Strategy for Trademark Non-Use Cancellation Trials In Korea

Overview of Non-Use Cancellation Trials

Definition and Legal Basis

A non-use cancellation trial is a system that allows any person to request the cancellation of a trademark registration if the trademark owner has not used the registered mark for a certain period (as stipulated by law) without a justifiable reason. In Korea, this falls under the grounds for cancellation as per Article 119(1)(3) of the Trademark Act, which applies when a registered trademark has not been used in Korea for three or more consecutive years. This system was introduced to encourage the use of trademarks and provide others with opportunities to select and register marks. The Korean Trademark Act specifies a total of nine grounds for trademark cancellation, including improper use and use causing consumer confusion (Article 119(1)(1)-(9)). The cancellation for non-use (subparagraph 3) specifically aims to maintain a healthy order of trademark use by clearing away trademarks that are registered but left dormant.

Requirements for Filing a Claim

To file for a non-use cancellation, the target trademark must have remained unused continuously for three years after its registration. "Continuously for three years" means that the mark has been in a state of continuous non-use for at least three years immediately preceding the filing date of the cancellation trial. Therefore, even if a mark was unused at some point in the past, a cancellation action cannot be successful if use was initiated just before the trial was filed. The determination of "use" considers not only the trademark owner's use but also use by authorized parties such as exclusive or non-exclusive licensees. If any one of these parties has used the mark, it is considered to have been used, and cancellation can be avoided. In the case of a jointly-owned trademark, use by even one of the co-owners is sufficient to prevent cancellation. Furthermore, if a third party's use of the mark in the course of trade has led to it being recognized by domestic consumers as an indication of a specific person's goods, this is also considered use by the trademark owner.

Justifiable Reasons (Exceptions)

The Trademark Act provides an exception, stating that even if a trademark has been unused for over three years, its cancellation can be avoided if there is a "justifiable reason" for the non-use (proviso of Article 119(3)). A justifiable reason typically refers to situations where business operations are impossible due to force majeure, such as illness or natural disasters, or where the goods cannot be legally sold in Korea due to legal regulations, sales bans, or government import restrictions. In other words, if the non-use was due to circumstances not attributable to the trademark owner, it may be recognized as justified. (Specific examples of justifiable reasons will be discussed in the case law analysis below.)

Claimant

A non-use cancellation trial can be requested by anyone except the trademark owner. This includes not only competitors with a vested interest but also third parties with no direct interest. The system is open to anyone who wishes to clear unused registered trademarks for the public good.

Scope of the Claim

If a single trademark registration covers multiple designated goods, a cancellation trial can be filed against only a portion of those goods. The claimant can specify the unused goods and seek cancellation for all or part of the designated goods. However, a partial grant/partial dismissal within a single claim is not permitted. The decision will be to either cancel all the goods listed in the claim or dismiss the claim entirely. This means if the trademark owner can prove use for even one of the goods included in the claim, the entire claim will be dismissed. Therefore, a strategic selection of unused goods at the filing stage is crucial.

Procedural Overview

A non-use cancellation trial begins with the submission of a request to the Intellectual Property Tribunal (IPT), which is under the Korean Intellectual Property Office. The request must be submitted on a designated form (Form No. 31 of the Enforcement Rules of the Patent Act), detailing the trademark registration number, the target designated goods, and the purpose of the claim, along with the payment of the prescribed fee. Once the IPT accepts the request and it passes a formalities check, the procedure is initiated, and the trademark owner is notified. In this proceeding, the claimant generally does not bear the burden of proving non-use; rather, the trademark owner has the burden of proof to demonstrate that the mark was used. The IPT reviews the evidence and arguments through written proceedings and then issues a decision (shimgyeol). If the cancellation request is granted, the trademark registration is cancelled for all or some of the designated goods. If it is dismissed, the trademark right is maintained.

Post-Decision Appeal Process

A party dissatisfied with the IPT's decision can file an action to cancel the Tribunal's decision (a type of administrative litigation) with the Patent Court within 30 days. The Patent Court may conduct new evidence examinations or legal reviews to either uphold or overturn the IPT's decision. A party may further appeal the Patent Court's judgment to the Supreme Court. If the decision to cancel the trademark becomes final, the Trademark Act restricts the former trademark owner or licensee from re-applying to register an identical or similar trademark for identical or similar goods for three years from the filing date of the cancellation trial. This measure prevents the immediate revival of rights for a mark cancelled due to non-use. When a registration is cancelled, its effect is retroactive to the date of its publication, and anyone can then use the mark. However, the three-year re-application ban prevents the previous owner from monopolizing the market for a certain period.

