# JPO Routes Non-Use Notices via WIPO: 4 Responses, 1 Winner

Ryan Walker · August 22, 2026

> JPO Routes Non-Use Notices via WIPO: 4 Responses, 1 Winner. ```html Run the arithmetic first. The response window is 3 months. Subtr...

```html

| Takeaway | Detail |
| --- | --- |
| The whole defense must fit inside a 3-month window that starts at the WIPO-routed notice, not at the first working session. | The JPO/WIPO mechanism grants 3 months to respond; Geneva relay, counsel review, and evidence gathering all draw down that single 3-month allocation before drafting begins. |
| Evidence latency, not legal drafting speed, is the binding constraint of the new regime. | Modeled against the 3-month window, the sequence spends about 7 days on relay, 12 on internal review, and 20 on per-class evidence assembly — leaving roughly 51 of the 90 calendar days the 3-month term implies, before any argumentation is drafted. |
| For reactive playbooks, the notice date is already a failure date. | Once relay lag, review cycles, and per-class evidence gathering are charged against the 3-month clock, a large Japanese-origin Madrid portfolio cannot assemble dossiers in time; roughly 51 usable days cannot absorb portfolio-scale evidence collection. |
| The winning response is made 12–18 months upstream at the three-year non-use line; the other three postures lose inside the window. | Only evidence postures fixed at Japan's three-year non-use threshold turn the 3-month notice into a reporting milestone; full defense, partial refresh, and abandonment triage all discover the 3-month window is already spent. |

Run the arithmetic first. The response window is 3 months. Subtract seven days for the Geneva-to-agent relay, twelve for internal counsel review, and twenty for per-class evidence assembly, and roughly fifty-one usable days survive out of the ninety calendar days the 3-month term implies. Generous — until multiplied across a large Japanese-origin Madrid portfolio, where the stress case assumes roughly three in ten aged registrations already sit past Japan's three-year non-use line.

That gap is the story. The contrarian read on the new regime is that the binding constraint is not how fast lawyers can draft but how fast evidence can arrive: relay lag, internal review cycles, and class-by-class evidence gathering are physical processes with calendars of their own. Priced honestly, reactive dossier assembly cannot fit inside the 3-month window at portfolio scale. The notice date is already a failure date — a deadline announced after the outcome was decided.

Which is why the real decision point sits twelve to eighteen months upstream, at the three-year non-use line, where evidence either exists or it does not. Of the four responses available when a WIPO-routed notice lands — full defense, partial refresh, abandonment triage, upstream audit — only the last one wins, because it alone treats the 3-month notice as a reporting milestone rather than a starting gun.

![stately modernist institutional building Tokyo dawn pale granite](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-ai/jpo-routes-non-use-notices-via-wipo-4-re-ai-9a3b6248.jpg)
stately modernist institutional building Tokyo dawn pale granite

## Geneva Relay

The timestamp that decides whether a Japanese basic registration survives is applied in Geneva — at dispatch — not in Tokyo, and not in your inbox. Once the JPO begins routing non-use notices through WIPO's International Bureau, everything downstream of that stamp is latency management, and most portfolio owners are managing the wrong clock.

The relay runs in four hops, and only the third one starts the clock:

| Hop | Actor | Action | Clock status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | JPO examiner | Flags a Japanese basic registration suspected of prolonged non-use | Not running |
| 2 | JPO to WIPO International Bureau | Transmits a use-information request to Geneva | Not running |
| 3 | International Bureau | Logs the request and dispatches the notice to the holder's representative of record | Starts — the IB's dispatch date controls |
| 4 | Representative of record | Relays the notice onward to the brand team | Burning — nobody's reading date enters the computation |

The legal plumbing predates all of this. Under Madrid Protocol Article 5ter, any Contracting Party may route use-information requests through the IB; Japan has operated inside that machinery since its accession. The change is procedural — a fixed delivery channel and a hard window bolted onto an existing treaty power, not a new one. There is no negotiation phase and no discretionary phase-in: the pipe simply starts carrying traffic.

Now count the window honestly. Three months is roughly 90 calendar days, but only about 60 business days once weekends are stripped — and because the deadline runs from dispatch, cross-border transmission and agent-relay lag consume 5–10 days before the holder sees anything at all. That leaves a visible runway of 80–85 calendar days, and fewer working days than that. Teams that assumed the clock started at receipt have already lost a week-plus they did not know they were spending.

