You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

August 5, 2016

Thailand Prepares for the Madrid Protocol

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

As part of the ASEAN Economic Community’s Harmonization Plan, ASEAN member states collectively agreed to accede to the Protocol on the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks (Madrid Protocol), an existing system for the registration of trademarks.

The Madrid Protocol is administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It provides a cost-effective and efficient means for trademark owners to obtain protection for their marks in multiple countries through filing one application, called an “international application,” at a single trademark office, in one language, and with one set of fees.

The Madrid Protocol eliminates the high filing costs normally associated with filing separate national applications in each jurisdiction in which protection is sought. Renewals and recordals of changes of the proprietor’s name or address can all be done centrally at WIPO.

Thailand’s Trademark Act was recently amended to allow the country to accede to the Madrid Protocol, and the amended Act entered into force on July 28, 2016. The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) is in the process of drafting Ministerial Regulations that will allow Thailand to become a member of the Madrid Protocol, and it is preparing a new team of Trademark Registrars who will be responsible for taking charge of filing international applications at WIPO and examining international registrations from WIPO that designate Thailand.

According to the Madrid Protocol and WIPO, an international application will proceed through the following three main stages.

Stage 1: Application through the Office of Origin or DIP

For a Thai applicant, a pending Thai trademark application or registration is a prerequisite for filing an international application under the Madrid Protocol. After the international application based on the Thai application/registration is submitted, the DIP certifies the information in the international application, such as the mark, goods or services, and so on. The DIP then forwards the application to WIPO.

The applicant may extend their protection by requesting to designate jurisdictions that are part of the Madrid Protocol in the international application or subsequently after receiving the international registration.

Stage 2: Formal Examination by WIPO

WIPO conducts a formal examination to check whether the application complies with the requirements of the Madrid Protocol. If there are any irregularities, the applicant will be notified. The irregularities need to be remedied within three months; otherwise, the application will be treated as abandoned, the application process will end, and the trademark will not be registered. In this situation, the filing fees will not be refunded.

If everything is in order, the application is recorded in the International Register, and it is published in the WIPO Gazette of International Marks. WIPO will then send the applicant a certificate of international registration and notify the other trademark offices in the jurisdictions where the applicant has chosen to extend the protection of the mark. This does not mean the trademark has been registered in the designated jurisdictions. Each respective trademark office determines whether the mark can be registered in its country, usually through substantive examination of the application and publication to allow third parties to oppose the application.

Stage 3: Substantive Examination by the Trademark Offices of Designated Jurisdictions

The application passes through substantive examination at the trademark offices of the jurisdictions that the applicant designated, in the same way as an application filed directly in each country. Refusal of the application, together with a statement of all grounds, must be notified to WIPO within a certain time limit—12 or 18 months, depending on the jurisdiction.

If there are any procedures after the refusal, such as a response to an opposition, an appeal, or a hearing, they will be handled between trademark offices and the applicant directly. WIPO will not get involved in these procedures. On the other hand, theoretically, if the application is accepted, a statement that protection of the mark has been granted will be sent to WIPO, which will later be published in the Gazette. The international registration is valid for a period of ten years, with the possibility of renewal.

However, if the international registration is based on a Thai application that has not been granted registration, or if it is based on a Thai registration that is cancelled in the first five years after registration, the rights granted under the international registration will be extinguished—a process called a “central attack.” If this occurs, the international registration will be cancelled. It is possible to transform an international registration into national applications in each designated country, but these transformations may face reexamination by each designated jurisdiction’s trademark office.

There are other hurdles in using this system as well. For example, the Madrid Protocol does not allow applicants to reclassify goods or services in a designated country once the application is accepted by WIPO. In some countries, such as the United States and the Philippines, the applicant would need to file a Declaration of Use and Evidence of Use within a certain period of time—otherwise the registration would be invalid, which is different from Thai practice.

