There are some risks in trademark transfer, among which "withdrawal of three" is a relatively hidden danger. "Withdrawal for three years" refers to the situation where a trademark has been revoked due to non-use for three consecutive years. Any unit or individual can submit a cancellation application to the Trademark Office. The “Three-Year Non-use Application for Cancellation of Registered Trademarks” is formulated to save trademark resources and prevent trademarks from being idle and unused. However, the transferee of a trademark transfer must pay attention to whether this situation exists for the trademark. If a trademark has not been used for three consecutive years, it is very likely that competitors will submit an application to cancel the trademark.

After a well-known company spent a lot of money to acquire a trademark, the transfer was processed and approved by the Trademark Office. The trademark had just been put into use, but it was revoked because it had not been used for three consecutive years. The company was dissatisfied and applied for reexamination, and the trademark was eventually revoked. The company subsequently filed a lawsuit with the court, arguing that the purchased trademark had been used legally after the transfer was successful, and that the trademark was not transferred during the period when the trademark was applied for cancellation. Because the original registrant had been lazy in using the trademark for three consecutive years, the company was sentenced to Ordering the cancellation of the trademark is contrary to the legislative purpose of the "three-year non-use" system in my country's Trademark Law, and is not conducive to safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the current trademark owners. ?

In the Implementation Regulations of the Trademark Law, if a trademark is applied for cancellation due to non-use for three consecutive years, the trademark registrant shall submit evidence of the use of the trademark before the cancellation application is filed or explain the justification for non-use. Reason?, the court held that the so-called "just cause" in the Implementation Regulations of my country's Trademark Law should be a legitimate reason that cannot be attributed to the trademark registrant, such as the suspension of use due to government policy restrictions or the suspension of use due to the bankruptcy liquidation of a company. and force majeure. Therefore, the reasons stated by the company in the court cannot become "legitimate reasons" under trademark law. Therefore, the actual use of the trademark in "Withdrawal Three" does not depend on the subject of use, but mainly focuses on whether there is actual use.

In actual trademark transfer, the transferor and the transferee rarely communicate on the use of the trademark, and the transferee rarely notices whether the trademark has actually been used. Therefore, when a registered trademark is transferred for a fee, 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. This point should attract the attention of people who buy trademarks.