# Non-Use Trademark Cancellation: Responses Illustrated by Cases An overview of non-use cancellation proceedings, with a focus on evidence of trademark use and strategies for responding. Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1538124 HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Non-Use Trademark Cancellation: Responses Illustrated by Cases An overview of non-use cancellation proceedings, with a focus on evidence of trademark use and strategies for responding. Trademarks 2026.09.17 published IPLEX 12 min read IPLEX has acted on both sides of non-use cancellation proceedings: securing cancellation of earlier trademarks that obstructed clients' applications, and defending registrations by establishing use. For claimants, we obtained decisions canceling registrations for non-use. For trademark owners, we successfully proved use and prevented cancellation. Businesses approach cancellation proceedings for different reasons. One may need to clear the way for a new brand; another may need to retain a long-established registration. We identify the client's commercial objective, then assess the registration and use history to plan the response. Treating applications and cancellation proceedings in isolation can overlook the client's next steps. We connect earlier-rights issues identified during examination with the appropriate proceedings. For owners defending a registration, we assess the evidence and arguments needed to establish use. The cases below illustrate results from this work. Case 2024 Dang 196: cancellation of an earlier trademark An earlier registration put the client's trademark application at risk of refusal. Securing the intended brand required addressing that registration. IPLEX represented the applicant as claimant in non-use cancellation proceedings against the earlier mark. On September 25, 2024, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board ordered cancellation of Trademark Registration No. 1683535 in Case 2024 Dang 196. Yongduck Kim represented the claimant, securing cancellation of an earlier registration that could have obstructed the client's application. Changing a brand name can be costly once packaging and sales pages are prepared or business partners know the name. We assess the conflict with earlier rights and whether non-use cancellation offers a route to address it. In this case, that assessment led to a successful cancellation decision. Cancellation of an earlier mark does not automatically secure registration of the client's application. Other examination issues, including distinctiveness and additional earlier rights, must still be assessed. Follow-up work connects the scope of the cancellation with the pending application. A successful cancellation decision in 2025 addressing an earlier-rights obstacle In another matter, an unused registration threatened to obstruct the client's trademark application. IPLEX pursued non-use cancellation to address the earlier-rights issue affecting registration of the client's core brand. We secured cancellation by establishing the grounds for non-use. The decision dated November 26, 2025 ordered cancellation of the challenged registration, providing a basis for pursuing the client's subsequent registration process. A trademark search must examine both similar names and the goods or services covered by the earlier registration. The overlap with the client's business determines the response required. Reviewing a registration number alone is not enough. We assess the intended mark alongside the client's actual business. For a pending application, we review examination progress and office actions. Before filing, we identify the goods and services requiring protection. This helps determine whether proceedings against an earlier mark serve the client's filing objectives. Case 2025 Dang 3930: cancellation for specified services On July 21, 2026, in Case 2025 Dang 3930, IPLEX represented the claimants and obtained partial cancellation of Trademark Registration No. 1747398. The canceled services concerned training and instruction, and arranging and conducting training courses. Where a registration covers multiple goods or services, only some may conflict with the client's business. This decision canceled the registration for the services challenged in the claim. It should be distinguished from cancellation of an entire registration. Preparing a cancellation claim requires identifying the target registration and the goods or services to challenge. Assess the requested scope together with likely proof-of-use issues, ensuring that relevant overlaps with the client's application are addressed. This defines the objectives of the proceedings. A result is more informative than a simple win-or-loss label. The rights canceled and the extent of cancellation determine the effect on the client's application and business. We review the operative order and use it to identify the necessary follow-up. Successful defenses against non-use cancellation In this matter, IPLEX represented the trademark owner as respondent. By successfully establishing use of the registered mark, we prevented cancellation for non-use and preserved the registration. Owners may find a non-use challenge surprising when they have been selling products or providing services under the brand. In proceedings, however, the business background and evidence of use of the registered mark must be clearly presented. Transactions familiar to the owner still need to be explained to the tribunal through the case record. The owner established use and retained the registration. Alongside challenging earlier rights that obstruct applications, we defend rights clients have already secured. This case reflects our experience handling disputes after registration. The value of use evidence depends on what it proves, rather than its volume. Product photographs may show a mark without establishing when a transaction occurred. Dated transaction records may not identify the mark used. Review the records together to connect the product, mark and transaction. We examine the user, dates of use, mark actually displayed and registered goods or services. We distinguish established facts from gaps requiring further evidence. Our experience defending cancellation claims informs how we connect the owner's records to the issues to be proved. In Case 2024 Dang 3657, IPLEX represented the respondent and obtained dismissal of the cancellation claim. We reviewed the use history and evidence and presented arguments addressing the applicable legal principles. The Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rejected the non-use challenge. Our work included organizing proof of the owner's use and responding to the claimant's arguments. Assessing cases from both the claimant's and the owner's perspective A claimant should consider evidence the owner may produce. An absence of online sales results does not exclude offline transactions or use by a licensee. A strategy based solely on internet searches may need to change once the owner's evidence is submitted. Owners should explain facts that may be taken for granted within the business. If product names differ from the registered mark, or different entities manufacture and sell the goods, the relationships must be clear. Connect the client's knowledge of the transaction with the documentary evidence. For claimants, we examine when and to what extent the owner's evidence establishes use. For respondents, we assess whether the client's records prove the necessary