Introduction China has completed the most consequential rewrite of its Trademark Law in over a decade. On June 26, 2026, the 23rd Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Fourteenth National People's Congress adopted a comprehensive revision of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China — the fifth amendment since the law was first enacted in 1982, and the first substantive overhaul since the narrow 2019 revision. The revised law, comprising 87 articles across nine chapters (up from 73 articles in eight chapters under the outgoing law), will enter into force on January 1, 2027. Trademarks registered before that date remain valid. For brand owners, in-house counsel, and IP practitioners with China exposure, this is not a routine update. The revision touches registration standards, opposition timelines, well-known mark protection, damages calculations, and — perhaps most significantly — the treatment of bad-faith and speculative filings that have long troubled foreig...
India became a member of the Madrid Protocol on July 8, 2013. At the time, the advantages of filing through the Madrid System were substantial when compared to filing a Convention or ordinary application directly in India.
Initial Advantages of the Madrid Route
Under the Madrid System, there was no limitation on the number of goods or services that could be listed in the specification. By contrast, applicants filing directly in India were required to pay additional fees for every character beyond 500 (excluding spaces) in the description of goods or services. Furthermore, Madrid applicants were not required to pay an association fee, whereas direct applicants with prior pending or registered applications for the same mark were liable to pay an association fee for each such prior application. Additional benefits of the Madrid route included savings on attorney fees and the convenience of centralized management of a trademark portfolio across multiple jurisdictions.
Narrowing of the Gap: The 2017 Amendment
With the notification of the Trademark Rules, 2017, effective March 6, 2017, much of this disparity was eliminated. The additional-character fee and the association fee were both done away with, and direct applicants filing in India are now, like Madrid applicants, no longer subject to any limit on the description of goods or services.
Examination Timelines: The Key Differentiator
Despite this parity, a significant advantage remains with direct filing: the speed of examination. Direct applications filed in India are typically examined within a month of filing. Madrid applications, on the other hand, must first pass through the process of designation, allocation of an IRDI (International Registration Designating India) number, and only then substantive examination, followed by communication of any provisional refusal to the applicant.
This time lag can be considerable—so much so that where an applicant files two applications for the same mark on the same day, one via the Madrid route and one directly in India, it is entirely possible for the direct application to proceed to registration before the Madrid application is even examined. This discrepancy can create serious complications where two or more entities are independently adopting similar or identical marks and approaching the Indian Trademark Registry through different routes, potentially resulting in conflicting rights or priority disputes.
Inability to Claim Prior User Rights
Another notable limitation of the Madrid System, as applied in India, is that it does not permit applicants to claim a user date. A direct applicant, by contrast, may file an application accompanied by a user affidavit and supporting evidence. Where such use is substantial and predates any cited conflicting marks, the application may be permitted to proceed to registration on the strength of that prior use—even where similar marks already exist on the Register.
Restrictions on Disclaimers and Limitations
Direct trademark applications in India may be accepted subject to disclaimers or limitations, offering applicants a degree of flexibility in overcoming objections. The Indian Trademark Registry, however, has not yet extended this practice to Madrid-designated applications. Such applications are presently either accepted in their entirety or have objections maintained against them, with no mechanism currently available for partial acceptance through disclaimers or limitations.
The Importance of Watch Services
Trademark watch services—routinely offered by most major IP firms in India—assume particular importance in this context. Without specific instructions to monitor the Register, an applicant may remain unaware that a conflicting mark is being sought for registration in India, potentially losing the opportunity to oppose it within the statutory timeline.
Conclusion
Weighing these considerations, direct filing continues to offer meaningful advantages over the Madrid route—particularly in terms of examination speed, the ability to claim and rely on prior use, and greater flexibility through disclaimers and limitations. For brand owners with a substantial stake in their marks in the Indian market, direct filing remains the more strategically sound option, notwithstanding the administrative convenience that the Madrid System offers for global portfolio management.
Thanks for sharing this unique information!!
ReplyDeleteTrademark registration in Jaipur
GST registration in jaipur