An electronic filing is not completed merely because a document was prepared on a computer. An electronic notice is not necessarily unserved because nobody opened it. Evidence management starts with distinguishing preparation, submission, service and the response deadline.
These six FAQs paraphrase official material checked on 26 October 2026, with MY CNTM's practical recommendations labelled separately. They are not an official CNIPA translation. Undated or day-and-month-only replies are not assigned invented years. Older procedural material must be read with the applicable regulations and current case instructions.
Electronic service and evidence FAQ
Can I always add fifteen days to an electronic notice and then add its response period?
Do not use that as an unconditional formula. A review consultation answer quotes Article 10 of the Implementing Regulations: electronic service is deemed after fifteen days from dispatch, with an exception where a party can prove when the document entered its electronic system. A shorter 2026 reply reiterates the general deemed-service rule without setting out that exception.
Practical recommendation: retain the dispatch and system-entry records, identify the legal service date and then calculate the particular response period. A notice's fifteen-day response period and a deemed-service interval are different concepts.
Official reply retaining the exception; 16 April 2026 reply. See our electronic service guide.
If nobody logs in or opens an electronic notice, will CNIPA issue another notice by public announcement?
The official explanation of the electronic-application rules says parties should check the system promptly and that failure to log in or view documents does not lead to a further announcement-based service step.
Practical recommendation: monitor the actual receiving account and maintain a backup responsible person. Waiting for another channel to alert the business is not a safe deadline-control method.
Official explanation, 29 August 2019. See our notice recipient guide.
Is saving a draft or starting an upload before midnight enough to establish timely electronic submission?
The same official explanation says electronic submission time is determined by the system's recorded receipt, and submitted content by CNIPA's retained records. It does not equate local preparation with receipt.
Practical recommendation: complete submission early, verify the receipt and retain the submitted version. A saved draft or a screenshot showing an upload in progress should not be assumed to prove a completed filing.
Official electronic submission explanation. See our electronic filing guide.
For an electronic same-day application case, can mailing physical evidence replace the online response?
CNIPA's answer says an online application needs an electronic response. Physical evidence can also be mailed, with the situation explained in the electronic response. The reply displays 21 March without a year.
Practical recommendation: coordinate the two submissions and identify the same case in each. The answer is about physical evidence in the situation presented, not permission to replace every required online response with paper. Confirm the current instructions for the actual notice.
Official same-day evidence answer. See our deadline guide.
If an individual owns a mark but their company uses it, can the company's documents help prove use?
In its reply dated 17 January 2024, CNIPA says use evidence can show use by the registrant, a licensee or another user acting consistently with the owner's wishes. Where reliance is on licensed use, the licence relationship must be demonstrated. The answer also addresses licence recordal.
Practical recommendation: establish the link between the legal owner, actual user and relevant mark. Common management alone should not replace the evidence of authority, dates, goods and genuine commercial activity. The answer does not say any company invoice automatically proves sufficient use.
Official answer on individual ownership and company use. See our use evidence guide.
Will a generic coexistence letter guarantee that a refusal is overturned?
No such guarantee follows from the public answers. One reply says a coexistence agreement submitted in refusal review needs the specific application or registration number. In a separate reply dated 1 June 2022, the consultation platform declines to decide the substantive effect of such agreements and refers the reader to the particular adjudication.
Practical recommendation: identify the exact marks, parties and scope in any proposed agreement and obtain case-specific advice on its evidential value. An answer about document identification is not a decision that consent eliminates every ground for refusal. Older cross-border authentication advice also requires a separate current-law check.
Official identification requirement; official reply limiting substantive advice. See our refusal review guide.
Official sources and related questions
The individual answers and official electronic-filing explanation are linked above. A public consultation reply is not a ruling on a new case. The 2014 Implementing Regulations provide the regulatory context for electronic service; patent electronic-service rules must not be substituted for trademark rules.
Continue with our documents and priority FAQ, portfolio procedure FAQ and review procedure FAQ. Our editorial standards distinguish source text from recommendations.