Analysis of Recent Case Law

Changes in Trademark Law and Policy

In recent years, there have been significant changes in the legal interpretation and policy regarding trademark non-use cancellation. Notably, a 2021 Supreme Court en banc decision abolished the so-called "trademark defense" theory. Previously, there was a perception that the owner of a registered trademark was somewhat immune from infringement claims for using their own mark. However, this ruling established the principle that even a registered trademark can infringe upon a senior trademark right. This development means that trademark owners now face the risk of infringing another party's prior rights even when using their own registered mark. This legal shift has served as a catalyst for expanding the scope of "justifiable reasons" for non-use, as seen in cases like the "TIRTIR" case discussed below. A trend has emerged to protect trademark owners who could not use their mark due to the risk of infringing a pre-existing right held by another party.

Key Precedent 1 – The 'TIRTIR' Case

This case is notable for having broadened the scope of "justifiable reasons" for non-use. The plaintiff, A, had their trademark cancelled by the IPT for non-use exceeding three years. A filed a suit with the Patent Court to overturn the decision, arguing there was a justifiable reason for the non-use. The reason A put forward was that they had refrained from using their mark due to the risk of infringing another party's senior trademark right. The Patent Court first explained the traditional doctrine on justifiable reasons (illness, natural disasters, legal restrictions, etc.) and then ruled that a "risk of infringing another's trademark right through the use of one's own mark" could also be recognized as a justifiable reason for non-use. In essence, the court held that non-use aimed at avoiding not only absolute legal prohibitions but also legal risks could be justified. Ultimately, the court found that A had a justifiable reason, overturned the cancellation decision, and maintained the trademark right. This precedent is considered to have significantly expanded the scope of justifiable reasons, providing a basis for trademark owners to assert a wider variety of defenses against non-use challenges.

Key Precedent 2 – The 'Madecassol' Case

The trend toward a broader recognition of justifiable reasons had been emerging for several years. In 2019, the IPT made a decision regarding the non-use of a pharmaceutical trademark for cosmetics. The trademark owner, a pharmaceutical company, had registered its famous skin ointment brand "MADECASSOL" for cosmetics as well but had not actually used the mark on cosmetic products. A competitor filed a non-use cancellation trial for the cosmetic goods. The trademark owner argued that it had refrained from use to "comply with the Cosmetics Act." Specifically, the name Madecassol was so famous as a medicine that using the same mark on cosmetics could mislead consumers into believing they were medicinal products, which could violate the prohibition on false or exaggerated advertising under the Cosmetics Act. The IPT accepted this argument, ruling that non-use aimed at preventing consumer confusion was a justifiable reason. It dismissed the cancellation claim and maintained the trademark. This decision is an example of "justifiable reason" being interpreted broadly to include compliance with laws and consumer protection, showing that the concept was already being applied flexibly.

Key Precedent 3 – Keyword Advertising Case

Case law regarding the scope of trademark "use" also provides important practical guidance. In 2017, the Patent Court ruled that using a trademark in the form of internet keyword advertising constitutes valid use. The service mark of the respondent's clinic had been cancelled for three years of non-use, but on appeal to the Patent Court, evidence of keyword advertising was submitted. Specifically, when the trademark (the Korean part) was entered as a keyword in an internet search bar, a link to the clinic's website appeared, and clicking it revealed the mark on pages related to the clinic's services. The court held that "the act of using a trademark as a search ad keyword also constitutes use of the trademark for the relevant services." It set forth conditions that the keyword used must be identical to the registered mark and that the linked site must actually provide or promote the relevant services. In this case, even though only the Korean part of a combined English-Korean mark was used as a keyword, it was deemed use of a substantially identical mark, and the cancellation was avoided. This ruling clarified the recognition of trademark use in the digital marketing environment, enabling trademark owners to actively leverage online advertising and social media as forms of "trademark use." The court also noted that "the purpose of the non-use cancellation system is to encourage the use of trademarks, not to penalize non-use," showing a tendency to broadly recognize use when there are signs that the owner has made efforts to identify their goods/services with the mark.

