Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Madrid Protocol

The Madrid Protocol, formally known as the Protocol Relating to the Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks, is an international administered by the (WIPO) that enables owners to secure protection for their marks in multiple countries through a streamlined, single international application process. Adopted on June 27, 1989, in , , the Protocol entered into force on December 1, 1995, and currently has 115 contracting parties covering 131 countries, representing over 80% of world trade. The primary purpose of the Madrid Protocol is to simplify and reduce the costs associated with obtaining and maintaining international protection, allowing applicants to designate multiple territories in one filing rather than pursuing separate national registrations. By centralizing the process through WIPO, the system facilitates easier management of , including renewals, modifications, and assignments, all handled via a single international registration that serves as the basis for protection in each designated country. This approach is particularly beneficial for businesses expanding globally, as it minimizes administrative burdens and fees compared to individual country filings, while ensuring that local offices retain the authority to examine and enforce the marks within their jurisdictions. To use the Madrid Protocol, an applicant must first have a basic application or registration in their home country (the "office of origin"), which then certifies the international application submitted to WIPO. Once filed, WIPO examines the application for formal compliance, publishes it in the WIPO Gazette of International Marks, and forwards it to the designated countries' offices for substantive review, typically within 12 to 18 months. Protection is granted or refused on a country-by-country basis, but the international registration remains valid for 10 years and can be renewed centrally, with the option to add or remove designations as needed. The Protocol builds on the earlier Madrid Agreement of 1891, addressing limitations in the original by offering greater flexibility, such as allowing non-members of the Agreement to join and basing applications on pending rather than only registered marks. Together, the Agreement and Protocol form the Madrid System, which has evolved through amendments, including those in 2006 and 2007, to enhance efficiency and adapt to modern practices like multi-class filings and transformation procedures for converting registrations into ones if needed. As of 2025, the system continues to expand, supporting 915,034 active registrations (as of 2024) and promoting harmonized protection worldwide.

Introduction

Definition and Purpose

The Madrid Protocol, formally known as the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks, is an international treaty administered by the (WIPO). Adopted on June 27, 1989, and entering into force on December 1, 1995, it establishes a centralized system for the international registration of trademarks, enabling applicants to seek protection in multiple jurisdictions through a single application filed via their domestic office, known as the Office of Origin. This mechanism forms the core of the Madrid System, which has superseded the earlier Madrid Agreement as the primary framework for such registrations since 2016. The primary purpose of the Madrid Protocol is to simplify and streamline of obtaining and managing protection abroad for rights holders, thereby reducing administrative burdens, costs, and the complexities associated with filing separate applications in each target country. By allowing a unified procedure conducted in a single language and with standardized fees, the Protocol facilitates efficient global expansion for businesses and individuals, promoting while maintaining the sovereignty of national examination processes. In terms of scope, the Protocol applies to trademarks, service marks, collective marks, and certification marks, encompassing various forms such as three-dimensional, , and color marks. Protection under the system is inherently territorial, extending only to the designated Contracting Parties (member jurisdictions) selected in the application, and is equivalent in scope and effect to that obtained through direct national or regional filings in those territories. The foundational principle of the Protocol—"one application, one registration, multiple protections"—underpins its operation, whereby a single international registration serves as the basis for protections in multiple countries, subject to a five-year dependency period on the underlying basic mark before achieving independence. The Madrid Protocol, formally known as the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks, was adopted on June 27, 1989, in , . It entered into force on December 1, 1995, initially for the countries that had deposited their instruments of or accession by the required date, with subsequent accessions following three months after notification by the of the (WIPO). Membership in the Protocol is restricted to states that are already parties to the for the Protection of , ensuring a foundational alignment with international industrial property standards. The Protocol's core provisions are outlined in its 14 articles, which establish the legal basis for trademark registration. Article 1 defines membership in the Madrid Union, while Article 2 specifies that protection is secured through registration by the International Bureau of WIPO. Article 3 details the requirements for filing an application, including the need for a basic or regional application or registration in a contracting party. Article 6 provides for an initial registration duration of 10 years, renewable indefinitely for successive 10-year periods upon payment of fees. Article 4bis addresses the replacement of a or regional registration with the registration after five years, allowing the registration to become independent from the basic mark. These provisions collectively facilitate a streamlined system for multi-jurisdictional protection while maintaining ties to origin-based rights during the initial period. The Protocol has undergone amendments to refine its operational aspects. In 2006, amendments focused on fees and procedures, including clarifications on mark representations and reductions in fees for applicants from to enhance accessibility. Further updates in 2019, effective through revisions to the accompanying regulations, addressed irregular designations, allowing for the correction of deficiencies in subsequent designations within specified time frames to prevent abandonment. More recent changes in 2025 include amendments allowing partial replacement of national registrations by international ones (effective July 2025 in the ) and a new requirement for users (effective November 2025). The Protocol operates within WIPO's broader framework, governed by the Common Regulations under the Madrid Agreement and Protocol, which detail procedural rules for applications, examinations, and maintenance. These regulations ensure uniform implementation across contracting parties, with the International Bureau serving as the central authority for registrations and notifications.

