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​ 

June 24, 2026
Patent enablement requirements are provided under Article 102 of Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law). In particular, a patent specification must “fully and clearly disclose the nature of the invention to such an extent that, based on the specification, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement the invention.” In pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents, this requirement is more complicated and subject to more rigorous assessment. The Patent Examination Guidelines (Guidelines) of the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) were amended in March 2026 to introduce Annexes III and IV for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, in which Annex III provides detailed guidelines on the assessment of specification requirements. These amendments were made under a project for strengthening capacity in industrial property examination between the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the IP Office. Annex III provides detailed instructions on how examiners assess enablement in a pharmaceutical or biotechnology application, and offers examples of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions with regard to the enablement aspect. Enablement Requirements in Pharma and Biotech Patents Article 12.7 of Circular 10/2026/TT-BKHCN (Circular 10) adds to the requirements of Article 102 of the IP Law that the description must demonstrate the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability of the technical solution. For pharmaceutical composition subject matters, Article 12.9 of Circular 10 sets out that the description must present the results of clinical trials and/or the pharmacological effects of the claimed pharmaceutical composition, and must include at least the following information: Substance/mixture used. Testing method (system) employed. Information on the test results. Correlation between the pharmacological effects obtained from the tests and the application of the pharmaceutical product in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. The Guidelines note that pharmacological study results should be presented in a quantified manner, and pharmacological
Read More
June 16, 2026
Since the implementation of the Trademark Law 2019 on April 1, 2023, Myanmar has operated under a modern first-to-file trademark system that brings its registration framework closer to international practice. As the new regime continues to develop in practice, applicants are increasingly required to navigate formal examination requirements, substantive objections, and procedural deadlines with greater precision. This article provides a high-level review of the trademark examination process in Myanmar, focusing on the principal stages from initial review to approval, the types of objections commonly raised by the Intellectual Property Department (IPD), and the key considerations for responding effectively. A clear understanding of these issues is essential for applicants seeking to secure registration efficiently and to mitigate avoidable delays or refusals. Examination Process: Key Stages Trademark applications filed with the IPD undergo two stages of review. Formality Examination The IPD first verifies compliance with procedural requirements, including: Correct Nice Classification Clear mark representation Accurate applicant details Clearly defined goods or services Representative details, if the application is filed by a representative Other formality requirements cover translation and transliteration of any non-English or non-Myanmar elements in the mark, color claim details, applicable disclaimers, and payment of official fees. Deficiencies result in an office action requiring correction within 30 days, which may be extended upon request. Registrability Examination The IPD also assesses registrability. A mark may be refused if it: Lacks distinctiveness Is descriptive or generic Misleads the public or violates public order/morality Contains prohibited state symbols Only compliant applications proceed to publication. Responding to Office Actions Applicants must respond within 30 days of notification from the IPD. Depending on the nature of the objection, strategies may include submitting legal arguments for distinctiveness, providing evidence of acquired distinctiveness, filing appropriate disclaimers, clarifying descriptions such as color claims, or amending the listed goods
Read More
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
Read More
June 10, 2026
In March 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam (IP Office) issued a decision refusing a trademark application after considering an opposition based primarily on copyright grounds. The outcome is noteworthy because the foreign brand owner had neither trademark registrations nor applications in Vietnam at the time the opposition was filed, and the IP Office has historically applied a stringent approach to oppositions relying on copyright. The Opposition Maurten is a well-known Swedish sports nutrition brand recognized globally for its innovative hydrogel technology, which is designed to help endurance athletes fuel more effectively without gastrointestinal discomfort. The brand’s distinctive logo is characterized by clean lines and a bold black-and-white color scheme, and has long been associated with the company’s performance products. The brand’s logo is displayed above. An identical mark was filed for registration by a Vietnamese trademark squatter. In 2023, a Vietnamese individual filed an application for registration of an identical mark (Application No. 4-2023-38668), a practice commonly observed in Vietnam as trademark squatting. The brand owner engaged Tilleke & Gibbins to assist with strategy and filing an opposition to the mark. At the time, Maurten had no trademark rights or meaningful use in Vietnam, and global marketing data showed only modest figures without any local presence. Thus, to convince the IP Office to refuse the squatter’s application, instead of relying on trademark rights or use evidence, the opposition strategy centered on the copyright protection of the logo itself, as copyright arises automatically in Vietnam upon creation of the work and does not require registration. (It is worth noting, however, that the IP Office has traditionally been cautious in accepting copyright as a basis for refusing trademark applications.) On September 24, 2024, an opposition was filed on three main grounds: confusing similarity, copyright infringement of the artistic work,
Read More