Paragraph 2 of Article 49 of the Trademark Law stipulates that if a registered trademark is not used for three consecutive years without justifiable reasons, any unit or individual may apply to the Trademark Office for cancellation of the registered trademark. This system is simply called "three years without cancellation system". Three-year non-use revocation system is a system adopted by all countries in trademark law, and TRIPs agreement also recognizes it. Thus, the system must have its recognized theoretical basis. The author believes that there are at least three reasons to prove the rationality of the system: first, real commercial use is a necessary condition for trademarks to play their identification functions. The basic function of a trademark is recognition. Other functions of trademarks, such as advertising function, quality assurance function and symbol recognition function, are all derived from the recognition function, and the derivative function of trademarks can only play a role under the market conditions that the recognition function of trademarks can play a normal role. The function of trademark recognition is produced and gradually strengthened through practical use. If a trademark is not used for a long time after registration, its distinctiveness is unproductive and it cannot play its identification function, so there is no need for legal protection. Although a registered trademark has been used and even achieved high popularity, if it is stopped for a long time, its distinctiveness will gradually fade with the passage of time and lose its commercial value. There is no need for the law to continue to protect such registered trademarks. Second, the theory of invalid rights. Invalidation of rights is a theoretical creation to limit the abuse of rights by obligees, based on the principle of good faith. This theory has room for application in the whole legal field, regardless of private law, public law and procedural law, regardless of all rights of control, assertion, formation and defense. As far as I know, German, Japanese and Taiwan Province Province all recognize the theory of invalid rights and have corresponding precedents. The principle of estoppel in Anglo-American law has the same jurisprudence. Although the applicable conditions for the invalidity of rights are not exactly the same as those for the revocation of registered trademarks after three years' non-use, the core idea expressed by the theory of invalidity of rights-the rights that have not been exercised for a long time need not be protected by law, can still help us prove the rationality of the revocation system of registered trademarks after long-term non-use. Trademark registrants come out to claim trademark rights after long-term non-use, which is suspected of "releasing water to raise fish" and "picking peaches down the mountain", which violates the principle of good faith and is difficult to justify. If support is given, the damage to trademark users will be far greater than the damage when they exercise their rights in time. Not using the revocation system for three years is actually a kind of relief provided by law to trademark users, so that they can apply for revocation of registered trademarks to counter the abuse of rights by registrants. Third, the need to maintain the order of the game. The value of a trademark comes from commercial use. Without commercial use, a trademark cannot be identified, let alone of commercial value. A registered trademark that has not been used for a long time is actually dead and should be removed from the register. Allowing such trademarks to continue to exist and protect them will not only waste valuable trademark resources, hinder honest operators from choosing and using trademarks, but also induce unfair competition behaviors such as cybersquatting and malicious litigation, hinder the commercial freedom of others and undermine the competition order. The revocation system of not using a registered trademark for three years can, to a certain extent, curb the abuse of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark to seek illegitimate interests and maintain the order of competition. In this sense, it is not only reasonable for a registered trademark not to be used for three years, but also necessary to maintain fair competition in the market ranking. Regarding the legal nature of a registered trademark that has not been used for three years, China's Trademark Law does not make clear provisions on the words. American trademark law stipulates that it is regarded as giving up trademark rights; France stipulates that the trademark right is lost, especially pointing out that the right is lost at the expiration of the use period, which has absolute effect; Russia stipulates that rights are "terminated in advance"; German trademark law stipulates that if the counterpart raises a defense, the registrant's objection and invalid application will be rejected, and the registrant will not get any relief in the infringement lawsuit. The legislation of these countries has the same attitude towards the continued non-use of registered trademarks within the statutory time limit, that is, the law no longer protects them, and the revocation procedure is only a confirmation of this statutory state. It is of great significance to clarify this point for the design of China's three-year non-use revocation system and related systems. China's new trademark law has only half a sentence on the revocation system of three-year non-use, and important issues such as the calculation of the three-year period and the effectiveness of the registrant's resumption of using the trademark are