Other Precedents and Trends

The scope of trademark identity is also frequently at issue in non-use cancellation trials. There is a precedent that recognizes the use of a Hangul (Korean) version of a trademark registered in English as valid use if they are substantially identical. For example, even if an English trademark is conventionally used in its Hangul transliteration in Korea, it is considered proper use if the registered mark and the mark in actual use are substantially identical. Conversely, judgments continue to be issued that cancel registrations when the evidence of use submitted by the trademark owner is not considered substantial use in the ordinary course of trade. It is also worth noting the success rate of non-use cancellation trials. Statistics show that over the past five years, the success rate for non-use cancellation trials has exceeded 80%. This reflects the reality that most trademarks are cancelled if the owner fails to prove use, demonstrating that this procedure is advantageous to the challenger. In summary, the operation of the system is becoming more flexible through case law rather than legislative amendment, acting as a warning to trademark owners and a powerful weapon for those seeking to cancel a mark.

Practical Response Strategies

Strategies for Filing a Non-Use Cancellation Trial (Challenger's Perspective)

If you discover a competitor's unused trademark, filing a non-use cancellation trial can eliminate that right, thereby lowering market entry barriers or resolving trademark dispute risks. Below are practical strategies for effectively filing a non-use cancellation trial.

1. Identify and Investigate Unused TrademarksFirst, thoroughly investigate whether the target trademark has actually been unused for over three years. Gather preliminary evidence on use by conducting market research (checking if products with the mark are sold), online searches (checking for traces of use on official websites, online stores, social media), and government database searches (checking for license agreements or use right registrations in the KIPO trademark registry). Although the legal burden of proof is on the trademark owner, not the claimant, conducting this preliminary research helps you anticipate the owner's potential evidence and prepare accordingly. For instance, if you find that the mark is being used on even a few goods, you must adjust the scope of your claim.
2. Select the Goods for the Claim (Partial Claim Strategy)As mentioned earlier, the selection of the designated goods for the claim can determine the outcome. It is crucial to select only those goods for which the trademark owner is not actually using the mark. If you include a good that is in use, the owner can have the entire claim dismissed with that single piece of evidence. Therefore, you must carefully identify the unused items. For example, if a competitor's mark designates 10 items and you find traces of use for 2 of them, you should challenge only the remaining 8 items in the cancellation trial. If necessary, you can hire a professional investigation agency to assess the mark's usage status and optimize the list of goods to be claimed.
3. Timing and Procedural UtilizationThe best time to file a non-use cancellation trial is right after three years have passed since the trademark registration date. While a claim can be filed anytime the 3-year non-use requirement is met, filing too early before the 3-year period is complete will result in dismissal, so caution is needed. If you have your own pending trademark application that conflicts with the target mark, you can request a suspension of the examination procedure from KIPO. This is a request to hold the examination of your application until the outcome of the non-use cancellation trial is known. If the cancellation is successful and the senior mark is invalidated, your application can proceed to registration immediately. This strategy is particularly useful when an older, unused trademark owned by a competitor is blocking your new brand's registration.
4. Submission of Evidence and ArgumentsWhile the burden of proving use lies with the trademark owner, the claimant can submit supplementary materials to reinforce the circumstances of non-use. For example, attaching a market research report, investigation results, or internet search results (e.g., screenshots showing no products with the mark can be found) can help the examiner clearly recognize the likelihood of non-use. In Korean practice, submitting a separate investigation report is not mandatory at the claim filing stage, as the claim will be granted if the owner fails to provide evidence of use. However, preparing and appropriately using such evidence is a safe way to reduce unforeseen variables.
5. Drafting the Claim and Adhering to FormalitiesThe request for a non-use cancellation trial must be accurately prepared according to the KIPO-designated format. It is essential to clearly state the target trademark registration number, the designated goods, the purpose of the claim, and the reasons, and to pay the claim fee within the deadline to avoid procedural defects. If you are claiming against multiple designated goods, all of them must be listed in the claim; any omitted goods will not be subject to cancellation. If any corrections are required during the formalities check, respond promptly to ensure the case proceeds to the substantive examination phase.
6. Post-Filing ResponseOnce the trial is initiated, the trademark owner is typically given an opportunity to submit a written argument and evidence. The claimant can then submit a rebuttal, pointing out any falsehoods or insufficiencies in the owner's evidence. For example, if the owner hastily started using the mark after the trial was filed to create evidence, you must emphasize that this use occurred after the trial filing date and is therefore legally inadmissible. Additionally, if the photos, receipts, or other evidence submitted by the owner lack probative value or fail to show genuine commercial transactions, you should attack these points logically. The decision is made after this exchange of written arguments, so the claimant should remain diligent in reviewing materials and making arguments until the end.