Historical Development

Origins and Madrid Agreement

The international framework for the protection of industrial property, including trademarks, originated with the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, signed on March 20, 1883, in , . This treaty laid the groundwork by establishing core principles such as national treatment, which mandates that member countries accord foreign applicants the same protections as their own nationals, and the right of priority, enabling an applicant to secure the filing date of an initial application in one member country for subsequent filings in others within six months. These provisions addressed the growing need for reciprocal protections amid 19th-century industrialization and cross-border trade, initially uniting 11 countries including , , and the . Building upon the Paris Convention, the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks was signed on April 14, 1891, during diplomatic conferences in , , representing the first dedicated to streamlining international registration. Administered by the International Bureau—established as part of the Paris Union and later evolving into the (WIPO)—the Agreement enabled centralized filing, allowing owners from contracting parties to submit a single application through their national office for protection in multiple designated countries. Key provisions included the International Bureau's role in recording and publishing registrations, with effects equivalent to national filings in each designated territory; however, it enforced strict uniformity, requiring the mark to be identical in form, language, and scope across all countries, and mandating the use of the Nice Classification system from the applicant's country of origin. Despite its pioneering approach, the Madrid Agreement suffered from notable limitations that curtailed its effectiveness and appeal. It demanded absolute uniformity in marks and goods/services lists, which conflicted with diverse national laws, and relied on the origin country's classification without flexibility for local adaptations, often complicating examinations in jurisdictions with different systems. Additionally, the Agreement provided limited provisions for oppositions, offering only a short notification period for refusals without accommodating extended review processes common in many countries, and tied international registrations tightly to the home application for up to seven years, exposing them to "central attacks" if the base registration failed. These rigidities resulted in slow growth, with only 29 contracting parties by 1986, predominantly European nations and excluding major economies like the , , and the . The Agreement's inflexibility became increasingly problematic in the and amid accelerating , rising , and demands for more adaptable mechanisms. Growing dissatisfaction among users and governments—exacerbated by the failure of reform attempts like the 1973 Trademark Registration Treaty, which entered into force in 1980 but attracted just five parties—highlighted the need for a system that could accommodate varying national procedures, longer examination periods, and broader participation without compromising core efficiencies. This momentum for modernization ultimately led to the negotiation of the Madrid Protocol as a complementary instrument to overcome these barriers.

Creation and Entry into Force

The Madrid Protocol was negotiated and adopted during a diplomatic conference held in Madrid, Spain, from June 19 to 27, 1989, under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to remedy the perceived shortcomings of the 1891 Madrid Agreement, particularly its rigidity in application requirements and examination procedures. The conference addressed concerns that the Agreement's strict dependence on the home registration and limited flexibility deterred participation from major trading nations, leading to the Protocol's design as a more adaptable complement rather than a replacement. Key innovations in the Protocol included greater flexibility by allowing international applications to be based on a pending home application rather than solely a registered mark, permitting some variations in the mark's representation across jurisdictions, extending the refusal notification period to 18 months (with possible extensions for oppositions), and establishing a five-year "dependence period" after which the international registration becomes independent of the home mark's status. These changes aimed to align the system more closely with diverse national laws while preserving the core principle of centralized filing through WIPO's Bureau. The Protocol entered into force on December 1, 1995, initially for four contracting parties: , , , and the , marking the operational start of the expanded Madrid System on April 1, 1996. By 2025, membership had grown to 115 contracting parties covering 131 countries, reflecting widespread adoption. Significant milestones included the ' accession, effective November 2, 2003, which integrated one of the world's largest markets; the European Union's entry on October 1, 2004, extending coverage to its 27 member states; Mauritius's accession effective May 6, 2023; and Qatar's joining on May 3, 2024, among other recent expansions that enhanced the system's global reach.

Membership and Administration

Contracting Parties

The Madrid Protocol currently has 116 contracting parties as of November 2025, collectively covering 132 countries and territories and representing over 80% of global trade. These parties enable owners to seek protection through a single international application managed by the (WIPO). Contracting parties are categorized into individual countries and intergovernmental organizations. Individual countries include major economies such as the (accession effective November 2, 2003), (effective December 1, 1995), and (effective March 14, 2000), among others like , , and the . Intergovernmental organizations encompass entities like the (effective December 1, 2003, covering 27 member states), the African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI, effective February 9, 2015, covering 17 African countries), and the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (effective October 1, 2005, covering , , and ). The system's territorial coverage extends beyond sovereign states to include certain overseas territories and dependent areas. For instance, protection can be sought in Hong Kong (China) separately from since July 1, 1997, and in as part of the ' designation. Other examples include the (Denmark) and (Denmark, with specific declarations). Recent expansions have strengthened the Protocol's global reach. acceded in 2024 (effective August 3, 2024), while joined as the latest member in 2025 (effective August 15, 2025), marking its entry into key international IP frameworks. Despite this growth, notable non-members include major economies such as and , which continue to rely on national or regional filing systems. Accession to the Protocol requires that a state or intergovernmental organization first be a member of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. Upon ratification or accession, parties deposit an instrument with and may make optional declarations on matters such as opposition periods (typically 12 months, extendable to 18), whether to charge individual designation fees, and procedures for handling refusals.

