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​ 

July 25, 2025
Over the first half of 2025, the government of Vietnam has implemented a comprehensive suite of legislative reforms that significantly impact the country’s intellectual property (IP) framework. These amendments, most of which took effect on 1 July 2025, span the criminal, civil, administrative, and judicial sectors, and are part of a broader initiative to modernize Vietnam’s legal infrastructure, strengthen enforcement mechanisms, and harmonize domestic regulations with international standards. A summary of the key legislative changes and their potential implications for IP protection and enforcement across Vietnam is provided below. Criminal Code: Stricter penalties Under the 2025 amendments to Vietnam’s Criminal Code, penalties for offenses involving the manufacturing and trading of counterfeit goods have been significantly escalated. Individuals convicted of such violations now face fines ranging from VND 200 million to VND 2 billion (approximately USD 7,700 to USD 77,000; up from VND 100 million to VND 1 billion). For corporate entities, the penalties are even more severe, with fines ranging from VND 2 billion to VND 40 billion (roughly USD 77,000 to USD 1.54 million; up from VND 1 billion to VND 20 billion). These heightened penalties reflect the government’s intensified efforts to deter counterfeit-related crimes and protect consumer rights. Law on Handling Administrative Violations: Extended statute of limitations and application of electronic procedure The statute of limitations for addressing administrative violations in the IP sector is still two years. However, in cases where such violations are referred by procedural authorities, this period is extended by one year. The time taken by these authorities to process the case is now included within the overall limitation period. In addition, the Law on Handling Administrative Violations facilitates the use of electronic procedures, provided that the necessary infrastructure, technical systems, and information conditions are in place. Specifically, enforcement authorities are now permitted
Read More
July 21, 2025
Distinctiveness is a fundamental requirement for a trademark’s registration and protection under Thai law. The Thai courts typically assess distinctiveness based on a mark’s inherent characteristics rather than its use, as proving acquired distinctiveness through use requires substantial evidence, including the duration of use, extent of distribution and promotional efforts. However, the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP & IT Court) has recently ruled that the figurative mark WEPLAY had acquired distinctiveness through use – an uncommon ruling under Thai trademark law. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal for Specialised Cases affirmed the mark’s inherent distinctiveness based on a holistic assessment of its components. This article discusses the criteria for proving both inherent and acquired distinctiveness, offering examples from both courts to provide valuable insights into case preparation and understanding of how the courts assess distinctiveness. Background In 2017 the plaintiff filed a trademark application for the mark depicted below for goods in Class 28, including toy building blocks: The registrar rejected the application on the grounds of non-distinctiveness under Section 7 of the Trademark Act. The plaintiff appealed to the Board of Trademarks, which considered that, when the term ‘weplay’ is used for goods in Class 28, it is descriptive of the nature of the goods applied for as “playthings”. Therefore, ‘weplay’ was deemed nondistinctive under Section 7, Paragraph 2(2) of the Trademark Act. IP & IT Court decision In 2024 the IP & IT Court ruled that the term ‘weplay’ is not a coined or invented word; instead, it is a combination of ‘we’ and ‘play’, conveying the meaning of ‘we play’. When the term is used for goods in Class 28, it describes the nature of the goods as “playthings”. Consequently, the mark was deemed non-distinctive. However, the court considered the evidence presented by the plaintiff,
Read More
July 14, 2025
Life sciences specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins have updated the firm’s guide to pharmaceutical data exclusivity regulations and practices in Southeast Asia. This guide contains quick-reference information on the availability of data exclusivity protections and limitations in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. Developing and launching a new drug on a commercial scale requires an enormous amount of time and investment in research and development (R&D), including pre-clinical testing and clinical trials. When considering the aggregate amount of drug development costs, it is important to recognize that this includes not only the investment in developing new drugs that get approved by a government food and drug regulator and are successfully brought to market, but also the R&D expenditures on a large number of potential pharmaceutical compounds and products that never actually make it to market. In particular, considerable investment is required in order to conduct and produce clinical trial data—to prove safety, efficacy and effectiveness of a new drug—that would warrant marketing approval by the regulatory authority. Such data is proprietary in nature and highly valuable for a research-based pharmaceutical company that develops an original drug. On the other hand, patent law typically confers generic drug manufacturers with the ability to engage in various preparatory activities with a view to obtaining marketing approval for a generic product before the patent for the original drug expires (commonly known as a “Bolar provision”). Since a generic drug maker may submit an application for marketing approval of a generic product before the relevant patent expires, the extent to which the drug originator’s data submitted to the regulatory authority is protected—or in other words, the extent to which the generic company may rely on the drug originator’s previously filed data, which underpins the safety and efficacy of the drug, to support
Read More
June 30, 2025
Vietnam is making notable strides in decentralization, aiming to grant greater autonomy to local government entities to streamline administrative procedures. As part of this effort, the government issued Decree No. 133/2025/ND-CP on decentralization of state management of the Ministry of Science and Technology dated June 12, 2025 (Decree 133). Effective from July 1, 2025, Decree 133 decentralizes and delegates numerous state management functions—including in intellectual property (IP) and technology transfer—to provincial-level People’s Committees (PCs). This reform signals a profound shift in how IP rights are administered and enforced across Vietnam. While this offers new opportunities for IP owners, agents, and innovators, it also introduces additional operational complexities. Impact on IP and Technology Transfer Decree 133 significantly reallocates responsibilities in IP and technology transfer, primarily to provincial-level PCs. Provincial PCs and other provincial authorities are now empowered to handle a wide range of tasks, including but not limited to the following: Issuance of duplicates and reissuance of certificates of registration. Registration of license agreements for the transfer of usage rights for industrial property objects (e.g., trademarks, patents) and recording amendments, extensions, or early terminations of such agreements. Enforcing decisions on compulsory licensing of patent use rights. Evaluation and approval of technology transfer contracts—a key step in facilitating localized technological advancements. Permitting the establishment of foreign-invested scientific organizations and their branches, to encourage foreign direct investment in local R&D and technology development. Approval of provincial-level R&D tasks, aligning with local socio-economic development priorities. Legal Implications The decentralization and delegation brought forth by Decree 133 carry several significant legal implications: Echoing Decree 133, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam issued Notification No. 2351/TB-SHTT on June 26, 2025, announcing the cessation of 19 administrative procedures at the national level. Specifically, from July 1, 2025, the IP Office will no longer accept requests related
Read More