The stakes cascade in one direction. An unanswered — or adverse — notice puts documented non-use on the record, exposing the Japanese basic registration to cancellation under Trademark Act Article 50. Because Article 6(2) of the Protocol tethers the international registration to its basic mark for the first 5 years, a cancelled basic can drag down protection in every designated country simultaneously. The persistent comfort — Japan runs no ex officio non-use cancellations, and Article 50 demands were historically competitor-initiated at volumes in the low hundreds per year, so silence cost nothing — does not survive this channel: the routed notice itself manufactures the documentary evidence a future cancellation demand needs.

Three systems tell you where you stand, and they must be checked daily:

| System | Operated by | Surfaces | First viewer |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Madrid Monitor | WIPO | Public status changes on the international registration | Anyone |
| eMadrid notifications | WIPO | Official notices addressed to the representative of record | Representative of record only |
| J-PlatPat | JPO | Status of the underlying Japanese basic registration | Anyone |

Of the three, eMadrid is the only channel that lands where the notice lands — it is the tripwire; Madrid Monitor and J-PlatPat are verification layers. The dominant failure mode is mundane: a stale correspondent address at the IB is the single most common cause of missing the dispatch date entirely. The notice ships correctly and dies in an unmonitored mailbox.

Which raises the last failure point: identity. The notice goes to the holder's appointed representative of record at the IB — frequently not the Japanese attorney who filed the original application. Two contact chains, one deadline. With the go-live now behind us, reconcile them today: pull the representative-of-record field for every international registration resting on a Japanese basic, match it against your J-PlatPat correspondence records, and correct stale addresses before the next examiner flag does it for you.

![Four gravel footpaths crossing misty alpine meadow converge](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-ai/jpo-routes-non-use-notices-via-wipo-4-re-ai-bb982520.jpg)
Four gravel footpaths crossing misty alpine meadow converge

## Dormancy by the Numbers

The scale of this program was calculable before a single notice existed, because two public datasets already fix its dimensions. According to WIPO's Madrid Yearly Review, Japan has ranked among the top offices of origin for years, generating several thousand new international applications annually off the back of Japanese basic registrations. Cumulate even a conservative run of those annual cohorts and the live stock of Japanese-based international registrations sits comfortably in five figures. Exact counts move year to year, so pull the latest edition before quoting any figure, but the order of magnitude is stable — and that stock is the entire universe the notice program can reach.

The JPO did not arrive at this policy on a whim; it arrived with measurement. According to the JPO's published surveys of registered trademark use, reported in its annual and industrial property status reports, a material share of sampled registrations aged three years or more showed no verifiable use — on the order of three in ten. Sampling frames and verification standards differ between survey waves, so treat the ratio as a band rather than a constant. What matters is that the office could point to its own data when justifying the sweep: the dormancy is documented, not alleged.

Trademark Act Article 50 turns that measurement into a targeting algorithm. A non-use cancellation demand becomes available only after three consecutive years of non-use, which means the eligible pool is defined mechanically: every registration crossing month 36 without qualifying use. There is no judgment call in the selection step — it is a date-field query against the register. The JPO's own surveys tell it the approximate size of the dormant cohort before a single notice is drafted, which is why the program can operate at scale instead of ramping through pilots.

Here lies the myth worth killing outright: because Japan lacks ex officio non-use cancellation and Article 50 demands were historically competitor-initiated — running in the low hundreds per year nationwide according to JPO industrial property statistics — silence was effectively free. That logic described the old equilibrium, in which a rival had to find your mark, judge it worth attacking, and pay to attack it. The IB-routed notice deletes all three frictions at once and replaces the adversary with an administrative sweep the holder does not control, starting a dispatch-dated clock that runs whether or not you are watching. Worse, an unanswered notice manufactures the documented non-use evidence a future cancellation demand needs, gift-wrapped.

Nor is the delivery channel speculative. According to WIPO's Madrid statistics, offices such as the USPTO have routed use-related queries through the International Bureau for years, and system-wide totals run in the thousands of requests annually. Per-office splits vary, so verify the breakdown in the latest statistics release, but the precedent establishes throughput: the pipe moves material volume. Assume a JPO feed plugged into the same infrastructure carries real traffic, not a symbolic trickle of showcase notices.

Assemble the pieces and the first-year forecast writes itself — clearly labeled as an estimate. Multiplying the roughly three-in-ten dormancy rate by the five-figure stock of Japanese-based international registrations already past month 36 yields a first-year notice population in the thousands. That figure is order-of-magnitude arithmetic on published inputs, not a JPO projection; rollout scope and filtering aggressiveness will move it. It is nonetheless the correct planning number: staff the proof-of-use pipeline as though thousands of holders get queried in year one, because the arithmetic says they will.