Role of WIPO

The (WIPO), serving as the International Bureau, administers the Madrid System under the Madrid Protocol, acting as the central authority for managing international trademark registrations. It receives international applications filed through offices of origin, examines them for formal compliance, forwards them to designated contracting parties, and maintains the International Register, which serves as the official record of all registrations. publishes details of applications, registrations, and subsequent actions in the WIPO Gazette of International Trademarks and ensures notifications are sent to relevant parties. Among its key responsibilities, WIPO issues certificates of international registration to applicants, effective from the filing date and valid for 10 years, renewable thereafter. It records changes such as renewals, assignments of ownership, limitations to goods or services, and cancellations, notifying designated offices and updating the International Register accordingly. Additionally, WIPO provides public search tools, including the database, which allows users to track the status of international registrations and monitor potential conflicts. WIPO manages the fee structure for the system, collecting payments in Swiss francs to cover administrative costs. The basic fee is 653 Swiss francs for black-and-white marks (or 903 for color marks), with complementary fees of 100 Swiss francs per additional class beyond the third, and individual designation fees varying by contracting party (for example, 789 Swiss francs for the first class in the ). Reductions, such as 90% for applicants from least-developed countries, are applied to promote accessibility. In terms of support services, WIPO offers and technical assistance to users and national offices, including programs, webinars, and guidelines on procedures. It facilitates by recording and notifying refusals or oppositions from designated offices but does not adjudicate disputes itself. Recent digital enhancements include the mandatory use of electronic communication for notifications since 2021 and the eMadrid platform for online filing and management of applications, introduced to streamline processes.

Operational Mechanism

Application and Filing Procedure

The application for international registration under the Madrid Protocol must be initiated through the applicant's Office of Origin, which is the intellectual property office of a Contracting Party to the Protocol where the applicant has a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment, domicile, or nationality. This Office of Origin must already hold a basic mark in the form of a national or regional application or registration on which the international application is based. Direct filing with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is not permitted; instead, the applicant submits the request to the Office of Origin, which certifies its compliance with the basic mark and forwards it to WIPO's International Bureau within two months of receipt. The filing date is the date of receipt by the Office of Origin, provided it is transmitted timely to WIPO. The application requires specific elements to be complete, primarily submitted using Form MM2, the official request form available in English, French, or . These include a clear reproduction of the mark—such as a visual image in , , or format (up to 20x20 cm), or audio/video files for non-traditional marks—along with a list of classified according to the Nice Classification system, which must not exceed the scope of the basic mark, a valid for the applicant/holder and any representative, and designation of at least one Contracting Party (other than the origin) where protection is sought. Applicants must also pay the requisite fees in Swiss francs to WIPO, covering a basic fee (CHF 653 for black-and-white marks or CHF 903 for color marks), complementary fees (CHF 100 per designated country without an individual fee), and any supplementary fees for classes beyond three (CHF 100 each). Fees can be paid directly by the applicant or through the Office of Origin, and tools like WIPO's Madrid Goods and Services Manager assist in preparing compliant lists. Upon receipt, WIPO's International Bureau conducts a formal examination to verify completeness and compliance, notifying any irregularities (such as classification errors) with a three-month period for correction. If compliant, the International Bureau records the mark in the International Register, forwards copies of the application to the designated Offices within two months, and publishes the international registration in the WIPO Gazette of International Marks, which is accessible via the Madrid Monitor database. WIPO then issues a registration certificate to the holder, establishing the international registration effective from the filing date. This central recording function by WIPO simplifies management for holders and Offices. The typical timeline for registration at WIPO is three to five months from filing, assuming no irregularities arise, with the initial term of protection lasting ten years from the registration date and renewable thereafter. For expansions, subsequent designations can be added later using Form MM4, submitted through the Office of Origin or directly to WIPO, following a similar and forwarding process with applicable fees. If the basic mark lapses within the first five years of dependency, the holder may transform the international registration into separate national or regional applications in the designated territories, retaining the original filing date, provided a request is filed within three months of the lapse using appropriate forms like MM16 for designations.

