I.Whether the evidence for use on similar goods/service rather than the registered trademark’s approved goods/service could be regarded as “use”? 

The answer is NO. the “use” stipulated by “non-use for consecutive three years” in China’s Trademark Law, should be understood as the use on the registered trademark’s approved goods. As a result, the expanded protection registration of its own trademark is likely to encounter the risk of being revoked. While the application for the registration of the trademark should cautiously select the goods/service if the goods of its own are not in the Classification Table, should try to reduce the risk of final revocation. Of course, from another prospective, if the use is authentic and valid on partial of designated goods/service, then, if the other goods have strong relevancy regarding the function, consumption channel and consumers, belong to similar goods/service, then, this part of goods/service will have high possibility to be maintained in the juridical practice, also, it is not conflict with the conclusion above. 

II.Details regarding collecting evidence for use and cross-examination

1)In the practical business activities, the operation is not perfect, also, some pieces of evidence for the use cannot be kept well, however, if you intend to falsify evidence to prove something, then, if some defects are challenged or discovered, you will encounter disadvantageous legal consequence; evidence submitted will be scrutinized and the standard will be highly raised.  

2)In the business activities, there is no contract or one of parties will not stamp on the contract due to some trade customs, thus, only to be depended on such evidence to prove the actual performance status, still need to provide invoices or bank transaction records and shipping documents to prove the actual use, therefore, the procedure of revocation of non-use for consecutive three years aims to activate the trademark resource, clean idle trademarks. Revocation is a kind of manner rather than a purpose, as a result, if the disputed trademark is attached opened transaction procedure of the goods, and it is authentic, then, the owner could be regarded to perform their duties. Otherwise, if the chain of evidence has defects and is not completed, then, it will be strong argument for claiming the non-use in the cross-examination. 

3)The evidence of use involved with the importing and exporting, many main bodies will be involved in all kinds of documents and invoices, sometimes, the name of right-holder will not be appeared here, then, evidence related to authorization license and agreement are crucial. It is necessary to investigate whether the holder of the trademark or the licensed user used the disputed trademark as per the Trademark Law, but also to distinguish the use entrusted by the trademark owner to handle related issues, that is, whether the use is directed to the source of goods or services. There is a large space for cross-examination of the relationship between every and each main body and the use behavior in the specific commercial activities, which also means in the process of providing and collecting evidence, there should be corresponding evidence to support the relationship between each link. 

III.Request for the Declaration of Invalidation and Revocation of Non-use for Consecutive Three Years

Such two kinds of processes of disputes are different that are adopted by the original right holder to against the malicious applicant’s registered trademark, but sometimes the right holder will claim the malicious registering action in the course of process of revoking non-use for consecutive three years, however, this procedure and application of relevant articles did not necessarily confirm whether the application for the registration of the disputed trademark is malicious, different procedures and articles will bear different functions, therefore, if the revocation claimant does not recognize the effectiveness of the use of the evidence, she/he should submit it for rebut, he/she cannot reduce the revocation claimant’s burden of proof by claiming that the contested trademark is registered in bad faith. 

Sometime, the right-holder will initiate two procedures for the registered trademark at the same time, if the disputed trademark was revoked due to non-use for consecutive three years, whether the review of invalidation case is still necessary to be continued? Because the process of revocation of trademarks is different from the process of declaration of invalidation regarding the nature and legal consequence. The former one will examine the authentic commercial use within the designated period, the legal consequence posed by the revocation means the right on the trademark will be ended on the date of declaring the revocation; the latter one will examine whether the disputed trademark is in violation of the legality of the trademark’s registration, the legal consequence posed by the declaration of invalidation means the right on the trademark should be deemed to be non-existence from the beginning. As a result, it is necessary to continue to review the case regarding the invalidation. 

To sum up, comparing cases regarding the “invalidation” and “rejection”, the procedure of revocation needs to face and handle more complicated problems and situations, we can better understand its nature from the differences with other cases, we can better hold the purpose of its legislative procedure setting, also, better to sort out the breakthrough point for the case. However, for the collection, offering evidence of use and cross-examination, these indeed reply on abundant experience on handling cases, even requiring necessary work familiar with commercial customs of domestic and international trade, as well as relevant regulations, this also the necessary work for the agent to handle cases.