missing. With regard to the calculation of the three-year non-use period, the Regulations on the Implementation of the Trademark Law stipulates that the three-year period should be calculated forward from the date when the application for revocation is filed, which is consistent with the provisions of other countries, that is, the use that can revive the effectiveness of trademark registration can only be used before the application for revocation is filed, regardless of the use after the application for revocation is filed. This is because, firstly, the right of revocation is the right of formation. As long as the counterpart applies for cancellation, the trademark right will be eliminated, and the right that has been confirmed to be eliminated cannot be resurrected; Second, it is difficult to call it bona fide real use after others apply for cancellation. According to the principle of good faith, although the registered trademark has been discontinued for three consecutive years, if the registrant resumes commercial use in good faith before others file an application for revocation, others cannot revoke it. But not all uses can restore the effectiveness of trademark registration. In order to prevent the registrant from fraudulent symbolic use in order to keep the trademark registration, and also to protect the legitimate interests of trademark users, the trademark laws of Germany, Japan, Britain, France, Italy and Taiwan Province Province of China all stipulate that if the resurrected trademark is used within three months after learning that others will file a revocation lawsuit, it will not be considered. China's new trademark laws and regulations only require that the registration effect of the revived trademark must be made before the applicant applies for cancellation, and there are no other restrictions. The author believes that this provision in the above-mentioned countries and regions is nothing more than to prevent trademark registrants from circumventing the law by symbolic use and harming the legitimate interests of trademark users. The three-month time standard is only to provide a referee basis for law enforcement. However, the three-month period is not a scientific and unchangeable rule, and after "knowing that others are going to apply for cancellation", the rule of "within three months before applying for cancellation" is complicated and difficult to prove. Therefore, there is no need for China to copy the above provisions of other countries. As long as we accurately grasp the legislative purpose of reviving the effectiveness of trademark registration, grasp the core that only real commercial use can revive the effectiveness of trademark registration, and strictly abide by the use boundary before applying for cancellation, the legislative purpose of this system can be completely realized. However, in China, there are different understandings in theory and practice. Mr. Kong Xiangjun thinks: "Although there is the fact that it has not been used for three consecutive years, in the revocation procedures (including administrative procedures and litigation procedures involving revocation), the revocation reasons that have not been used for three consecutive years have disappeared, and the trademark has produced practical effect. (Original) The application of Item 4 of Article 44 of the Trademark Law has lost its factual basis (change of circumstances). " "If the trademark registrant has actually used the trademark, it is equivalent to' turning over a new leaf' and should let bygones be bygones and be lenient. Otherwise, it will fall into the situation of revocation or deliberately punishing the trademark registrant for revocation. It is a mechanical and rigid practice, which is unfair to the right holder and does not conform to common sense. " I don't think Mr. Kong's point of view is appropriate. From the procedural point of view, it is obviously illegal to overturn the ruling of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board with newly generated evidence after the end of the administrative procedure, which violates procedural justice. From the substantive point of view, the three-year non-use cancellation system involves not only the interests of the registered trademark owner, but also the interests of the applicant, and the balance of interests between them must be considered. It is a misinterpretation of the principle of "change of circumstances" to defend illegal judgments. The legislative purpose of the three-year non-use revocation system is not to urge registrants to use registered trademarks, but to remove dead trademarks from the registration book and prevent registrants from using actually dead registered trademarks to attack competitors. No matter from the principle of good faith or from the perspective of maintaining legal predictability, the use that can restore the effectiveness of a registered trademark can only be used before the application for revocation is filed, and this provision cannot be "flexible" or "flexible". The new trademark law does not comprehensively stipulate the form of use to maintain the effectiveness of trademark registration. For example, trademarks used in business activities are often different from registered trademarks. Is this the use of a registered trademark? If all the goods with registered trademarks are used for export, does it meet the requirements of trademark use in China? These problems are not only related to the interests of trademark registrants, but also related to economic development, especially the development of foreign trade. As a secondary law, it should reflect the requirements of primary social life, and