In 2025, Madrid filings worldwide declined, yet designations of Thailand reached their highest level in five years, while the Thai Trademark Office issued one of the highest provisional refusal totals reported by WIPO. This article examines why demand persists despite these difficulties and what that means for filing strategy.

Demand for Protection in Thailand Has Rebounded Strongly

Since Thailand joined the Madrid Protocol in 2017, demand through the Madrid System has not followed a continuous upward path. Designations decreased from 8,404 in 2021 to 8,043 in 2022 and 7,845 in 2023. The trend then reversed, with designations increasing by 11% to 8,717 in 2024 and by a further 4.4% to an estimated 9,149 in 2025, the highest level recorded between 2021 and 2025.

More significant than the 2025 record itself is that Thailand’s recovery began in 2024. WIPO’s Madrid Yearly Review 2026 shows that Thailand’s 11% increase that year was among the strongest recorded for the 20 Madrid members receiving the most designations. In 2025, Thailand continued to grow while Madrid applications worldwide declined by 1.5% and designations of China, the United States, the United Kingdom and Japan fell. The increase in Thailand cannot therefore be explained simply by overall growth in Madrid filings.

Thailand ranked 14th globally in 2025 and second within ASEAN, behind Singapore. China was the largest source of designations in international registrations received by Thailand, followed by Japan and the United States.

The Thai Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) reported 55,668 applications through national channels in 2025, of which 49%, or about 27,300, were filed by foreign applicants. The 9,149 Madrid designations equalled roughly one third of that volume. Although not directly comparable, these figures show that Madrid is a significant route for foreign applicants. The DIP’s leading national filing categories were sales and marketing services, cleaning and beauty products, electronics, health products and clothing. These figures provide market context, not a breakdown specific to Madrid designations.

The Examination Environment Remains Difficult

Once a Madrid designation reaches Thailand, it is examined under the same substantive law as a direct national application. In 2025, Thailand issued 8,272 provisional refusals, the sixth highest total among the selected Madrid offices reported by WIPO. That figure is an office count, not a refusal rate. Refusals issued in a given year do not correspond directly to designations received that year, so the two totals should not be divided. It nevertheless shows the volume of cases requiring local attention.

Common issues include lack of distinctiveness, disclaimer requirements, and citations of earlier marks. A recurring difficulty for Madrid applicants is the specification of goods and services. The list in the international application must remain within the scope of the basic application or registration. However, wording certified by the Office of Origin, recorded by WIPO and accepted elsewhere may still be considered too broad or unclear in Thailand. Any amendment filed with the Thai Trademark Office must remain within the scope recorded for the Thailand designation. A limitation requested through WIPO, whether before or after a provisional refusal, may narrow that scope but cannot broaden it.

The Trademark Office prepares the official Thai translation, so the English and Thai versions should be reviewed together. An initial refusal addressing only certain items should not be assumed to confirm that the remainder is acceptable. Reviewing the full specification at the response stage may reduce further objections and help ensure the Thai wording reflects the intended scope of protection.

The period of 18 months is frequently misunderstood. It is the period within which Thailand must notify a provisional refusal, not a deadline for final registration. The holder then has 90 days to respond. After a response is filed, the Madrid Protocol sets no fixed timetable for further examination or final disposition. A designation may remain pending longer than a comparable direct national case. Existing Fast Track procedures apply only to the initial examination of eligible national applications and do not extend to Madrid designations or to any application once an objection has been issued.

Why Demand Persists

Foreign brands continue to seek protection because Thailand remains commercially important. Businesses already using Madrid for a regional or global portfolio can add Thailand while retaining centralised filing, renewal and recordal of changes. They may avoid appointing local counsel unless an objection arises.

However, that convenience may be lost where an objection is foreseeable, local counsel will ultimately be required, and the time needed after a response matters to the business.

For example, a brand owner might add Thailand to an existing Madrid portfolio expecting the process to run quietly in the background, then address only the flagged items as the cheaper option. If review of the remaining specification triggers further refusals, each round adds fees and delay, potentially taking longer than a direct filing.

Choosing the Filing Route

The filing route should therefore be selected mark by mark, with the applicant’s commercial priorities in mind.

The Madrid route is generally suitable where protection is sought in several countries, the mark and specification are straightforward, centralised management is valuable, and there is no fixed commercial deadline for obtaining registration in Thailand.

Conversely, the direct national route may be preferable where Thailand is a priority market, timing is critical, the specification requires substantial tailoring, or distinctiveness and citation issues are foreseeable. Direct filing also allows the specification to be tailored to current Thai practice before filing.

The filing strategy need not be uniform across the portfolio. Even where a brand owner typically uses Madrid for its Thailand filings, a direct national application may be preferable for a commercially important mark requiring timely registration.

Conclusion

Thailand’s designation figures show that a difficult examination environment has not discouraged foreign brand owners from seeking protection. Madrid remains efficient for suitable marks, but it is not a shortcut through Thai examination. The appropriate route depends on commercial urgency, the complexity of the specification and likely registrability issues in Thailand. Administrative convenience should not be the only consideration when protecting valuable brand assets in the jurisdiction.