Examination and Refusal Process

Upon receipt of an international application under the Madrid Protocol, the International Bureau of the (WIPO) conducts a formal to verify compliance with procedural requirements, such as of according to the Nice Agreement, indication of , and entitlement to file. If irregularities are identified—such as vague descriptions of goods or services, missing registration numbers, or errors—WIPO notifies the applicant or office of origin, providing a three-month period to remedy them; failure to do so may result in partial or total abandonment of the application, though partial fee refunds are possible in certain cases. Once formalities are satisfied, WIPO registers the mark, publishes it in the WIPO Gazette of International Marks, and notifies the designated contracting parties, initiating the substantive phase by their offices. Each designated office examines the international registration for absolute grounds (e.g., lack of distinctiveness, descriptiveness, or violations) and relative grounds (e.g., conflicts with prior rights or likelihood of confusion), applying its national laws as if the application were filed directly. The office has up to 12 months from the date of WIPO's notification to issue a provisional refusal, though many contracting parties have declared an extension to 18 months under Article 5(2)(c) of the Protocol; for refusals based on oppositions, further extensions beyond 18 months may apply if declared by the member. Provisional refusals can be total, affecting all goods and services, or partial, affecting only specified classes or items, and must be notified to WIPO using standardized forms (e.g., Form MM3), detailing the grounds and scope. WIPO records these refusals in the International Register and promptly informs the holder or representative, who then has a minimum response period of two months to address the refusal directly with the designated office, potentially through arguments, amendments, or oppositions. Oppositions by third parties are handled exclusively under the designated office's national procedures, with any resulting refusals notified to WIPO within the applicable timeline. If no provisional refusal is notified within the prescribed period, or if a refusal is withdrawn following the holder's response, protection is granted automatically, conferring the same rights and remedies as a national registration in that territory, recorded by WIPO under Rule 18ter of the Common Regulations. Designated offices may also issue statements of grant of protection, either total or partial, to confirm the scope. The international registration remains dependent on the basic mark in the office of origin for the first five years from the date of registration, meaning that any cancellation, expiration, or invalidation of the basic mark within this period automatically affects the international registration in all designated territories, unless the holder requests transformation into separate national applications within three months. After this dependence period, the international registration becomes independent and is no longer tied to the basic mark's status.
AspectDefault TimelinePossible ExtensionSource
Provisional Refusal Notification12 months from WIPO notice18 months (per member declaration)Article 5(2),
Response to RefusalMinimum 2 monthsVaries by designated 16, Common Regulations (as amended 2023)
Opposition-Based RefusalWithin 12/18 monthsBeyond 18 months (if declared) 16bis, Common Regulations
Dependence on Basic Mark5 years from registration dateN/AArticle 6(2)-(4),

Benefits

Advantages for Applicants

The Madrid System provides substantial cost savings for trademark applicants by enabling the filing of a single international application through the (WIPO), subject to one set of , in lieu of separate national or regional applications in each target jurisdiction. This centralized approach avoids the expenses associated with multiple translations, local agent appointments, and disparate filing costs across countries, offering particularly for those seeking protection in numerous territories. The structure includes a basic application of 653 Swiss francs (CHF) for black-and-white marks (or 903 CHF for color marks), a supplementary of 100 CHF per exceeding three, and a complementary of 100 CHF for most designated Contracting Parties, resulting in an average cost per country typically under 200 CHF. Time efficiency is another key benefit, as the single filing procedure allows applicants to designate multiple territories simultaneously, expediting the initial protection process compared to sequential national submissions. Post-registration, centralized management via handles renewals, changes of name or address, assignments, and other modifications in one step, with automatic extension to all designated parties, thereby reducing administrative burdens and timelines that would otherwise involve coordinating with individual offices. Simplified administration is achieved through the assignment of a unique international registration number, enabling applicants and holders to monitor and oversee their entire global portfolio from a single point of reference, which is especially advantageous for multinational brands managing extensive protections. The system's flexibility further enhances its appeal, permitting the addition or removal of designations at any time via subsequent requests, and covering 131 through 115 Contracting Parties that account for over 80% of world trade. As of 2024, the Madrid System encompassed 915,034 active international registrations with 7,325,670 designations in force, underscoring its proven utility for efficient, scalable protection.

Advantages for Intellectual Property Offices

The Madrid System significantly reduces the administrative workload for (IP) offices by centralizing the initial formal examination and processing of international applications at the (WIPO) International Bureau, allowing designated offices to concentrate solely on substantive examinations such as likelihood of confusion or distinctiveness. This streamlined approach minimizes duplicate handling of formalities, including classification of goods and services according to the Nice Classification, and leverages standardized data formats through electronic submissions, with 87.9% of applications filed electronically in 2024. As a result, offices avoid the need to process individual foreign applications, which often require more extensive paperwork and efforts compared to Madrid designations. IP offices benefit financially from the system through revenue generated from designation fees, which WIPO distributes to members based on the number of designations received; in 2023, this amounted to CHF 341.7 million shared among offices, with major recipients including the (EUIPO) at CHF 41.4 million, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) at CHF 34.6 million, and the of at CHF 25.4 million. Offices may also collect additional national fees on top of the complementary fee of 100 CHF per designation (or individual fees if exceeding this threshold for a decade), providing a steady stream that supports operational costs without the need for separate billing systems. This mechanism ensures that accession to the Protocol leads to gradual increases in total filings and associated revenues over time. The Protocol fosters improved cooperation among the 115 contracting parties (covering 131 countries as of 2024) by providing access to WIPO's centralized databases, such as the Global Brand Database with over 66 million searchable as of 2024, enabling efficient searches and opposition monitoring. Harmonized practices under the Common Regulations promote consistency in procedures, while tools like the Madrid Monitor and electronic notifications via the Madrid Office Portal facilitate real-time updates on changes, renewals, and refusals, reducing communication delays. This collaborative framework enhances overall efficiency in global management without requiring bilateral agreements. For developing countries and (LDCs), the Madrid System supports capacity building through WIPO-provided technical assistance, including training programs, IT infrastructure setup for electronic filing, and resources like the Madrid Goods and Services Manager to aid in classification. LDCs benefit from a 90% reduction on the basic application fee (paying only 10% of the 653 CHF for marks), making participation more accessible and helping offices build expertise in international IP administration. These initiatives, combined with free e-filing options, enable smaller offices to handle international work with limited resources. In terms of scale, the system processes over 65,000 new international applications annually—65,000 in 2024 alone, resulting in 62,423 registrations and 452,889 designations—easing the burden on high-volume offices like the EUIPO and USPTO by distributing workload globally and supporting 915,034 active registrations as of the end of 2024. This volume underscores the Protocol's role in managing a significant portion of international activity efficiently.

