"Revocation" refers to the situation that a trademark is revoked because it has not been used for three consecutive years. Any unit or individual may apply to the Trademark Office for cancellation. The purpose of "applying for cancellation of a registered trademark without using it for three years" is to save trademark resources and avoid idle use of the trademark, but for the transferee of the trademark, we must pay attention to whether this situation exists in the trademark. If the trademark has not been used for three consecutive years, it is very likely that competitors will submit an application for revocation and revoke the trademark.
In an administrative case of trademark revocation and reexamination, the plaintiff and Hegu Company, a fast food company, happened to find that a food factory in Henan registered a "conscience" trademark on rice, flour and other commodities, which consisted of the Chinese character "conscience". Hehegu Company purchased the trademark transfer at a high price through negotiation and approved the transfer to the Trademark Office. However, shortly after the newly purchased "Conscience" trademark was put into use, Hehegu Company received a decision from the Trademark Office, saying that the trademark had been revoked for three consecutive years. Hehegu Company has defended its rights through many lawsuits, but it has not been supported.
In the Regulations for the Implementation of the Trademark Law, "if a trademark is applied for cancellation because it has not been used for three consecutive years, the trademark registrant shall submit the evidential materials used before the application for cancellation or explain the legitimate reasons for not using the trademark". The court held that the "legitimate reasons" mentioned in the Regulations on the Implementation of the Trademark Law in China should be legitimate reasons that cannot be attributed to the trademark registrant, such as stopping use due to government policy restrictions or bankruptcy liquidation of the company, force majeure, etc. Therefore, the reasons stated by enterprises in court cannot be "justified reasons" in the Trademark Law. Therefore, the actual use of the trademark in the "withdrawal of three" lies not in the use of the subject, but mainly in the fact that it is actually used.
In the actual trademark transfer, the transferor and the transferee rarely communicate about the use of the trademark, and the transferee rarely notices whether the trademark has been actually used. Therefore, in the paid transfer of a registered trademark, if the trademark transferee does not take the initiative to verify the above situation, the trademark transferee can only bear the adverse risks caused by it.