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​ 

July 27, 2026
In March 2025, Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) issued a landmark judgment in favor of Luckin Coffee, China’s leading retail coffee chain. The judgment marked a significant turnaround following earlier trademark litigation involving Luckin Coffee from 2021 to 2023 that had generated widespread public attention and raised questions about the protection available to legitimate foreign brand owners in Thailand. In a significant subsequent development, Thailand’s Court of Appeal for Specialized Cases has now affirmed the IP&IT Court’s judgment in its entirety. The appellate decision brings clarity to one of Thailand’s most closely watched trademark disputes. Significantly, this is the first case in Thailand to formally recognize the trademark squatting principle. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Luckin Coffee has a better right to the disputed mark and ordered cancellation of the defendants’ trademark registration—a key application of the “better right” doctrine. The court also upheld the substantial damages awarded at first instance, providing important guidance on assessing harm from systematic trademark squatting. Award-Winning Judgment Affirmed in Its Entirety The significance of the first-instance judgment extended beyond the outcome for Luckin Coffee. The IP&IT Court judgment was subsequently recognized in the IP&IT Court’s Distinguished Judgment Awards in 2025, reflecting the complexity, novelty, and legal significance of the issues considered in the case. The defendants nevertheless appealed the judgment, challenging several key aspects of the IP&IT Court’s decision. Luckin Coffee continued to entrust Tilleke & Gibbins as their sole attorney to pursue the case at the appellate level. After considering the defendants’ appeal and Luckin Coffee’s submissions in response, the Court of Appeal affirmed the first-instance judgment in its entirety. The judgment was announced on July 8, 2026. Better Right to the Marks The Court of Appeal confirmed Luckin Coffee’s superior rights. The orders include cancellation
Read More
July 24, 2026
As food innovation continues to accelerate, manufacturers are increasingly introducing ingredients derived from new sources, produced using novel technologies, or lacking a significant history of human consumption. While these innovations create new opportunities for the food industry, they also raise important questions regarding consumer safety. For this reason, many jurisdictions, including Thailand, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore, require a premarket safety assessment for novel food ingredients before they can be placed on the market. The objective of this assessment is to ensure that each ingredient is safe for its intended use and level of consumption, does not present toxicological, allergenic, microbiological, or nutritional concerns, and will not mislead consumers. Scientific authorities typically evaluate the ingredient’s identity, manufacturing process, composition, specifications, anticipated dietary exposure, toxicological information, nutritional impact, and history of use before determining whether it can be marketed. Against this background, the Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently took an important step toward improving regulatory transparency by publishing, for the first time, a consolidated public list of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process, including substances determined to be novel foods and those determined not to fall within the novel food category. The list identifies the approved substances, the corresponding manufacturers or importers, approval dates, and the approved conditions of use. Although the publication does not change the existing legal framework governing novel food approvals, it provides businesses with greater visibility into the Thai FDA’s regulatory precedents and the types of substances that have previously been accepted through the safety assessment process. The full announcement is available on the Thai FDA’s website. As the list is now publicly available, it also provides useful insight into the types of substances that have successfully completed the Thai FDA’s safety assessment process.
Read More
July 24, 2026
Indonesia has updated its fee framework for intellectual property (IP)-related government services, with implications for IP owners, licensees, lenders, digital platforms, and businesses operating in the country. Government Regulation No. 30 of 2026 on Types and Tariffs of Non-Tax State Revenue Applicable to the Ministry of Law (GR 30/2026) was promulgated on July 2, 2026, and will take effect on August 1, 2026. Key Takeaways GR 30/2026, which replaces the relevant IP service fees under Government Regulation No. 45 of 2024, reorganizes the fee schedule into separate categories for copyright, industrial designs, patents, layout designs of integrated circuits, trade secrets, trademarks, geographical indications, IP enforcement, and other categories. The most commercially relevant changes include a new copyright recordation tariff exemption for songs and music, higher fees for several trademark and geographical indication services, new IP enforcement service fees, and a new fee type for registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects. In addition, this is the first major update for trademark fees in approximately 10 years. GR 30/2026 is significant not only as a fee update but also as a further indication of Indonesia’s increasing recognition of IP as a financeable commercial asset. By expressly assigning fees to the registration of fiduciary security over IP rights objects, the regulation places IP-backed collateral filings within the Ministry of Law’s administrative service framework. While GR 30/2026 does not create a new secured-transactions regime, this development is relevant for lenders, borrowers, and IP owners structuring financing arrangements secured by trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs, or other registrable IP rights in Indonesia. Copyright: New Fee Exemption for Songs and Music Recordation For copyright, GR 30/2026 creates a fee-exempt category for recordation of works or related-rights products for songs or music, while maintaining a separate category for other works and related-rights products. It
Read More
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More