the provisions on the use of trademarks should conform to the actual situation of trademark use in commercial activities. It is suggested to confirm through judicial interpretation that in order to maintain trademark registration, the actually used trademark logo is different from that approved by registration, but the trademark identity is not changed, which is regarded as using a registered trademark; Where a registered trademark is used on export commodities, it shall be deemed that the registered trademark is used in China. The cancellation system of three-year non-use of trademarks should consider the coordination with the relevant systems of trademark law. If we determine that a registered trademark that has not been used for three years has expired, then the objector in the objection procedure, the respondent in the invalid procedure and the defendant in the infringement lawsuit (hereinafter referred to as the parties) may require the objector, the invalid applicant and the plaintiff in the infringement lawsuit to provide the evidence that the registered trademark was used within three years before the objection, invalid application and infringement lawsuit, that is, the registered trademark can be defended for three years, and administrative organs and infringement lawsuits can be filed. European trademark law, German trademark law and British trademark law all have clear provisions on this. Article 56 and Article 142 of the Revised Draft Trademark Law issued by China Trademark Office on April 8, 2006 are basically consistent with the above-mentioned national trademark laws. Regrettably, this provision has not been positively responded by the academic and judicial circles, and this reasonable and valuable provision has not been retained in future drafts. Confirming the right of non-use defense of the parties in the objection and invalidation procedure not only has sufficient theoretical basis, but also keeps logical consistency with the three-year non-use revocation system, which is conducive to the coordination of various systems of trademark law from theory to logic. It is suggested that the right of non-use defense of the parties should be confirmed through judicial interpretation. In the case of the defense of the parties, if the dissenter or the invalid applicant can't provide the evidence actually used, and there is no justifiable reason not to use it, the administrative department and the court shall reject the objection and invalid application. Although Article 64 of the new Trademark Law stipulates that the accused infringer has no right to use, the theoretical basis revealed by this article is no loss or compensation, not that a registered trademark that has not been used for three years should not be protected. Moreover, the law only stipulates that the accused infringer is not liable for compensation, which means that the court can order him to stop the infringement. This is far from the viewpoint that the Registered Trademark Law should not be protected after it has not been used for three years. It is suggested that article 64 of the Trademark Law should be reformed through judicial interpretation, and the legal effect of the accused infringer's successful defense should be revised to not bear tort liability. Some people may say that the parties may apply for cancellation of a registered trademark according to Article 49 of the new Trademark Law, and there is no need to give them the right not to use it. Of course, the parties can apply for cancellation of the registration of the trademark, but this cannot be a reason to deny that they do not use the right of defense, because it is more convenient for the parties not to use the right of defense, which can better protect their own interests and avoid the embarrassment and trouble caused by the cancellation of the registered trademark after the registration application or invalid application is rejected or convicted of infringement. This kind of embarrassment and trouble has appeared in judicial practice. After the first defense, I received a ruling that the trademark continued to be valid, but half a year passed, and today I found out that the review was actually revoked. Question: 1. If the notice of reexamination is not received and the second reply is not made, can the General Administration of Trademarks directly decide to revoke the trademark? 2. If there is no problem with this process and the trademark is really revoked, what can it be ... After the first defense, I received a ruling that the trademark continues to be valid, but half a year passed, and today I discovered that the retrial was actually revoked. Question: 1. If the notice of reexamination is not received and the second reply is not made, can the General Administration of Trademarks directly decide to revoke the trademark? 2. If there is no problem with this process and the trademark is really revoked, is there any way to get your trademark back? 3. Can the trademark continue to be used in the process of complaint or prosecution? Thank you for the location of our company, that is, the business license address and the actual business address are the same and have not been changed. Moreover, the mail delivery staff in the post office are quite familiar with all the companies in our area, and we can receive other mail magazines. At the same time, we are also the actual users of trademarks. We have been using our registered trademark from the time we applied for a registered trademark to the time we got the registration certificate, which is why the Trademark Office ruled that our trademark is valid and can continue to be used after the first defense.