Limitations

Central Attack and Dependencies

The central attack provision under the Madrid Protocol represents a key vulnerability in the international registration system, allowing for the potential cancellation of protections across multiple jurisdictions if the underlying basic mark fails. Specifically, Article 6(3) of the Protocol stipulates that if the basic application or registration in the home country is withdrawn, lapsed, renounced, rejected, revoked, cancelled, or invalidated within five years of the international registration date, the protection resulting from the international registration may no longer be invoked in any designated contracting party, either wholly or partially depending on the affected. This provision extends to proceedings initiated within the five-year period but concluded thereafter, ensuring that challenges to the basic mark can retroactively impact the international registration even after the dependency period ends. The dependence mechanism ties the international registration to the basic mark for the initial five years, during which the international protection remains subordinate to the status of the home registration. After this period, the international registration achieves under Article 6(2), standing on its own unless a central attack from an earlier-initiated proceeding triggers cancellation. The Office of origin is responsible for notifying the International Bureau of any such developments under Article 6(4), which then records the cancellation or limitation in the International Register and informs designated offices. This structure centralizes risk in the home jurisdiction, emphasizing the need for a robust basic mark to safeguard global protections. In 2025, WIPO launched a survey to assess the incidence of central attacks and , aiming to inform potential amendments such as shortening the dependency period. To mitigate the risks of central attack, applicants and holders are advised to secure basic marks with strong evidentiary support, such as prior use or comprehensive documentation of distinctiveness, before filing applications. A primary safeguard is the transformation procedure under Article 9quinquies, which permits the holder to convert a cancelled international registration into separate national or regional applications in the designated territories, retaining the original international filing date and any claim, provided the request is made promptly—typically within three months of the cancellation notice. This option applies only to involuntary cancellations due to basic mark failure and not to voluntary withdrawals by the holder, offering a pathway to preserve rights on a country-by-country basis. In practice, central attacks have manifested in U.S. cases during the , where refusals by the Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) of basic applications—often on grounds of descriptiveness or lack of distinctiveness—resulted in partial cancellations of international registrations, thereby affecting protections in multiple designated countries. For instance, proceedings initiated against U.S. basic marks within the dependency period led to notifications under Article 6(4), triggering limitations or revocations abroad and highlighting the strategic importance of defending home applications vigorously. As of available WIPO data from the early , central attacks accounted for approximately 20-25% of notifications of ceasing of effect, with 618 such cases reported in 2012 out of 2,527 total notifications from 29 offices, though recent surveys indicate ongoing monitoring to assess current incidence amid proposals to shorten the dependency period.

Other Criticisms and Challenges

One significant limitation of the Madrid Protocol is its incomplete global coverage, as not all countries participate in the system. As of November 2025, the Protocol encompasses 116 members covering 132 countries, following Ethiopia's accession effective August 15, 2025, leaving major economies such as , , and outside its scope, necessitating separate national filings for protection in those jurisdictions. Despite this, participating members account for approximately 90% of global GDP, providing substantial but not universal reach for applicants. The variability in national examination processes further complicates the Protocol's predictability. Designated offices have differing refusal grounds and timelines, with some issuing provisional refusals within 12 months as required under Article 5 of the , while others, such as certain African members, experience delays exceeding six months in over half of cases due to administrative backlogs. This inconsistency can prolong uncertainty for applicants, as refusal notifications may arrive irregularly, hindering strategic planning for trademark portfolios. Fee structures under the Protocol also present challenges due to their opacity and wide disparities. While the basic application fee is standardized at 653 Swiss francs (or 903 for color marks), individual designation fees vary significantly by country, ranging from as low as 0 Swiss francs for complementary fee nations like Cuba to over 1,000 Swiss francs per class in Qatar, in addition to unpredictable translation and local agent costs. These variations can lead to unexpected expenses, particularly when multiple designations are involved, undermining the system's cost-efficiency for broader filings. Enforcement remains a notable gap, as the Protocol provides no centralized mechanism for resolving disputes or addressing infringements. Protection in each designated territory depends entirely on national laws and courts, requiring holders to pursue separate actions in multiple jurisdictions without unified procedures or reciprocal tools. This decentralized approach can result in fragmented and resource-intensive litigation, especially in cross-border infringement cases. Recent challenges have emerged with the acceptance of non-traditional marks, such as sounds, motions, and multimedia elements, particularly in the post-2020 era of increased digital applications. While the Madrid System updated its rules in 2023 to facilitate filing these types, not all member offices uniformly recognize or examine them, leading to higher rates in jurisdictions with stricter visual-mark preferences. For instance, sound marks may face provisional refusals in countries lacking domestic provisions for non-visual protections, complicating international strategies for innovative branding.

