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

September 15, 2017

The Madrid Protocol: A Big Leap in International Trademark Cooperation

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

On November 7 this year, Thailand will officially become the 99th member of the Madrid Protocol, a centralized system for trademark owners to protect marks in multiple jurisdictions, using only one international application, and subsequently to manage that protection in a single step.

An international application filed under the Madrid system can protect a trademark in up to 114 territories, of the other 98 members, in one shot. The system also lets mark owners from other member territories register their marks in Thailand through an international application filed in their own jurisdiction. If you are a trademark owner, understanding how the system works is key to reaping the full benefit.

Let’s say that, as a Thai trademark owner, you wish to protect your mark in Thailand, plus the United States, Japan, and South Korea. Before the Madrid Protocol, you would have needed to file four separate applications in four countries, prepared in four different languages, with application fees in four currencies.

Under the Madrid system, however, you can designate other Madrid system members in an international application. Therefore, you could file a local application with the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) in Bangkok, and at the same time file an international application designating the US, Japan and South Korea, using the local application as the basic application, and simply wait for the result.

If you already have a local registration, you can use the local registration as the basic registration for filing your international application. The DIP will certify the international application and send it to the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) for examination and approval for international registration. Once international registration is granted, WIPO will notify the designated countries, and each country will further examine it for registration in its jurisdiction.

It should be noted that an international registration does not automatically gain protection in all other jurisdictions. The list of member countries that you can designate on applications is available on the WIPO website (www.wipo.int).

As you can see, you would now only need to file one international application, in one language, at one place, and pay fees in one currency, in order to extend protection over your mark to other jurisdictions.

In addition, the Madrid system sets time limits for provisional refusal in each designated country, so your mark gains automatic protection if the designated country does not provide notice of the provisional refusal within the time specified.

For instance, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has to issue a provisional refusal within 18 months of receiving notification of the international registration from WIPO. If it fails to meet the deadline, the mark will be protected as if it had been successfully registered with the USPTO. Each member country can choose a provisional refusal deadline of 12 or 18 months. Thailand has set its limit at 18 months.

Nevertheless, if an office of a designated country issues a provisional refusal against your international registration within the limit, you will need to deal directly with that office. This may require the assistance of a local representative who is familiar with trademark practice in that country.

An international registration is valid for 10 years from the international application filing date. Within the first five years, the validity depends on the status of the basic mark. If the basic mark becomes void for any reason within these five years, the international registration will be cancelled. This type of incident is called a “central attack.”

Despite some minor limitations, the Madrid system is still a recommended tool for trademark owners who wish to seek protection in several jurisdictions.

If you wish to use the system, it is highly recommended that you plan ahead, and plan well, especially if you are going to use your local application as the basic application. Although the new system makes things much smoother for prospective international trademark holders, failing to properly prepare may prevent you from getting the full benefit from the Madrid system and may ultimately lead to additional costs.

For those who do not require international protection, the national trademark protection regime is unchanged. If you have a change of mind later on, however, a pending local application for the mark (or a successful registration of it) can be used for an international application.

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