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 21, 2025
Although the “passing off” principle has sometimes faced criticism for potentially broadening trademark protection—particularly in cases involving unregistered or unconventional marks like shapes, scents, or sounds—it serves an essential purpose. It safeguards the rights of business owners and shields consumers from deception, ensuring fair competition and reflecting the realities of modern commerce. What is passing off, and why is registrability not required? The passing-off principle is a legal concept rooted in English law, aimed at preventing a person from falsely representing or using a mark similar to another’s in a way that causes consumers to mistakenly believe the goods or services come from the same source. Under Thai law, the passing-off principle is provided under Section 46 of the Thai Trademark Act, which states: No person shall be entitled to bring legal proceedings to prevent or to recover damages for the infringement of an unregistered trademark. The provisions of this Section shall not affect the right of the owner of an unregistered trademark to bring legal proceedings against any person for passing off goods as those of the owner of the trademark. The passing-off principle can be interpreted as a practical legal concept. It does not require proof that the mark is registrable or meets the registrability criteria under trademark law. It is sufficient to show that the mark has established goodwill and that the other party’s use of a similar mark is likely to confuse consumers, making it a straightforward and effective tool for protecting brand assets. Requiring a claimant to prove that an unregistered mark could have been registered would undermine the very function of passing off. The doctrine was conceived precisely to fill the gaps left by the registration system. Imposing registrability criteria would nullify its function and leave many commercially valuable identifiers unprotected. If the
Read More
August 15, 2025
Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) has introduced a temporary feature in its online filing system to accommodate the submission of annual patent working statements. The requirement to submit these annual working statements was introduced under the amended Patent Law enacted on October 28, 2024, but the implementing regulation has still not been issued. Annual Working Statements Article 20A of the amended Patent Law requires all patentees to submit an annual statement regarding the implementation of their patents in Indonesia. This obligation applies to all active patents, regardless of when they were granted. The annual working statement declares the status of implementation of the patented invention within Indonesia. Acceptable forms of implementation include: Manufacturing the patented product (whether commercialized or not) Utilizing the patented process (whether commercialized or not) Importation Licensing If the patent has not yet been implemented in Indonesia, the DGIP provides an option to indicate: “The mentioned registered patent has not been implemented in Indonesia.” The statement must be made using the official template provided by the DGIP through the online filing system. Submission The working statement must be submitted annually no later than December 31 of each calendar year. No supporting documents are needed for the submission apart from the signed form itself. A color scanned copy will suffice; the original document is not required. There is currently no official fee for submitting the working statement. While the submission process may eventually align with annuity fee payments, the current process remains separate due to the pending implementing regulation. The submission process may be subject to change upon issuance of the implementing regulation, which is under discussion and expected in the coming months. In the interim, the DGIP accepts submissions of overdue working statements, allowing patentees to fulfill their obligations retroactively. This flexibility is expected
Read More
July 31, 2025
The Madrid System for international trademark registration provides the opportunity for a simplified and cost-effective way to register trademarks in multiple countries through a single application. Indonesia joined the Madrid System in 2018, and in 2024 alone, it received over 8,600 applications through this system. Despite the system’s effectiveness, it is important for trademark owners to be aware of the potential risks of refusal that can arise during the process of registration. Trademark applicants must pay close attention to these critical points when designating Indonesia. Appointing a Local Representative to Respond An applicant or representative of an international registration (IR) application that has been provisionally refused must appoint a local Indonesian representative in order to submit a response to the provisional refusal. This appointment is solely for the purpose of responding to the refusal in Indonesia; it is not necessary if the IR has not received any rejection. Furthermore, the local representative should not be registered with WIPO, as doing so would affect representation across all designated countries. Timing When it comes to calculating the deadline for responding to a provisional refusal, there is a discrepancy between the methods used by the DGIP and WIPO. Under the Indonesian Trademark Law, trademark owners can file a response within 30 working days, excluding weekends and national holidays. However, the WIPO cover letter accompanying the DGIP’s provisional refusal notice specifies both the start date and the deadline for responding to the notification, which is calculated as 30 calendar days, including weekends and national holidays. Therefore, a response to the provisional refusal of IR should be submitted in accordance with the WIPO cover letter to prevent any formality issue. Grounds for Refusal After an IR application is published in Indonesia’s Trademark Gazette, it undergoes substantive examination by the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) examiners. The
Read More
July 30, 2025
Artificial intelligence (AI) model training and data scraping are essential processes in the development of modern AI systems. AI model training involves using large datasets to teach machine learning algorithms to recognize patterns, make predictions, or generate new content. Data scraping refers to the automated extraction of information from websites or digital sources, often to assemble the vast datasets required for effective AI training. As these practices become more widespread, questions about the legality of using third-party content—especially copyrighted works—have become increasingly important. In Thailand, the legal landscape for AI developers is shaped primarily by the Copyright Act, which presents unique challenges due to the absence of a fair-use exception. This article examines the copyright-related risks and legal uncertainties facing AI developers under Thailand’s current copyright law and practices, offering strategic guidance for navigating this complex environment. Copyright Risks in AI Scraping and Training Thailand’s Copyright Act does not provide a broad fair use or fair dealing exception, unlike some other jurisdictions, such as the United States. This absence has significant consequences for AI developers: No general defense for AI training: Any use of copyrighted material for AI model training is presumed to be infringing unless a specific, narrow statutory exception applies or explicit permission is obtained from the rights holder. There is no general legal basis for using copyrighted works in AI training without authorization. Increased rights clearance burden: Developers must identify and secure licenses for every copyrighted work included in their training datasets. Given the scale and diversity of data required for effective AI models, this process can be both impractical and costly. Legal ambiguity and litigation risk: The lack of clear statutory guidance or case law leaves developers in a legal gray area. There is no established precedent clarifying whether certain uses of copyrighted material for
Read More