As there are a number of challenges in using this system, before filing an application through the Madrid Protocol, trademark owners should consult an intellectual property lawyer to review the applications and conduct any precautionary measures to fully utilize the system. Thai IP lawyers who have experience filing trademark applications in foreign countries understand the nuances of filing applications in designated foreign countries. Consulting an experienced IP lawyer will help identify any potential risks in filing a Madrid Protocol application and avoid unnecessary expenses.

Despite its challenges, the Madrid Protocol is a good alternative trademark system for businesses of all sizes to protect their trademarks in foreign markets through a centralized, cost-effective means. It also promotes foreign investment, as it gives businesses confidence that their valuable trademarks will be protected. This will, in turn, enhance competitiveness in ASEAN and international markets.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 13, 2026
Modern agricultural machinery is no longer purely mechanical but instead technology dependent. Modern tractors, harvesters, and other farm equipment increasingly incorporate embedded software, electronic control units, sensors, and digital diagnostic systems. While such technologies enhance efficiency, productivity, and precision farming, they also affect the manner of equipment repair and maintenance. As a result, farmers and independent repair providers may have little practical choice but to rely on authorized dealers, even for routine maintenance and repairs. Section 36 of Thailand’s Patent Act reflects the principle that the authorized sale of a patented invention usually exhausts the exclusive right of the patent owner over the specific product. This means that upon legal sale of the patented product, it can typically be used or resold without further authorization from the patent holder. This principle is relatively straightforward when applied to traditional mechanical equipment. Ownership of a machine ordinarily carries with it the practical ability to diagnose faults, replace worn parts, and restore the equipment to working order. Modern agricultural machinery, however, increasingly depends on embedded software, proprietary diagnostic systems, firmware updates, and other digital resources that may remain under the control of the manufacturer or patent holder. This tension lies within the “right to repair” debate. In the United States, on July 8, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and five states announced a settlement with Deere & Company resolving allegations that Deere had unlawfully restricted farmers’ and independent repair providers’ ability to repair their equipment. Under the terms of the settlement, for the next ten years, Deere must provide repair resources, including software capabilities, on terms equivalent to those provided to authorized dealers. The Deere settlement highlights that the nature of ownership is changing, but legal concepts have not kept pace. Traditional patent-law concepts, including patent exhaustion, were developed with physical products
Read More
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
Read More
August 6, 2026
Introduction: A Trademark Paradox in Sustainable Packaging Walk into any Thai supermarket, and the label-free water bottle is no longer a novelty. Thailand’s packaging market, valued at approximately USD 15.68 billion in 2025, is shifting toward minimalist, plastic-light designs as ESG pressures reshape how brands present their products. The country generated roughly 5.68 million tons of plastic waste in 2021, with a recycling rate of only 19 percent, and regulators are now considering rules that would allow label-free bottled water relying on embossing, laser printing, or QR codes instead of wrap-around labels. As packaging itself becomes the brand identifier, a paradox emerges: designs built to say the least often struggle hardest for protection under Thai intellectual property law. The Trademark Barrier: When Shape Is Not Enough Section 7, paragraph 2(10) of the Thai Trademark Act deems a shape distinctive only if it is not the natural form of the goods, is not necessary to achieve a technical result, and does not add value to the goods. The Department of Intellectual Property’s 2022 examination guidelines apply this test conservatively, as the following examples illustrate. A plain water bottle relying on subtle contours to signal its brand is typically read as just another bottle, not a source identifier. Acquired distinctiveness offers a theoretical escape route, but it demands extensive evidence of sales, advertising, and consumer recognition—an especially heavy burden for new entrants whose minimalist packaging has not yet achieved market prominence. The result is a structural bias against precisely the design innovation that sustainability goals are meant to encourage. Design Patents: A Partial, Imperfect Substitute Design patent protection, covering a product’s shape, configuration, or ornamentation, appears to offer an alternative route. In practice, it is constrained by the same forces driving the minimalist trend. Because many brands converge on similar solutions—clear
Read More