Strategies for Defending Against a Non-Use Cancellation Trial (Trademark Owner's Perspective)

If a non-use cancellation trial is filed against your trademark by a competitor or another party, you could lose your trademark rights without an active defense. The following are practical strategies for a trademark owner to defend against such a trial.

1. Immediately Assess Use StatusUpon receiving the notice of the trial, review the list of claimed designated goods and immediately determine whether there has been actual use of the trademark on those goods within the last three years. If it has been used, organize the details of how and when it was used. If it has not been used, review the reasons for non-use. This process can be time-consuming, so you should quickly locate internal documents and coordinate with relevant departments (e.g., sales, marketing, production) to plan evidence collection.
2. Secure Proof of UseIn the trial, the burden of proving use is on the trademark owner. Therefore, you must gather as much evidence as possible to show that the trademark was used in Korea within the three-year period for each of the claimed designated goods.
   • Transaction Evidence: Sales contracts, delivery statements, invoices, tax invoices, and other records of transactions involving goods bearing the trademark.
   • Marketing Materials: Newspaper/magazine advertisements, promotional items, catalogs, product manuals, online store product pages, website captures, and other publicly disclosed materials displaying the trademark.
   • Physical Products and Packaging: Photos of products bearing the trademark, packaging materials, labels, tags, and other physical evidence.
   • Other: Photos from trade show participation, photos of products displayed by distributors, records of internet search advertising (e.g., keyword ad usage history), etc.
3. Demonstrate Use "As Registered"The evidence you collect must show use of the trademark in a form identical to the registered mark. If the mark used in practice differs slightly from the registered mark, you must review whether the difference is a minor change that does not affect its distinctiveness. Korean courts tend to permit some variations in form or combination as long as the core distinctive part of the mark remains the same. For instance, using a Hangul transliteration of an English trademark or using only a part of a composite mark may be recognized as use if the core distinctiveness is maintained. However, use of a completely different mark will have no evidentiary effect. Therefore, you should submit evidence that shows use of the mark in its registered form (or a substantially equivalent form) whenever possible.
4. Prepare Arguments for Justifiable ReasonsIf it is difficult to submit any evidence of use, you must find unavoidable reasons for not using the trademark. In addition to the justifiable reasons listed in the Trademark Act (illness, natural disasters, legal restrictions, etc.), recent court precedents have recognized a much broader range of reasons. For example:
   • Legal or Administrative Restrictions: Delays in government permits, import bans, or sales restrictions for the target goods.
   • Conflict with Another's Rights: Intentional non-use to avoid the risk of infringing a senior trademark right held by another party.
   • Market Inactivity or Force Majeure: A sharp decline in the relevant market, or unexpected changes in the business environment (e.g., business suspension due to a pandemic).
   • Other Reasonable Business Reasons: Arguments that the non-use was a reasonable business decision, such as a product rebranding or a business transition.
5. Draft an Effective Written ResponseThe trademark owner must submit a written argument and evidence within the deadline set by the trial procedure. A systematic approach is needed when drafting the response. First, clearly state that the mark was used within the period of non-use alleged by the claimant. Then, list each piece of evidence collected and explain how it proves the fact of use. You must also rebut the claims for each of the designated goods to avoid cancellation due to a lack of evidence for a specific item. If there is a concern that the submitted evidence may be insufficient, supplement your defense with an alternative argument for a justifiable reason (e.g., "Even if this is not recognized as use, it was unavoidable due to circumstance X"). The logic should be clear and coherent, avoiding emotional expressions or unnecessary details, and should be persuasive with arguments based on legal provisions and precedents.
6. Additional Strategies and Follow-upIt is important to submit all possible evidence during the trial and to supplement with any newly discovered materials within the deadline. If you lose the trial (i.e., the registration is cancelled), it is not the end. You can immediately appeal to the Patent Court (by filing an action to cancel the Tribunal's decision) and submit additional evidence or strengthen your arguments in the second instance. The submission of new evidence is relatively free at the Patent Court level, so you can supplement any areas that were weak in the first instance. Meanwhile, negotiation with the claimant could be an option. For example, if a competitor needs the trademark, you might induce them to withdraw the claim through an agreement to assign the trademark right or grant a license. However, if negotiations are not feasible, a firm response to protect your rights through litigation is necessary.
7. Preventing RecurrenceIf your defense is successful, you should initiate use of the trademark or resolve the situation that constituted a justifiable reason to avoid being challenged again for the same reason. If you defended on the grounds of a "justifiable reason," that reason may cease to exist at some point. Therefore, start using the mark as soon as it becomes possible to avoid triggering the three-year non-use period again. Alternatively, you could proactively surrender (delete) the rights for some of the designated goods that were at issue, thereby restructuring your rights to focus on goods that you can use. This housekeeping can reduce unnecessary attacks in the future and allow you to concentrate on defending your core trademark rights.