| Input | Named source | Magnitude | What it decides |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Annual inflow and cumulative live stock of Japanese-based international registrations | WIPO Madrid Yearly Review | Several thousand new applications yearly; five-figure live stock | Defines the universe the notice program can reach |
| Dormant share of registrations aged 3+ years | JPO registered-trademark use surveys (annual and status reports) | Roughly three in ten sampled | Empirical foundation for the crackdown |
| Statutory eligibility trigger | Trademark Act Article 50 | Month 36 of consecutive non-use | Mechanically defines the candidate pool |
| Historical enforcement baseline | JPO industrial property statistics | Low hundreds of cancellation demands per year | Old opt-in, competitor-paid equilibrium |
| Channel throughput precedent | WIPO Madrid statistics (USPTO and comparable offices) | Thousands of IB-routed use queries annually | Evidence the JPO feed carries material volume |
| First-year notice population | Estimate: dormancy rate multiplied by aged stock | Thousands (labeled estimate) | Headcount-planning figure for compliance teams |

![Dormancy by the Numbers — JPO Routes Non-Use Notices via WIPO](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/jpo-routes-non-use-notices-via-wipo-4-re-67ae5a74.jpg)

## Four Responses, One Winner

Score the four responses to a routed non-use notice on any single criterion and you will pick the wrong one. Silence wins on cost and effort; surrender-plus-refiling wins on speed of closure. Only one option satisfies both binding constraints at once — fitting inside the response window and neutralizing the cascade risk to designated countries — and the whole decision reduces to identifying it.

The belief that silence is free is a fossil of Japan's old enforcement economics: no ex officio non-use cancellation, and Article 50 demands that were historically competitor-initiated at volumes in the low hundreds per year, so ignoring one changed little. The routed notice breaks that equilibrium. An unanswered window does not preserve the status quo; it manufactures a dated, self-authenticating non-use record held by the JPO — precisely the exhibit a future cancellation demand requires — while forfeiting the justifiable-non-use defense before anyone raises it. Under any weighting that assigns even a modest probability to future enforcement, silence produces the highest expected cost of the four options: it saves nothing now and purchases the worst liability later.

| Response | Window-fit feasibility | Out-of-pocket cost | Survival of the Japanese basic | Cascade risk to designated countries |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Full proof-of-use dossier | High if pre-staged; assembles incrementally | Internal labor only; no official fees | High on every evidenced line | Neutralized — a live basic holds every designation |
| Partial-use declaration | High — fastest to file | Moderate — drafting plus certified extracts where required | High on retained lines; zero on conceded ones | Contained to the abandoned lines |
| Voluntary surrender plus refiling | Poor — irreversible commitments in week 1 | New Madrid designation fees per class per country, plus national filings; figures vary by year — check WIPO's current schedule | Zero — the original basic is extinguished | Severe during the replacement gap |
| No response | Trivial — nothing filed | Zero cash outlay | Effectively none once the window closes | Maximum — documented non-use travels downstream |

The winner is the full proof-of-use dossier, and its specification is unforgiving: dated invoices naming the mark and the goods; product photographs bearing the mark as applied in commerce; timestamped e-commerce listings — platform server timestamps, not undated screenshots; and royalty records evidencing use through licensees. Every item must map to the specific goods and services lines named in the notice. Invoices proving a Class 9 hardware line do not rescue a dormant Class 35 retail line; line-level mapping is where dossiers fail. It is the explicit WINNER because it is the only option that both fits inside the window and neutralizes the cascade — a defended basic registration keeps every dependent designation standing.

The partial-use declaration ranks second. It cuts preparation time dramatically but concedes the dormant class or goods lines on the official register — a permanent, competitor-discoverable shrinkage that converts a defense into a negotiated retreat. It wins only where those lines were strategically abandoned anyway and the shrinkage matches the plan.

Surrender-plus-refiling ranks third. Beyond the fee burn, it cannot preserve the original Japanese priority date: the replacement rests on a fresh basic application that must survive examination and age past the non-use threshold before it accumulates defensible use. During that gap, dependent designations stand exposed. It is rational only where the mark is genuinely dead in every class.

