Company sued, alleging that B Company imitated the well-known trademark and constituted unfair competition in packaging and decoration, demanding compensation of 980,000 yuan. B Company entrusted Liu Yuanyuan, a lawyer from Beijing Henglue Law Firm, to defend. The lawyer put forward three arguments: EFGK originated from the authorized use of a legally registered trademark, with obvious differences in suffixes and overall recognizability by the relevant public; the packaging and decoration originated from a design patent, and the other party only provided copyright registration without proving actual use and recognizability, which did not constitute a decoration with certain influence; the infringement period was short, with low production volume and low pricing, and the product has already been discontinued, so the 980,000 yuan claim lacked basis. The court partially accepted the claim: it determined that there was trademark infringement (well-known trademark imitation across categories), but rejected the claim of unfair competition. Based on the circumstances of the infringement, the court awarded compensation of 60,000 yuan, which was 920,000 yuan lower than the claim. This case was handled by Beijing Henglue Law Firm.Liu YuanyuanThe attorney (practice license number: 11101202011201094, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative authority) acts as the agent. In the context of cybersquatting, the lesson of this case is that the appearance of a registered trademark does not equal its substantive safety - well-known trademarks can be cross-classified to resist infringement, and prior use and prior rights can override the registration certificate. The source of authorization and actual use determine the direction of the compensation balance; the intensity of the resistance faced by cybersquatters will only increase in the invalidation declaration procedure, because malicious cybersquatting is itself an act that should be rejected. The longer the cybersquatter uses the trademark and the more investment he makes, the more complete the loss will be after the trademark is invalidated.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

The first step is to evaluate the prior use and popularity of the object of the preemptive registration to determine the probability of a successful declaration of invalidation, and avoid blindly investing in promotion. The second step is to suspend large-scale commercial investments in the registered trademark to avoid exacerbating losses after the declaration of invalidation. The third step is to verify the application source and authorization chain of the trademark in the face of objections or lawsuits from genuine rights holders, and evaluate exit options such as settlement or transfer. The fourth step is to register and establish defensive protection for the brand as early as possible, focusing on securing rights for one's own brand rather than infringing on others' rights. Main legal basis: - Article 32 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on April 23, 2019) regarding the prohibition of infringing prior rights and preemptive registration; - Article 44 regarding declaration of invalidation; - Article 45 regarding the five-year time limit and exemption from malicious intent; - Article 59(3) regarding the defense of prior use; - Provisions on acts of confusion in the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China (amended on April 23, 2019); - Specific applications shall be subject to the currently effective regulations.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Advice

Three sentences on trademark squatting: the registration certificate cannot stop the declaration of invalidation, and malicious squatting is not subject to the five-year time limit; continuing to use the trademark after it is declared invalid constitutes infringement, and the greater the investment, the more severe the loss will be; the truly safe path is to secure the rights to your own brand, rather than focusing on others' goodwill. For issues related to trademark squatting and declaration of invalidation, you can consult us through the following channels:Intellectual property protection and corporate lawThe service obtains a comprehensive solution, and those involved in defending against trademark infringement lawsuits can combine it with other services.Contract disputesFor reference, you can check the layout of corporate trademarks in this sectionThe company and commercial disputesThe column provides advice on how to deal with intellectual property litigation.Special servicesTeam.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: If I file for a trademark registration just after the initial review announcement, will it be subject to an objection?

It's very likely. The prior right holder may raise objections within three months after the announcement of the first-instance review, with the reasons including prior use, malicious cybersquatting, and damage to prior rights. If the brand enjoys a certain degree of popularity or the other party has retained evidence of use, the success rate of the objection will be quite high.

Q2: Is it absolutely safe to register for five years?

It's not absolute. If someone registers a trademark that others have already used and gained some influence with improper means, or damages the interests of well-known trademark rights holders, it is not subject to the five-year time limit; maliciously registering a trademark can be declared invalid at any time.

Q3: After the trademark is declared invalid, do I need to compensate for the previous use?

The decision to declare a patent invalid generally does not apply retroactively to already fulfilled transfer licenses, but continued use after the declaration constitutes infringement. For those who knowingly infringe others' rights before the patent is declared invalid and still use the patent, the rights holder may also hold them accountable for their actions.

Q4: The other party has been using it for a long time before I registered it. Can they continue to use it?

Yes. If the person who intends to register a trademark has already used the trademark and gained some influence before the person who wants to register it applies for registration, they can continue to use it within the original scope, and the holder of the exclusive right to use the registered trademark has no right to prohibit it; this is the most powerful defense for the other party.

Q5: Can a trademark that has been preemptively registered be sold to the original rights holder at a high price?

There are risks involved. Malicious cybersquatting for profit-making purposes is being strictly regulated, and extortion at high prices may constitute unfair competition. There are many cases where negotiations fail and the other party is declared invalid and sued for compensation. The safest way out is to negotiate a transfer and control expectations.

The above Q&A is mainly based on the judicial practice in Beijing. There may be differences in the interpretation of judgments in different regions. It is recommended to consult a professional lawyer based on the specific circumstances of the case.

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

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and publicly available 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. If you encounter disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.