Trademark Maintenance and Risk Management Strategies

After registration, a trademark owner must continuously manage their rights to reduce the risk of non-use cancellation and maximize the value of their trademark portfolio. The following are strategies for trademark maintenance and risk prevention.

1. Establish a Trademark Use PlanFrom the moment you file a new trademark application, establish a clear plan for its future use. Coordinate product launch schedules and marketing plans to ensure that use begins within three years of registration. If you have no immediate plans to use a mark at the time of filing, consider delaying the application. If it has already been registered, seek ways to expedite its use. For instance, even before a full product launch, create opportunities to expose the mark to the market through promotional limited editions or pilot sales. Even a small number of actual transactions can be recognized as valid use in a future cancellation trial.
2. Periodically Review Use StatusRegularly review your trademark portfolio to check the use status and the goods on which each mark is being used. For example, you could prepare an annual use-check report. For marks in use, record how and since when they have been used. For unused marks, review the reasons and future plans. This proactive monitoring allows you to address warning signs early (e.g., a mark that has been registered for over two years but is still unused).
3. Take Proactive Measures for Unused TrademarksFor trademarks with uncertain usage plans, a strategic decision must be made. If you wish to retain them, start using them promptly or at least secure evidence of partial use. If use is not feasible, consider a partial surrender of the trademark right (deleting designated goods). In particular, if you have changed business areas and there is no possibility of using the mark on certain designated goods, proactively deleting them can remove them as targets for attack. For example, if you are using a mark on 8 out of 10 designated goods but have no plans for the other 2, surrendering those 2 can prevent a competitor from persistently targeting them in a cancellation trial. (Of course, you must consider that by surrendering rights for those goods, you will find it harder to prevent others from using a similar mark in that field.)
4. Utilize a Re-filing StrategySome companies use a re-filing strategy to extend the period of use. This involves periodically re-applying for the same trademark for the same goods to obtain a new registration, thereby resetting the three-year non-use clock. Although the Korean Trademark Act, in principle, does not permit duplicate applications for the same mark on the same goods, in practice, companies sometimes succeed in re-registering a substantially identical mark by slightly altering its appearance (e.g., font, color) or the description of the designated goods. While this re-filing strategy is sometimes criticized as a loophole that allows owners to extend rights without actual use, it is a method used within the legal framework to manage a trademark portfolio. However, it should be considered carefully, as overuse carries the risk of application rejection or a decline in corporate credibility.
5. Systematically Manage Proof of UseIt is crucial to systematically store records of trademark use in preparation for future disputes. Archiving sales records, promotional materials, photos, and advertising materials by date will allow you to quickly submit evidence when needed. For online content, which can be deleted or changed over time, use screenshots and web archives to prove the state of use at a particular time. Creating an internal log for managing proof of trademark use can also be very helpful.
6. Education and AwarenessEducate brand managers and marketing teams within your company about the legal risks associated with trademark non-use. Instill an awareness that trademarks must be used after registration. It is common in practice to register marks with the intention of using them later, only to leave them dormant. This practice can lead to wasted maintenance costs and the inability to use the mark when it is actually needed. Furthermore, encourage a strategic approach during new brand planning to apply only for the scope of actual use and to minimize areas that will not be used.
7. Manage Conflicting TrademarksIf your trademark's use is constrained by a conflict with another similar mark, consider agreements or negotiations to reduce legal risks. For example, entering into a coexistence agreement with the owner of a similar mark can secure mutual recognition of use. This creates an environment where you can use your trademark safely without a "justifiable reason" for non-use, thereby also reducing the risk of a non-use cancellation action.

In summary, the key to trademark maintenance is "use." In an era where only actively used trademarks survive, it is essential to establish a trademark strategy that considers the post-registration use phase. Proactive management, which involves either putting unused trademarks to use or making the bold decision to divest them, is required.

Case Studies and Practical Tips

Here, we examine the success and failure factors in non-use cancellation trials through actual cases and summarize the practical tips that can be gleaned from them.