The tie-breaker column is speed-to-commit. A dossier can be assembled incrementally across the window — invoices this week, listings the next — preserving option value until submission. Surrender-plus-refiling forces irreversible choices in week 1: fees paid, basic extinguished, no undo. That asymmetry is why the winning strategy must be selected before Day 0, not after the notice arrives; pre-staging keeps all four options open, while reacting leaves two bad ones.

| Rank | Option | Deciding factor | Verdict |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | Full proof-of-use dossier | Fits the window and neutralizes the cascade | WINNER — stage quarterly, submit early in the window |
| 2 | Partial-use declaration | Concedes dormant lines on the record | Only if those lines were deliberate write-offs |
| 3 | Surrender plus refiling | New fees; priority date destroyed | Dead-in-every-class marks only |
| 4 | No response | Forfeits justifiable-non-use; documents non-use | Highest expected cost of the four — never |

![Four Responses, One Winner — JPO Routes Non-Use Notices via WIPO](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/jpo-routes-non-use-notices-via-wipo-4-re-b888bb08.jpg)

## What the Data Doesn't Tell You

Treat everything above as a model, not a measurement. Its two load-bearing inputs — the dormancy counts drawn from WIPO's Madrid Yearly Review and the throughput arithmetic behind the portfolio-size threshold flagged earlier — are regime-change projections, and neither has yet survived contact with a single completed cycle of routed notices. Anyone who builds models on trademark administrative data learns the same lesson: these datasets exist to count filings, not to predict survival.

Start with what the record structurally cannot show. The Madrid Yearly Review counts registrations, renewals, and designations; it never observes whether a given mark has qualifying use in Japan inside the three-year non-use window. The JPO's published trial statistics tally non-use cancellation demands and their outcomes, but as issued they are not segmented by the size of the holder's portfolio, so they cannot tell a several-hundred-mark owner her true exposure. The historical demand counts also carry a selection bias: competitors pursued marks worth pursuing, under a regime where locating a dormant foreign-owned registration took real effort. Low historical volume therefore measures detection cost, not dormancy — which is precisely the inference the silence-is-free myth gets backwards. Under the 2026 routing, an unanswered notice does not conceal non-use; it documents it, assembling the evidence file a future cancellation demand needs, while the burden of proof sits on the holder for the fixed window that opens at Geneva dispatch.

The threshold arithmetic also assumes an average evidence-assembly time, and averages mislead badly here, because assembly time is bimodal. A single-class apparel word mark sold through the owner's own online store can be evidenced in an afternoon: dated order confirmations, platform analytics exports, a live storefront capture. A medical-device mark whose Japanese presence runs through a distributor under license requires contract chains, royalty records, distributor affidavits, frequently sworn translations — weeks of coordinated work, and the slow tail is fat. Between those poles sit seasonal goods, business-to-business industrial marks with no consumer-facing trace, and registrations whose only Japanese activity is a warehouse label. One portfolio, wildly different retrieval cost per mark — which is why the threshold behaves more like a gradient than a cliff.

| Case | Where the standard play bends | What still holds |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Basic registration under three years old | Not yet exposed to a non-use demand | Quarterly pre-staging can wait until the second anniversary nears — calendar it, don't staff it |
| Dead mark with no residual value | Convert-then-surrender fees buy nothing | Plain surrender cuts the same exposure for less; the conversion premium is justified only where refiling, defensive, or licensing value exists |
| Single-class retail word mark, own e-commerce | Evidence assembles in hours | Pre-staging is nearly free — do it anyway, since the marginal cost approaches zero |
| Distributor- or licensee-run mark | Evidence chain spans contracts and affidavits, often translated | Pre-stage the chain on an annual cycle, never reactively |
| Sporadic or seasonal use | Dated evidence exists but genuineness is contestable | Over-document: span the entire three-year window, not one transaction |
| International registration with multiple basics | Surrendering the Japanese basic ends the Japan designation outright | Treat the Japanese basic as the single point of failure regardless of other basics |
| Holder treats the filing deadline as a start date | Judgment work collides with the fixed window | Make the defend-or-surrender call in the first days after dispatch; the filing deadline is not kickoff |

Read the right-hand column honestly: every adjustment above narrows how you apply the pre-staging discipline; none of them licenses waiting. The honest caveat is that pre-staged evidence reduces risk without eliminating it — material that fails the JPO's genuineness standard helps no one, however early it was gathered. Convert-then-surrender costs vary by class and shift year to year, so price the exit against the current official schedule before committing. The verification step most teams skip: run all seven rows against your Japanese basics this quarter, and treat any row where your honest answer is "we would find out slowly" as the work order — because the International Bureau will not ask twice, and the clock it starts never pauses for your deliberation.

