Trademark Wiki / 专业术语

Refusal Review

TermPublished 2026-09-17 · Updated 2026-09-17

Refusal review is the statutory remedy after a trademark refusal: under Article 34 of the Trademark Law it must be filed within fifteen days of receiving the notice and is examined and decided by CNIPA.

Refusal review is the statutory procedure by which an applicant, dissatisfied with the refusal of a trademark registration application, requests re-examination of the decision. It is initiated under Article 34 of the Trademark Law and is the most commonly used remedy on the road to trademark registration—miss the fifteen days, and the door closes.

Legal Basis and Time Limit

Article 34 of the Trademark Law: CNIPA shall notify the trademark applicant in writing of a refused application that will not be published; the applicant, if dissatisfied, may apply to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board for review within fifteen days of receiving the notice.

The period runs from the "date of receipt"; the service rules follow Article 10 of the Implementing Regulations: where a trademark agency is engaged, service on the agency is deemed service on the party; for mail, the date of the receipt postmark governs, and where the postmark date is illegible or absent, service is deemed to occur fifteen days after dispatch. The first day of the period is not counted; where the expiry day falls on a holiday, it extends to the first working day after the holiday (Article 12 of the Implementing Regulations, with holidays including Saturdays and Sundays).

After the institutional reform, the review functions of the former Trademark Review and Adjudication Board are exercised by CNIPA. Review applications may be submitted through the online trademark service system or on paper, and must be completed within the fifteen days.

Review Procedure

  1. Submit the review application stating the request, factual basis, and grounds, together with the Trademark Refusal Notice and relevant evidence;
  2. Pay the review fee;
  3. The review department examines the case, generally on the documents;
  4. A decision is made within nine months of receipt of the application and notified to the applicant in writing; where an extension is needed due to special circumstances, it may be extended by three months upon approval;
  5. A party dissatisfied with the review decision may bring a lawsuit before the people's court within thirty days of receiving the notice.

Review is therefore an administrative procedure; dissatisfaction with it can still enter a further layer of judicial relief.

Common Directions of Evidence

  • Trademark use evidence: sales contracts and invoices, e-commerce product and store pages, packaging and label materials, advertising and exhibition materials, and media reports, proving actual use and the formation of identifying power;
  • Distinctiveness and fame evidence: sales scale, market coverage, industry rankings, and awards, used to counter "lacking distinctive features" or to strengthen a favorable position in the confusion analysis;
  • Arguments on non-similarity of goods or services: developed across dimensions such as function, intended purpose, sales channels, and consumers, combined with the similar groups and "notes" of the Classification of Similar Goods and Services;
  • Status evidence of cited trademarks: evidence that cited trademarks have been cancelled, declared invalid, deregistered, or not renewed upon expiry, as well as coexistence arrangements reached between the parties (coexistence agreements are not automatically accepted and must still be assessed together with likelihood of confusion);
  • Procedural materials: acceptance materials for non-use cancellation or invalidation requests filed against cited trademarks, showing that the obstacles are being cleared.

The Practical Rhythm Within Fifteen Days

  • Days 1 to 3: retrieve the refusal notice and the cited trademark files, and determine whether the grounds are absolute or relative;
  • Days 3 to 7: assess the success rate of review; decide on review, refiling, or a dual track; and determine whether peripheral actions such as non-use cancellation or invalidation against cited trademarks need to be launched simultaneously;
  • Days 7 to 13: draft the grounds, organize the evidence, and submit, leaving buffer time.

For partial refusals, a division application may be filed together with the review (Article 22 of the Implementing Regulations) to separate the preliminary approved portion first, preventing the review cycle from holding up the approved portion.

Common Pitfalls

  • Pitfall one: believing review is just "paying again to walk through a process." Review is an independent administrative procedure; the quality of the grounds and evidence directly determines the outcome;
  • Pitfall two: racing only against the deadline while copying the application into the grounds. Refusal grounds need point-by-point responses; relative grounds in particular cannot be met with a bare denial;
  • Pitfall three: ignoring the dynamics of cited trademarks. If a cited trademark is cancelled or declared invalid during the review, supplementary materials should be submitted promptly;
  • Pitfall four: treating review and refiling as mutually exclusive. They can run in parallel: refiling can adjust the goods or the sign, while review fights to preserve the original filing date;
  • Pitfall five: looking for ways after missing the fifteen days. Late submissions are usually not accepted; at that point only refiling, acquiring the trademark by assignment, or adjusting the sign remains.

The practical judgment behind these concepts must be tailored to the individual case; before proceeding, you may book a registered agent via MyTMBee for targeted analysis.