Successful Defense Case – Proving Justifiable Reasons

The "TIRTIR" and "Madecassol" cases are instances where trademark owners acknowledged non-use but successfully justified it to protect their rights. In the TIRTIR case, the owner persuaded the Patent Court by arguing they couldn't use the mark due to a senior trademark owned by a competitor. In the Madecassol case, the owner won at the IPT level by arguing that non-use was necessary for legal compliance. The common thread is that they did not deny the fact of non-use but focused on proving a valid reason for it. They succeeded by presenting a legal basis (risk of trademark infringement, Cosmetics Act regulations, etc.) and persuading the tribunal/court with objective data and logical arguments.

• Practical Tip: If you are on the defensive and it's difficult to fabricate use, it may be more effective to honestly acknowledge the situation and persuasively explain its unavoidability. While actual use is always the best defense, these cases show the importance of providing a sincere reason and developing a sound legal argument in unavoidable circumstances.

Failed Defense Case – Insufficient Evidence

A company, C, faced a cancellation trial against its registered trademark. As proof of use within the three-year period, it submitted only a single product catalog and a logo printed on a business card. However, with no sales records or transaction evidence, the IPT did not recognize this as substantial trademark use and cancelled the registration. Company C belatedly gathered additional evidence, such as confirmation letters from clients, and appealed to the Patent Court, but it was too late, and the cancellation was upheld.

• Lesson: A defender should not be complacent with just one or two pieces of evidence. Catalogs or internet posts alone may be insufficient. It is crucial to submit a comprehensive range of evidence from various angles (transactions, advertising, consumer recognition, etc.). Failing to do your best in the first instance makes it very difficult to overturn the decision later.

Keyword Advertising Case – A New Avenue for Proving Use

The "FILLTOX" plastic surgery clinic case is a good example of a defense strategy utilizing keyword advertising. The trademark owner had done almost no offline promotion but avoided cancellation by providing records showing the mark was exposed through online search ads. This suggests that modern trademark owners need to actively engage not only in traditional use (affixing the mark to goods for sale) but also in digital marketing activities.

• Practical Tip: If you are concerned about low sales volume for your trademarked product, maintaining exposure through online ads, social media posts, etc., can be helpful. These activities can later function as proof of use, and since they have been recognized by case law, it is strategic to collaborate with your marketing team to build a record of trademark exposure.

Procedural Points to Note

There are several practical points that both parties should keep in mind during a non-use cancellation trial.

• Adherence to Deadlines: The trial procedure requires the submission of written arguments and evidence within set deadlines. Missing a deadline can lead to an unfavorable decision. While extensions are possible, it is best to prepare as much as possible within the initial timeframe.
• Defining the Scope of the Claim: The claimant cannot arbitrarily add or remove goods from the claim after filing. Therefore, the scope must be decided carefully at the outset. Conversely, the trademark owner should not become complacent about goods not included in the claim. Even if a mark was used on an unclaimed good, that fact is not considered in the trial; if there is no proof of use for the claimed goods, the mark can still be cancelled for those goods.
• Possibility of Negotiation and Assignment: Sometimes, a trial is withdrawn through a settlement between the parties, often involving a trademark assignment or a license agreement. Since the claimant can withdraw the claim at will, reaching an amicable agreement can be a way to end the dispute early. In particular, if the trademark owner is not actually using the mark and has no strong attachment to it, assigning the right for appropriate compensation can be a win-win solution.

Long-Term Implications

Taken together, these cases show that post-registration management is more important than registration itself. Competitors are always looking for loopholes in others' trademark rights, and the legal system is moving in the direction of "use it or lose it." Therefore, trademark owners must solidify their rights through continuous use and management, while competitors can legitimately use this system to clear dormant marks from the market and create opportunities for themselves. Both successful and failed cases highlight the importance of preparing appropriate evidence and logic, re-emphasizing that thorough preparation is always the best strategy.

Use is the Best Protection Strategy

The non-use cancellation trial is a powerful system for verifying whether a trademark is actually being utilized in the market. On one hand, it clears out old, registered trademarks to allow new competitors to enter the market. On the other, it demands constant management and supervision from trademark owners.

At Pine IP Firm, we have successfully handled numerous non-use cancellation trial cases. If you need consultation on a trademark dispute, especially a non-use cancellation trial, please do not hesitate to contact us.

A trademark shines when it is used, and only through diligent management can its value be preserved for a long time.