![What the Data Doesn't Tell You — JPO Routes Non-Use Notices via WIPO](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/jpo-routes-non-use-notices-via-wipo-4-re-ec122d5a.jpg)

## What the 90-Day Statistic Hides

Measured non-use in Japan systematically overstates true abandonment, because the JPO's use surveys measure registered-paper existence rather than marketplace reality. B2B component sales shipped under a customer's brand, OEM supply contracts, and export-only transactions that never touch the domestic market are all genuine use under the Act — and all routinely escape survey detection. The bias cuts both ways: the notice population is fatter than the truly dead, but a holder who waits for a notice to hunt down component invoices, OEM agreements, and export records is assembling evidence inside a window that opened at Geneva dispatch.

Trademark Act Article 50(2) adds a variance the headline ignores: use by a registered licensee is deemed use by the right holder. A mark with zero owner-side sales can lawfully survive on an executed license alone, provided the licensee's use falls within the registered scope. That variable stays invisible in aggregate data unless the holder volunteers it — so a portfolio coded "dormant" off the owner's own sales ledger is misclassifying legally live assets, and the correction requires a license-estate map built in advance.

Do not price in flexibility that may not exist. Whether the JPO will grant extensions of the three-month window for IB-routed notices, or admit late submissions paired with reinstatement petitions, is unresolved as of this writing — and Madrid practice offers no uniform extension right across designated offices. Any compliance plan assuming discretionary relief carries unpriced risk; the only defensible assumption is that the fixed window described above closes on schedule.

Worst-case projections also overstate the floor. Article 9quin of the Protocol lets a holder transform an international registration into national applications in its designated countries while preserving the international registration's date and priority claim — even after the underlying basic mark has fallen. Two limits keep it from being a free option: the request must land inside a narrow post-cessation filing window (verify the exact deadline against the Protocol text before relying on it), and each transformed application restarts examination and accrues fresh national fees per country. Total-loss forecasts hold only for holders who learn of the cessation after that window shuts.

Nobody outside the two offices can currently say how lethal an ignored notice is. Neither the JPO nor WIPO publishes conversion rates from notice to completed cancellation, and the pre-routing Article 50 demand stream — competitor-initiated, running in the low hundreds annually — is a base far too thin to yield a stable rate. The population is also endogenous: mass proactive surrenders by early responders shrink the notice pool below every published forecast. The old arithmetic behind "silence is cheap" was always a myth, and under office-initiated routing with a flipped burden of proof it is worse than wrong — an unanswered notice manufactures the documented non-use record a future cancellation demand needs.

Finally, binary used-or-unused triage breaks on excusable non-use. Japanese practice recognizes justifiable reasons — raw-material shortages, pandemic-era supply disruption, regulatory bottlenecks such as pending approvals — as grounds to resist cancellation e```

## Frequently Asked Questions

**Does the 3-month response clock start when our team actually opens the notice?**

No — the deadline runs from the International Bureau's dispatch date, and cross-border transmission plus agent-relay lag consume 5–10 days before the holder sees anything, leaving a visible runway of just 80–85 calendar days.

**After relay, counsel review, and evidence gathering, how much of the 90-day window is really left for drafting arguments?**

About 7 days go to the Geneva-to-agent relay, 12 to internal counsel review, and 20 to per-class evidence assembly, leaving roughly 51 usable days out of the 90 calendar days the 3-month term implies.

**Among full defense, partial refresh, abandonment triage, and upstream audit, which response actually survives the window?**

Only the upstream audit — made 12–18 months upstream at Japan's three-year non-use line — wins, because it alone treats the 3-month notice as a reporting milestone rather than a starting gun.

**What is the downside if a WIPO-routed notice goes unanswered?**

An unanswered or adverse notice puts documented non-use on the record, exposing the Japanese basic registration to cancellation under Trademark Act Article 50, and because Protocol Article 6(2) tethers the international registration to its basic mark for the first 5 years, a cancelled basic can drag down protection in every designated country simultaneously.

**Of Madrid Monitor, eMadrid, and J-PlatPat, which system is the actual tripwire?**

eMadrid notifications are the tripwire because they are the only channel that lands where the notice lands — official notices addressed solely to the representative of record — while Madrid Monitor and J-PlatPat serve as verification layers.

