An applicant filled in the goods items in the trademark application form with colloquial, self-coined names (such as "selling clothes" and "a platform service for food delivery"), and some items could not be matched to the standard entries in the Classification of Similar Goods and Services. CNIPA issued a correction notice requiring the items to be amended to standard goods names. After the applicant re-selected items against the Classification, the corrections were accepted and the application proceeded.
Reconstruction of the Situation
The applicant, a clothing e-commerce operator, applied for a trademark in the name of an individual industrial and commercial household. When filling in the goods items, the applicant did not consult the Classification but described the goods in everyday business language, creating three problems: first, colloquial wording that could not be matched to standard entries; second, some descriptions spanned multiple similar groups, making their coverage unclear; third, a few selected items were clearly unrelated to the applicant's business scope. After formality examination, CNIPA issued a correction notice requiring the non-standard items to be amended to the standard goods names in the Classification of Similar Goods and Services.
Problem Analysis
- Why standard names are required: goods/service items are the core for defining the scope of trademark protection. Examination, publication, and infringement comparison all use the Classification's standard taxonomy as the frame of reference; non-standard wording cannot enter the examination system, let alone form a clear boundary of rights.
- The harm of colloquial wording: even if it luckily passes formality examination, vague item descriptions create interpretive disputes in later enforcement, licensing, and assignment.
- Selecting items beyond scope: goods filed in an individual's name should correspond to the registered business scope; although enterprises are not limited by business scope, piling on items indiscriminately increases costs (each class is limited to 10 items, with surcharges for extra items) and expands exposure to non-use cancellation.
Outcome
The applicant selected standard entries such as "clothing, footwear, headgear" from the Classification, adjusted the combination of similar-group coverage according to actual business needs, and submitted the corrections within the prescribed time limit. CNIPA confirmed they were satisfactory and accepted the application.
Lessons Learned
- Consult the Classification before selecting items: the Classification of Similar Goods and Services is the only authoritative basis; the online filing system has a built-in library of standard items, from which you should select rather than write free text.
- Use a "similar-group coverage" strategy: prioritize general items that cover an entire similar group, obtaining broader protection with fewer items while controlling surcharge costs.
- Core business items must be included: omitting your main business items means the registration misses the point, and others may later squat on those items.
- For item wording you are unsure about, search CNIPA's database before filing for how the same type of items is written on prior registrations, and use that as a reference.
Similar High-Frequency Situations
- Typos or self-coined abbreviations in item names on the application form.
- In a single-mark multi-class application, the number of items in each class not matching the fee paid.
- Service items mistakenly entered in a goods class (or vice versa); a wrong class selection cannot be fixed by correction and requires a new application.
For the specific handling of the matters above, you can book a self-service registration on MyTMBee, with full assistance from a CNIPA-recorded agent.