In the judicial practice of trademark cancellation cases, if a disputed trademark is found to be in use for a designated product, the registration for other similar designated products can be maintained. This practice, often referred to as the "Bridging Theory," has been adopted by the Guide to the Trial of Trademark Authorization and Confirmation Administrative Cases by the Beijing High People's Court and is widely accepted in the industry.

However, there are differing opinions on the scope of its application. One view holds that the theory should only apply to similar designated products within a single case. For example, if a cancellation case involves all designated products within a similar group, providing evidence for one product can maintain the registration for the entire group. In contrast, if multiple cancellation cases are filed for different products in the same group, evidence for each case must be submitted individually, suggesting that the "Bridging Theory" cannot extend across cases. The second view posits that the theory can apply across cases, meaning that evidence of use in one case can be applied to maintain registration in other related cases.

In practice, the debate between these two perspectives is significant. An illustrative case involves a registered trademark designated for use on several products in Class 5, including human medicine, herbal tea, and injections. The trademark holder provided evidence of use for oral Western medicine, but a third party filed separate cancellation requests for six products. The question arises whether evidence of use for human medicine can maintain registration for similar products like herbal tea or ointments.

The CNIPA ruled in favor of the first view, rejecting the application of the "Bridging Theory" across cases and canceling the trademark for products such as herbal tea and ointments. However, the Beijing IP Court took the second view, ruling that since human medicine and herbal tea are similar under Class 5, the trademark use for human medicine also applies to herbal tea.

This article argues that the second view, supported by the Beijing IP Court and the Beijing High People's Court, is debatable. The court’s decision to use human medicine as a bridge to justify trademark use for herbal tea bypasses the core issue: whether the evidence submitted proves the trademark's use on herbal tea itself. Furthermore, the decision conflicts with the Guide to the Trial of Trademark Authorization and Confirmation Administrative Cases by the Beijing High People's Court, which states that using a trademark on similar products outside the designated range should not be supported as evidence of use for the disputed product.
The inconsistency in rulings between courts adds complexity to the issue, highlighting the ongoing debate regarding the scope of the "Bridging Theory." The resolution of this issue will likely influence how trademark cancellation cases are handled in the future, reflecting the evolving expectations of the intellectual property community.