Comparison between the Madrid system and direct filing of trademark applications in China

From 2023 to 2025, the average number of monthly trademark registrations in China originating from foreign applicants exceeded 10,000. Nevertheless, it is still less than 4% of the total number of trademark registrations during the same period.

As a member of the Madrid system (The International Trademark System), applicants are often faced with a choice between using the Madrid system or Direct filing when seeking trademark protection in China, particularly regarding prosecution, management, enforcement and costs. The purpose of this article is to compare these two routes to provide applicants with a helpful reference for selecting the suitable route for trademark application in China.

Ⅰ. Prosecution & Enforcement

Whether an application is filed through the Madrid system or Direct filing, there is no difference in examination standards, timelines, or requirements for revocation and enforcement, as all such matters must comply with the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China. However, applications filed via the Madrid system are received by the Trademark Office of CNIPA (China National Intellectual Property Administration) 3-5 months later than Direct filing, as it must first be processed by WIPO.

Ⅱ. Management

The status of the basic application/registration will impact the international application/registration under the Madrid system for a period of 5 years (Article 6 of the Madrid Agreement). Obviously, Direct filing is not subject to such dependency on a basic application/registration. In addition, Direct filing benefits from more efficient receipt of official communications and faster responses, as a local representation is officially recorded. As for the Madrid system, official letters are generally delivered to the representative of the international application or to the applicant, which may result in slower correspondence.

Ⅲ. Costs

Direct filing in China only requires a simple signed POA (notarization or legalisation is not necessary), full digitalisation, and a reasonable official fee (270 RMB, 30 CHF per class for a new filing). In contrast, the Madrid System requires a designation fee of 100/249 CHF depending on the office of origin.

Ⅳ. Conclusion

In summary, both the Madrid system and Direct filing are viable for applying for trademark protection. However, Direct filing is generally more cost-effective, faster to initiate the examination, and easier to manage for local representatives. It is particularly suitable for applicants who prefer a straightforward filing process.

The Madrid system may be preferable for applicants who are going to use or have already used the Madrid system to designate multiple jurisdictions, despite the longer initial process, dependency on the basic application/registration, and potentially additional costs in some cases.

Applicants are advised to consider factors such as budget, timelines, and comprehensive strategy when deciding on the optimal route for trademark protection in China.