facts. Experience on both sides informs the questions asked at the outset and the response to opposing arguments. We first identify the result the client needs. Addressing refusal risk in a pending application calls for different preparation from defending an existing registration. The affected products and commercial timetable guide priorities. Why coordinate trademark applications and non-use cancellation? The Trademark Act provides for non-use cancellation where, without justifiable grounds, a registered mark has not been used in Korea for the designated goods for the required period of three consecutive years before the cancellation request. Registration alone does not establish actual use. Where an earlier mark obstructs an application, first check its legal status and registered scope. Then assess the overlap with the client's mark and whether non-use cancellation is appropriate. Finding a similar name alone is not a sufficient basis for deciding to bring proceedings. Coordinate the application and proceedings timetable. Preparing a cancellation claim should not delay necessary application steps or cause an office-action deadline to be missed. We review both tracks and identify the response required at each stage. The review also considers other names in use and planned product lines. This helps determine whether the application adequately covers the business and whether further protection should be considered. Cancellation proceedings should serve the client's broader trademark objectives. After a favorable decision, confirm the scope of cancellation, whether the decision is final and any remaining refusal grounds. Resolving a particular earlier-rights obstacle is separate from establishing that the application meets all registration requirements. Reviewing and verifying evidence of trademark use If a non-use cancellation claim is filed against your registration, identify the mark and registered goods or services challenged. Establish the relevant use period by reference to the filing date of the claim. Current sales pages and historical records prove different facts, so locate evidence from the relevant period. Sales records, transaction documents, advertisements and online posts establish different facts. Check dates, the mark displayed and the connection to the goods or services. For overseas activity, separately assess whether the evidence relates to use in Korea. Evidence should be organized to explain the transaction, rather than simply follow the business's filing order. Cross-reference product names, orders and dates, and identify which records support each fact. Investigate discrepancies that the other party may challenge. If the logo used differs from the registered mark, identify the changes. Visual resemblance alone does not resolve whether the use is acceptable. Examine the words, graphic elements and arrangement to assess identity under ordinary trading perceptions. Where records name an affiliate or seller, establish that party's relationship with the trademark owner. Membership in the same corporate group may not explain the necessary facts. Identify who used the mark and under what authority. You need not select only a few documents before seeking advice. Information about business partners, sales channels, advertising agencies and internal records can help identify further evidence. We separate available records from material still to be located and develop an evidentiary approach suited to the issues. Advice and representation in non-use cancellation proceedings If an earlier registration obstructs your application, prepare the intended mark and details of the goods or services. Include known earlier registration numbers, pending application numbers and office actions. We assess the conflicting rights and the need for, and prospects of, cancellation proceedings. If you receive a cancellation claim, first preserve the request and accompanying documents and identify the response deadline. Then organize the registered mark's use history. Identify records held by sales teams or business partners as well as those in your own files. We also review logo changes, business interruptions, transfers and other circumstances affecting use. Understanding that history helps explain differences between records and anticipate challenges. Preserve original files and creation details wherever possible. As proceedings develop, we reassess the response against the other party's arguments and evidence. New issues may require additional factual checks and records. After the decision, we review the operative order, its effect on the rights and the necessary next steps. Trademark dispute advice from IPLEX IPLEX's trademark dispute practice draws on experience securing cancellation of obstructive earlier marks and defending owners by establishing use. We assess the brand the client seeks to protect alongside existing rights and advise on the appropriate procedures. If an earlier mark obstructs your application, or your registration faces a non-use challenge, tell us about the matter. Registration details, goods or services, use history and pending proceedings help identify the issues. We also consider product-launch and distribution schedules. IPLEX is located near Samseong Station on Seoul Subway Line 2. We advise on applications and registrability, bring and defend non-use cancellation claims, and develop responses to trademark disputes around the client's circumstances. Consultation inquiry: 02-556-1028 Email global@iplexlaw.co.kr Read the Korean source This article reflects the information available when it was published. Contact us to discuss your circumstances. Discuss this topic ↗ All articles Related service: Designs & trade marks ↗ Related service: IP disputes & appeals ↗ TALK TO IPLEX Discuss your IP questions We consider your technology and business needs together. ↗ Contact us Newer AI Patents: What Can Be Protected and How to Prepare ↗ Older Filing with a Provisional Specification: Preparing to Protect an Idea ↗ Related insights Trademarks 2026.10.01 TikTok for confectionery: dilution can prevent registration in Korea Korean Patent Court case 2025Heo10379 explains why different goods and later commercial success did not overcome the reputation and distinctiveness of TikTok. ↗ Read article Trademarks 2026.09.30 Can Fear of a Trade Mark Dispute Justify Non-Use? Korean Supreme Court decision 2024후10504 separates an intention to launch from actual use and objective obstacles beyond the owner’s control. ↗ Read article Trademarks 2026.09.29 An App Name: A Mark for Software or for the Service It Delivers? The 010PAY decision, 2025허10405, considers actual transactions, revenue and the proper subject of Korean trade mark scope proceedings. ↗ Read article - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/category/trademark - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/forum/view/1538124 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/trademark#related-insights - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/disputes#related-insights - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1538326 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/1537741 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1782 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1782 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1776 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1776 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1771 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1771