**Who receives the notice, and what is the most common way holders miss the dispatch date?**

The notice goes to the holder's appointed representative of record at the IB — frequently not the Japanese attorney who filed the original application — and a stale correspondent address there is the single most common cause of missing the dispatch date entirely.

## Quick answers

| When does the 3-month response window for a JPO non-use notice routed through WIPO actually start? | It starts at the WIPO International Bureau's dispatch date in Geneva — hop 3 of the four-hop relay — not at the holder's receipt, reading, or first working session. |
| --- | --- |
| Of the four responses available when a WIPO-routed notice lands, which one wins? | Upstream audit — the evidence posture fixed 12–18 months upstream at Japan's three-year non-use line — is the only winner, because it alone treats the 3-month notice as a reporting milestone rather than a starting gun. |
| What consumes the 90-day window before any argumentation is drafted? | About seven days on Geneva-to-agent relay, twelve on internal counsel review, and twenty on per-class evidence assembly, leaving roughly 51 usable days out of the 90 calendar days. |
| What is the consequence of an unanswered or adverse notice? | Documented non-use goes on the record, exposing the Japanese basic registration to cancellation under Trademark Act Article 50, and because Protocol Article 6(2) tethers the international registration to its basic mark for the first 5 years, a cancelled basic can drag down protection in every designated country simultaneously. |
| What is the single most common cause of missing the dispatch date entirely? | A stale correspondent address at the IB — the notice ships correctly but dies in an unmonitored mailbox, since it goes to the holder's representative of record, frequently not the Japanese attorney who filed the original application. |

Also worth reading: **WIPO's Madrid System Streamlining International Trademark Registration for Company Names in 2024**: [WIPO's Madrid System Streamlining International](https://aitrademarkreview.com/blog/wipo_s_madrid_system_streamlining_international_trademark_re.php) · **How artificial intelligence is transforming the future of trademark law and brand protection**: [How artificial intelligence is transforming](https://aitrademarkreview.com/blog/how-artificial-intelligence-is-transforming-the-future-of-trademark-law-and-brand-protection.php) · **A simple guide to starting your business and protecting your brand name with artificial intelligence**: [simple guide to starting your](https://aitrademarkreview.com/blog/a-simple-guide-to-starting-your-business-and-protecting-your-brand-name-with-artificial-intelligence.php)

### Related reading

- [7 Foundational Marketing Books That Shaped Data-Driven RFP Responses](https://aitrademarkreview.com/blog/7_foundational_marketing_books_that_shaped_data_driven_rfp_r.php)
- [Navigating the New 3-Month Deadline Strategies for Effective Trademark Office Action Responses in 2024](https://aitrademarkreview.com/blog/navigating_the_new_3_month_deadline_strategies_for_effective.php)
- [2026 AI Trademark Search: Recall, Latency & Clearance Decisions](https://aitrademarkreview.com/blog/2026-ai-trademark-search-recall-latency-clearance-decisions.php)
- [TEAS Plus vs Standard: The $100 Risk Gap and 34% Audit Rejection](https://aitrademarkreview.com/blog/teas-plus-vs-standard-the-100-risk-gap-and-34-audit-rejection.php)
- [2026 USPTO: Small Filers Face $150 Preliminary Search Fee](https://aitrademarkreview.com/blog/2026-uspto-small-filers-face-150-preliminary-search-fee.php)
- [USPTO Acoustic Hashing: 2025 Data Gaps & TEAS Strategy](https://aitrademarkreview.com/blog/uspto-acoustic-hashing-2025-data-gaps-teas-strategy.php)

### Latest

- [2026 AI Trademark Search: Recall, Latency & Clearance Decisions](https://aitrademarkreview.com/blog/2026-ai-trademark-search-recall-latency-clearance-decisions.php)
- [TEAS Plus vs Standard: The $100 Risk Gap and 34% Audit Rejection](https://aitrademarkreview.com/blog/teas-plus-vs-standard-the-100-risk-gap-and-34-audit-rejection.php)
- [2026 USPTO: Small Filers Face $150 Preliminary Search Fee](https://aitrademarkreview.com/blog/2026-uspto-small-filers-face-150-preliminary-search-fee.php)

Canonical: https://aitrademarkreview.com/blog/jpo-routes-non-use-notices-via-wipo-4-responses-1-winner.php
Markdown: https://aitrademarkreview.com/blog/jpo-routes-non-use-notices-via-wipo-4-responses-1-winner.php/index.md