Implementation and Statistics

The Madrid Protocol, administered by the (WIPO), has experienced significant growth since its entry into force on December 1, 1995, when it initially covered 7 contracting parties. By 2025, the system encompasses 115 members, representing 131 countries and territories that account for over 80% of global trade. This expansion reflects the Protocol's increasing appeal as a streamlined mechanism for international protection, including the accession of in July 2025. Parallel to membership growth, the volume of international applications has surged; in 2000, approximately 23,000 trademarks were registered under the Madrid Agreement and Protocol combined, rising to around 65,000 applications in 2024, marking a more than twofold increase over two decades. Regional adoption patterns vary markedly, with demonstrating the highest integration through the as a bloc member, facilitating seamless protection across 27 countries. In , adoption is robust, led by high filing volumes from , which has become a key hub for international designations. Conversely, shows limited uptake, with only a handful of countries such as and participating, alongside more recent joiners like , , and , resulting in just 1% of global applicants originating from the and region in recent years. Several factors have driven these adoption trends, including the role of preferential trade agreements that encourage harmonization of standards. For instance, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for (CPTPP) has prompted accessions by linking trademark system alignment to broader . Additionally, levels correlate strongly with participation, as emerging economies with growing export-oriented industries are more likely to join to attract foreign and protect domestic brands. In terms of usage, the top originating countries for applications in 2024 were the (11,270 filings, approximately 17% of the total), (6,449, about 10%), and (5,828, roughly 9%), underscoring the dominance of major economies in leveraging the system. A notable feature is the multi-jurisdictional focus, with applications averaging seven designations per filing in 2023, implying that over two-thirds of applications seek protection in five or more countries. Looking ahead, the Protocol's expansion is poised to continue, with potential accessions in —where current coverage is patchy despite 22 participating jurisdictions—and further growth in by 2030, driven by ongoing WIPO outreach and regional economic incentives.

Key Case Examples

One prominent success under the Madrid Protocol is 's international registration for the "" mark, filed on December 22, 2007, from the as the office of origin, designating more than 50 countries and territories. This registration, assigned International Registration Number 0975076, has been renewed multiple times since its initial 10-year term, with protection extended in most designated jurisdictions without major refusals, demonstrating the system's efficiency for global brands launching innovative products. The streamlined filing allowed Apple to secure consistent protection across diverse markets, facilitating the iPhone's worldwide rollout and long-term brand enforcement. A notable challenge case involves Red Bull GmbH's use of the Madrid System for its "" mark, including a 2015 domain name dispute in where the company leveraged its international registration to assert against a cybersquatter. Although had joined the in 2013, the case highlighted the system's flexibility, including transformation procedures for converting international registrations into national ones if needed. Concurrently, in the , Red Bull faced partial refusals and invalidations for its color combination marks (blue and silver) due to claims of descriptiveness and lack of acquired distinctiveness, resulting in the cancellation of two EU trademarks in 2019 after appeals to the Court of Justice of the . These outcomes underscore variances in examination standards across jurisdictions, where descriptive elements can lead to refusals even for established brands. The Madrid System's dependency rule exposes international registrations to central attack, where invalidation of the basic home registration within five years can trigger cancellation in designated countries via a "mirror effect," without separate proceedings abroad. This vulnerability emphasizes the importance of a robust basic application in the home . The Protocol also accommodates non-traditional marks, such as sound marks, with acceptance depending on jurisdiction-specific requirements for representation and distinctiveness. For example, has registered sound marks under the Madrid System since , while other members like may refuse based on graphical representation standards, potentially requiring transformation to national applications. This illustrates ongoing differences in handling non-visual marks, addressed by 2023 amendments facilitating such filings. These cases highlight key lessons from the Madrid Protocol's application: the importance of ensuring a robust basic application in the home to mitigate central attack risks, and the need for ongoing monitoring of designations to address processes promptly, as outlined in the examination guidelines.

