A trademark being opposed during the preliminary approval publication period does not mean registration has failed. In practice, in a large number of cases, after the opposed party responds effectively, the CNIPA finds the opposition not sustained and approves the registration. Below is a structured analysis of this typical scenario.
Case Background
An enterprise applied for a word-and-device combination trademark in its core class, which passed examination and was preliminarily approved and published. During the publication period, a company in the same industry filed an opposition based on its prior registered trademark, arguing that the two trademarks constituted similar trademarks on similar goods and requesting that registration be refused.
Issues in Dispute
- Whether the two trademarks were similar in wording, pronunciation, and overall visual effect;
- Whether the parties' approved goods constituted the same or similar goods;
- Whether the coexistence was likely to cause confusion or misidentification among the relevant public.
Response Strategy
The opposed party submitted a response within the response period, with main arguments including:
- Differences in the marks: the two trademarks differed markedly in wording, typeface design, and overall meaning, and the relevant public could distinguish them with ordinary attention;
- Actual differentiation: the applied trademark had formed stable market recognition through actual use, supported by use evidence such as sales contracts, invoices, and promotional materials;
- No evidence of confusion: the opponent failed to prove that actual confusion existed.
Outcome
Under Article 35 of the Trademark Law, after hearing both parties and investigating and verifying, the CNIPA found that the opposed trademark and the cited trademark did not constitute similar trademarks on similar goods, and the opposition grounds were not sustained. Under Article 36, registration was approved, the registration publication was issued, and the electronic registration certificate was delivered. The opposed party acquired the exclusive right as of the date the three-month preliminary approval publication period expired.
Procedural Duration
This case took over a year from the preliminary approval publication to the registration publication: the three-month opposition period plus an opposition review period of about twelve months. Because the start date of the exclusive right was traced back by law to the date the publication period expired, the procedural delay did not erode the rights period—but it did tangibly affect the opposed party's pace of market deployment, which is exactly the value of conducting a trademark search before filing to steer clear of prior rights.
Key Takeaways
- Responding on time after being opposed is critical; giving up the response means giving up the opportunity to be heard, and the CNIPA will decide based solely on the opponent's materials;
- The response should be organized around the statutory standards for similarity assessment, supported by genuine use evidence—a hollow denial is far less persuasive than a timestamped sales invoice;
- Where the opposition is not sustained, the start date of the right is traced back to the date the publication period expired, so procedural delay does not erode the rights period;
- Publication-period monitoring and a rapid response mechanism are the most important risk controls on the way to the certificate—build routine monitoring from the preliminary approval publication onward.
To handle the above matters, you can submit a trademark agency registration application through MyTMBee, with follow-up by a recorded agent.