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 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
August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In
Read More
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More
July 27, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ intellectual property specialists have authored the Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 from Chambers and Partners. This global guide examines the legal frameworks governing trade secret protection, enforcement, and litigation across jurisdictions worldwide. The Thailand chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the country’s legal regime for protecting confidential business information, covering the legal framework, trade secret misappropriation, litigation procedures, remedies, and dispute resolution. Some topics covered include: Protectable trade secrets Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy Employee confidentiality Trade secret licensing Civil and criminal remedies Litigation procedures and injunctions Damages and other remedies Mediation and arbitration The guide also examines practical issues relating to safeguarding trade secrets, defending against allegations of misappropriation, and managing trade secret disputes in Thailand. Chambers and Partners’ Global Practice Guides provide in-house counsel with authoritative commentary on practical legal issues affecting business, enabling readers to compare legislation and procedures across multiple jurisdictions. The Thailand chapter of Trade Secrets 2026 is available as a PDF through the button below. The full guide can be accessed for free on the Chambers and Partners website.
Read More