References

  1. [1]
  2. [2]
    International Registration Procedure
    The Protocol entered into force on December 1, 1995. As compared to the Agreement, the Protocol was innovative giving novel opportunities to be introduced into ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  3. [3]
    Madrid System Members
    - **Current Number of Contracting Parties**: 115 members
  4. [4]
  5. [5]
    Madrid Protocol for international trademark registration - USPTO
    Sep 15, 2023 · The Madrid Protocol is a convenient and efficient way for trademark owners worldwide to file one application to register their trademark in multiple countries.
  6. [6]
    The Madrid System | IP Australia
    The Madrid System is the cooperation system for international trade mark applications. It allows you to apply for a trade mark in many countries at once.
  7. [7]
    Outbound Madrid Protocol applicants - USPTO
    Sep 15, 2023 · The Madrid Protocol registration process starts when a trademark owner files an international application through an office of origin.
  8. [8]
    Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the ... - WIPO
    Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks adopted at Madrid on June 27, 1989, as amended on October 3, 2006.
  9. [9]
    [PDF] Guide to the Madrid System - WIPO
    ... date the Protocol entered into force in India. Similarly, for. Brazil, the date of the international registration must be October 2, 2019 or later, as this is ...
  10. [10]
  11. [11]
    Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the ... - WIPO
    The Madrid System for the International Registration of Marks is governed by the Madrid Agreement, concluded in 1891, and the Protocol relating to that ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  12. [12]
    Entry into force of a new version of the Common Regulations under ...
    May 27, 2019 · On February 1, 2019, a new version of the Common regulations under the Madrid Agreement and Protocol for the international trademark went into effect.<|control11|><|separator|>
  13. [13]
    Regulations Under the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement ...
    (ii) "Protocol" means the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks, adopted at Madrid on June 27, 1989; ( ...
  14. [14]
    Madrid System Legal Texts - WIPO
    The Madrid System legal texts include the Madrid Agreement, Protocol, Schedule of Fees, and Administrative Instructions.
  15. [15]
    A History of Trademarks: The Birth of the Madrid Agreement - WIPO
    In today's episode, we will look at the Madrid Diplomatic Conferences of 1890 and 1891, where the Madrid Agreement was approved.
  16. [16]
    The Birth of the Madrid Protocol - WIPO
    The Madrid Protocol introduced its second major amendment by lengthening the periods for refusal. This modification aimed to support countries where IP Offices ...Missing: limitations | Show results with:limitations
  17. [17]
    House Report 106-81 - MADRID PROTOCOL IMPLEMENTATION ACT
    On June 27, 1989, at a Diplomatic Conference in Madrid, Spain, the parties to the Madrid agreement signed the Madrid Protocol. The United States was an ...
  18. [18]
    Summary of the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International ...
    A mark may be the subject of an international application only if it has already been registered with the trademark office of the Contracting Party with which ...Missing: reform 1980s
  19. [19]
    [PDF] Introduction of the Madrid Protocol
    the contracting parties when the Protocol first came into effect were four countries only, including China, Spain, Sweden, and the U.K. As of September 2015 ...Missing: force | Show results with:force
  20. [20]
    [PDF] Madrid Protocol USPTO as Office of origin
    Period for refusal is limited in time. – 12 months or 18 months. – Beyond 18 months in cases of opposition. •. Five-year period of dependency on basic mark — ...Missing: flexibility similarity
  21. [21]
    Madrid System - International Trademark Protection - WIPO
    The Madrid System is a convenient solution for registering and managing trademarks worldwide. File one application in one language and with one set of fees ...Search Before Filing an... · File an international application · Members · Managing
  22. [22]
    [PDF] MADRID/2003/15 : Accession by the United States of America - WIPO
    Aug 2, 2003 · The. Madrid Protocol will enter into force with respect to the United States of America on. November 2, 2003. 2. The said instrument of ...
  23. [23]
    WIPO Welcomes Accession by European Community to ...
    Jun 30, 2004 · The EC is the 77th member of the Madrid system. From October 1, 2004, the date on which EC membership to the Madrid Protocol takes effect, ...
  24. [24]
    Accession by the Republic of Uzbekistan - WIPO
    The Madrid Protocol (1989) will enter into force, with respect to the Republic of Uzbekistan, on December 27, 2006.Missing: 2023 | Show results with:2023
  25. [25]
    Qatar's IP Revolution: Embracing the Madrid Protocol – What Lies ...
    On May 3, 2024, Qatar achieved a major milestone in its intellectual property journey, becoming the 115th country to join the Madrid System.
  26. [26]
    ETHIOPIA: Newest Member of Paris Convention and Madrid Protocol
    Oct 22, 2025 · A new era has begun as Ethiopia acceded to both the Paris Convention and Madrid Protocol, effective August 15, 2025. These accessions mark a ...
  27. [27]
    2021 Amendments to the Madrid Regulations: Mandatory Email and ...
    Feb 1, 2021 · The new requirement applies to requests for recording received by WIPO or by the Office concerned on or after February 1, 2021. For ...
  28. [28]
    Filing International Trademark Applications – The Process - WIPO
    Using WIPO's Madrid System, you can file one international trademark application to secure trademark protection in all or any of its members, ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
