On the afternoon of 10 July 2025, the Seminar on “Highlights of the Revised Anti-Unfair Competition Law and Latest Developments in Trademark Authorisation and Validation Cases” was successfully convened at the main conference hall of Liuhe. The event was organised by the Intellectual Property Committee of the Hangzhou Lawyers Association and hosted by Zhejiang Liuhe.
The seminar aimed to interpret the key highlights of the 2025 revision of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, to discuss the latest judicial trends concerning trademark revocation and review proceedings, and to enhance the professional competence of lawyers engaged in these areas of practice. The event attracted committee members of the Hangzhou Lawyers Association’s IP Committee, as well as numerous legal practitioners and professionals with a keen interest in intellectual property law.
The seminar was moderated by Mr. Jia Hong, Director of the Intellectual Property Department at Liuhe and Deputy Director of the IP Committee of the Hangzhou Lawyers Association.
At the outset, Mr. Meng Derong, Managing Partner of Liuhe, delivered a welcoming address, expressing sincere appreciation for the presence of all guests.
Subsequently, Mr. Zhou Jianzhong, Director of the IP Committee of the Hangzhou Lawyers Association, delivered an opening speech, emphasising that the event was devoted to professional knowledge sharing. He noted that the two central themes — practical issues in trademark authorisation and validation (including non-use revocation and administrative review), and the newly amended Anti-Unfair Competition Law — represent topical and challenging subjects in today’s IP landscape. Mr. Zhou encouraged participants to make full use of this opportunity for discussion and exchange.
This session focused on current issues of complexity and controversy within the field of trademark law, providing participants with valuable insights into practical case handling.
The seminar commenced with Mr. Wang Jianbing, Managing Partner of Beijing Weisong Law Firm, who delivered an online presentation on the suspension mechanism in trademark review proceedings and practical issues relating to malicious non-use revocation.
Mr. Wang explained the importance of the suspension mechanism in the adjudication process and analysed, through concrete cases, the circumstances in which suspension is mandatory or discretionary.
On the topic of malicious non-use revocation, he shared the internal criteria adopted by the Trademark Office for identifying bad-faith applications and emphasised the crucial role of submitting robust evidence of actual use. He observed that the official data indicate a relatively high success rate for revocation cases and reminded practitioners to pay close attention to field-investigation requirements for service marks, stressing that evidence must reach the evidentiary threshold required to prove non-use by the opposing party.
Following this, Ms. Huang Yuebo, Head of the IP Committee at Jingheng Law Firm, provided an in-depth analysis of current practices in non-use revocation proceedings. She examined the underlying causes of the surge in such cases, including difficulties in trademark registration despite market presence, the proliferation of cited marks, and the challenges of registering new marks following brand upgrades.
Ms. Huang summarised common manifestations of malicious revocation, such as mass filings by agencies for profit or actions aimed at obstructing competitors. Drawing upon her team’s practical experience, she offered guidance on responding to Trademark Office rectification notices — for instance, the necessity of conducting searches across at least three online platforms and submitting sufficient screenshot evidence to substantiate the claim of non-use.
She concluded that, in an increasingly competitive legal market, non-contentious IP services such as trademark protection and enforcement present substantial growth opportunities for practitioners.
Ms. Qiu Hongping, Partner at Jindao Law Firm, then delivered a presentation entitled “Strategic Use of Non-Use Revocation in Trademark Authorisation and Validation – The ‘M’ Case”.
She shared a landmark case in which her client, a Hangzhou-based company, had its trademark invalidated due to similarity with that of a major international medical-device corporation. During the administrative litigation phase, Ms. Qiu’s team filed a non-use revocation against the opponent’s cited mark in Class 9 and successfully obtained a favourable decision. This strategic move not only compelled the opposing party back to the negotiation table, resulting in a coexistence agreement, but also fundamentally undermined the opponent’s rights foundation, leading the Beijing High Court to overturn the lower-court decision and reinstate her client’s trademark rights.
In the ensuing interactive discussion, moderator Mr. Jia Hong raised several practical observations:
The success rate of appeals against refusals under Article 10 remains below 10%, and lawyers should accordingly provide clients with prudent and compliant advice.
The non-use revocation procedure has evolved from a purely administrative mechanism into a crucial means of resolving rights conflicts, placing higher demands on lawyers’ evidence-collection and preservation capabilities.
Major trademark disputes today often involve an intersection of infringement and authorisation-validation proceedings; practitioners handling invalidation cases must adopt a structured, framework-oriented approach.
The session offered a comprehensive and practice-oriented overview, enriched with case analysis and theoretical discussion, substantially enhancing participants’ professional understanding and practical capabilities in handling trademark authorisation and validation cases.
The second session was led by Dr. Wang Kun, Research Fellow at the Institute of Law, Zhejiang Academy of Social Sciences, who delivered an insightful presentation entitled “Reflections on the 2025 Amendments to the Anti-Unfair Competition Law”.
Dr. Wang systematically reviewed the principal highlights of the 2025 revision, noting that the amendments embody the core principle of “fair competition” throughout. His discussion focused on the following aspects:
1. Unfair Competition in the Digital Economy
The revision introduces new provisions regulating acts that cause confusion by unauthorised use of another party’s influential social-media account names, application names, or icons.
Dr. Wang examined the contentious issue of keyword advertising, explaining that both explicit and implicit use of another’s trademark as search keywords exploit the goodwill of the rights holder and impede the accumulation of that goodwill. Such acts, he observed, may constitute not only unfair competition but also direct trademark infringement.
2. Platform Responsibility
Dr. Wang analysed the dual role of internet platforms as both regulators and market operators. He highlighted that the new law expressly prohibits platforms from abusing dominant positions by imposing “exclusive dealing” (the so-called “choose-one-from-two” practice) or otherwise interfering with the autonomous operation of platform merchants. This reflects a legislative effort to supervise and balance the quasi-administrative powers wielded by large online platforms.
3. Other Key Amendments
Commercial Bribery: The revised law expands liability to include individuals who receive bribes, exposing them to criminal, administrative, internal disciplinary, and civil actions initiated by other business operators.
Delayed Payments to SMEs: A new provision prohibits large enterprises from exploiting their dominant market position to delay payments owed to small and medium-sized enterprises, though Dr. Wang also raised questions regarding its enforceability in practice.
Coordination Between Trademarks and Trade Names: The amendments further clarify the rules concerning the use of another’s trademark or trade name as search keywords or as business identifiers, thereby closing gaps between trademark and trade-name protection.
Dr. Wang’s lecture was well-structured and logically rigorous, highlighting the legislative shift from merely “prohibiting unfair conduct” towards actively promoting fair competition, and providing clearer guidance for both enforcement and judicial practice.
