A request to resume a suspended review belongs in the relevant case file. A public consultation message asking about the procedure is not the same thing. CNIPA's published replies provide useful practical guidance on making that distinction, supplementing evidence and withdrawing an electronic filing.
This selected English FAQ paraphrases CNIPA's trademark review consultation answers and a hot-topic response, checked on 26 October 2026. It is MY CNTM's explanation, not an official English CNIPA FAQ. We link each answer to the original, retain the dates where displayed and identify our practical observations separately. We have not reproduced the correspondents' identities or claimed to cover every question in the archive.
Review and procedural FAQ
How can supplementary evidence be submitted for a refusal review filed in the old online system?
In a reply dated 16 December 2025, CNIPA addressed a refusal review filed in an older system whose evidence was to be supplemented within the prescribed period. It directed the user to the submitted-application area, locate the registration number and use the supplementary-materials option under the additional actions menu.
Practical observation: use the filing associated with the actual case and retain submission confirmation. Menu names can change. The reply explains a submission route; it does not extend an evidence deadline or establish that a late upload must be accepted.
Official answer: supplementary refusal-review evidence. See our refusal review guide.
After the cited marks are cancelled, how do I ask for a suspended review to proceed?
CNIPA's reply dated 7 July 2026 addresses a review suspended while cited marks faced non-use cancellation proceedings. It says the applicant may submit a relevant request through the supplementary-materials channel in the specific case to seek accelerated examination and adjudication.
Practical observation: identify the cited marks, explain the procedural development and provide the relevant decisions and status information. Check whether the decisions have taken effect and whether any remaining cited rights still matter. This is not a promise of automatic resumption, immediate completion or a favourable result.
Official answer: proceeding with a suspended review. The draft transition and examination materials should be read separately from this existing published reply.
Can an electronically filed invalidation request be withdrawn by sending a paper letter?
In the published answer to this specific question, CNIPA says an online review application must be withdrawn through the online withdrawal channel and that a paper submission would not be processed as the withdrawal. The page displays 3 September without a year.
Practical observation: verify the current channel for the case, the authority of the person giving instructions and successful submission. Do not assume that posting a letter, emailing an examiner or sending a public enquiry closes the proceeding. This answer should not be read as prescribing the route for every historically paper-filed matter.
Official answer: withdrawing an online invalidation application. See our withdrawal and refunds guide.
If I have filed an invalidation request but received no payment notice, what should I check?
In its response published on 10 March 2026, CNIPA says it issues a payment notice where the materials meet the requirements. It suggests checking the particular case with the registration number when a notice has not been received.
Practical observation: inspect the case's official correspondence and payment status rather than treating silence as acceptance, rejection or payment. Where an agent filed the request, ask for the filing receipt and any official payment notice. A payment to a service provider and payment of the official fee are different events; the source does not decide a private invoice dispute.
Official response: invalidation payment notice, published 10 March 2026. See our registration and payment milestone practice note for the broader distinction between submission, payment and substantive outcome.
Does non-acceptance of a late refusal review necessarily mean an official fee must be refunded?
CNIPA's reply dated 18 September 2024 describes a review application not accepted for being outside the statutory filing period. In the workflow addressed, an unaccepted review had not entered the payment stage, so no official payment or refund was required.
Practical observation: check whether money was actually paid to CNIPA, which proceeding it concerned and what the decision says. This answer is not a universal refund rule for every rejection, withdrawal or non-acceptance after payment. It also does not determine whether an agent's service payment is refundable; that requires the applicable agreement and facts. Asking for a refund does not cure a missed review deadline.
Official answer: fees following non-acceptance of a review. See our non-payment and non-acceptance practice note.
A procedural answer is not a decision in your case
For a live file, our recommendation is to identify the exact application or registration number, proceeding type, official notice, service date, required action and successful filing record. A refusal review, opposition response and non-use evidence response are different procedures, even when an online menu calls each submission supplementary materials. Use our deadline guide to distinguish them.
We have deliberately not converted older paper-filing answers into instructions for every current electronic case. Nor have we treated a technical filing answer as authority that new evidence will necessarily be admitted or that a deadline can be extended.
For ownership, renewal and electronic documents, see the companion registration and subsequent-business FAQ.
More filing traps explained
See our seven common China trademark filing traps for source-linked answers on partial refusal, evidence periods, related-mark assignments and corporate name histories. The article distinguishes the official replies from our practical recommendations.
More source-based practical answers
Our additional FAQ selections cover documents and priority, electronic service and evidence and portfolio procedures. Each answer links to its public source and distinguishes procedural guidance from our practical recommendations.
Official sources and editorial scope
The sources are CNIPA's trademark review consultation archive and hot-topic responses, with direct links beside each answer. Our editorial standards distinguish official replies from our translation and case-handling recommendations. No official tariff figures are reproduced, and no reply is presented as CNIPA endorsement of our services.