  29. [29]
    [PDF] Madrid Yearly Review 2024 - WIPO
    ... intellectual property (IP) office that is a member of the Madrid System. An ... The Madrid System offers many advantages to both trademark holders and IP offices.
  30. [30]
    [PDF] accession kit: the madrid system for the international registration of ...
    Following its examination, the Office may notify WIPO of a provisional refusal of protection if it considers that the international registration does not comply ...
  31. [31]
    [PDF] Guide to the Madrid System - WIPO
    Jul 2, 2022 · Chapter I is an introduction to the Madrid System, which contains useful information for all its users, namely, applicants and holders of ...
  32. [32]
    Madrid's “Central Attack” in Transnational Trademark Law: Practice ...
    Apr 19, 2019 · The central attack includes cancellation proceedings which begin during the dependency period but do not conclude until after this period ends.
  33. [33]
    Consultation on the international discussion regarding proposed ...
    Aug 27, 2025 · Article 6(3) of the Madrid Protocol prescribes that the ceasing of effect of a basic mark automatically affects the international registration ...
  34. [34]
    Madrid Yearly Review 2025: Executive Summary - WIPO
    Qatar joined the Madrid System in 2024, bringing the total number of members to 115 as of December 31, 2024, and further strengthening the System's presence in ...
  35. [35]
    Navigating the Madrid Protocol in Africa - Spoor & Fisher
    Sep 4, 2025 · On 1 October 2024 Ethiopia's Council of Ministers approved Ethiopia's accession to the Madrid Protocol, although the agreement has still to be ...
  36. [36]
    [PDF] Madrid Yearly Review 2025 - WIPO
    The Madrid Yearly Review was prepared under the direction of Daren Tang (Director General) by the IP and Innovation Ecosystems Sector led by Marco Alemán ( ...
  37. [37]
    Madrid System: Schedule of Fees - WIPO
    The basic fee for an international application is 653 (no color) or 903 (color). Supplementary fees are 100 per class beyond three. Basic renewal fee is 653.  ...Missing: average | Show results with:average
  38. [38]
    Individual Fees under the Madrid Protocol - WIPO
    Sep 20, 2025 · The following fees (in Swiss francs) are payable in place of complementary fees when the Contracting Parties mentioned below are designated under the Protocol.Missing: opacity | Show results with:opacity
  39. [39]
    Trade Mark Registration via the Madrid Protocol and Its Downfalls
    According to the Berkeley Technology Law Journal, central attacks appear to have grown rapidly in recent years, ie. from just 200 total or partial cancellations ...
  40. [40]
    Recent changes to the Madrid System - The IPKat
    Feb 6, 2023 · Filing of non-traditional trade marks, such as sound, motion and multimedia marks;; Representation of earlier rights in provisional refusals ...Missing: challenges | Show results with:challenges
  41. [41]
    9 Disadvantages of the Madrid System for International Trademark ...
    Feb 15, 2023 · 1. The Madrid system is not suitable for collective trademarks or certification trademarks. The reason is that when applying for international registration ...Missing: reform 1980s
  42. [42]
    125 Years of the Madrid System - WIPO
    Apr 14, 2016 · For its 125th anniversary, the Madrid System is 97 member-strong, covers 113 countries and is expected to expand to encompass 100 members and ...Missing: initial | Show results with:initial
  43. [43]
    2000: A Record Year for the International Registration of Trademark ...
    Mar 2, 2001 · In 2000, almost 23,000 new trademarks were registered with WIPO under the Madrid Agreement and Protocol representing an increase of 15% on the ...Missing: historical | Show results with:historical
  44. [44]
    Madrid System Yearly Review 2025 - WIPO
    May 27, 2025 · Key figures at a glance · ~65,000 international trademark applications filed (+1.2%); ~452,889 designations (+1.1%) · 915,034 international ...
  45. [45]
    Latin American Relationship With the Madrid Protocol: Current ...
    ... countries in the region have joined the Madrid Protocol over the years. Cuba was the first country in the region to accede, doing so in 1995. It was ...Missing: force | Show results with:force<|control11|><|separator|>
  46. [46]
    [PDF] Connecting regimes: Preferential Trade Agreements and the ...
    Jun 10, 2024 · In this paper, we examine how states may strategically use PTAs as a vehicle to strengthen (or weaken) IP governance by connecting IP ...
  47. [47]
    [PDF] STUDY ON ACCESSION TO THE MADRID SYSTEM - WIPO
    provided by the Madrid System. These advantages encourage applicants to designate all potential markets through a simple check on the list of countries even ...
  48. [48]
    [PDF] Madrid System Overview and Available Tools - WIPO
    Future accessions: ASEAN countries. Latin America and Caribbean countries. African countries. Arabic region. Page 6. 97 members* (including EU and OAPI).
  49. [49]
    Is there anything standing in the way of South Africa joining the ...
    Jul 1, 2025 · Thirdly, joining the Madrid System would require South Africa to harmonise its trademark laws with international standards.
  50. [50]
    IPHONE Trademark of Apple Inc. - Registration Number 3746840
    Justia Trademarks Categories Electrical and scientific apparatus IPHONE - Trademark Details ... International Registration Number. 0975076. International ...
  51. [51]
    WIPO Domain Name Decision: D2015-0452
    May 6, 2015 · Complainant has submitted substantial evidence of rights in the trademark RED BULL, including by registration in India and under the Madrid ...Missing: Protocol refusals
  52. [52]
    Trademark Registration for “Sound” in Japan
    Oct 15, 2024 · “Sound” became registrable as a new type of trademark in Japan on April 1, 2015, and since then, a total of 367 sound marks have been ...