Key Takeaway
Madrid is useful for multi-country expansion, but many brands filing specifically for China get cleaner control, clearer timelines, and fewer handoffs with direct CNIPA filing.
The two main filing paths into China
Foreign companies usually choose between two routes: file through the Madrid Protocol by designating China, or file directly with CNIPA through a licensed local agent. Both are legitimate, but they work differently once the application hits China’s examination system.
In practice, Madrid is an international convenience layer. Direct filing is a local control layer. If China is one of many markets in a coordinated global rollout, Madrid may make sense. If China is your priority market, direct filing often reduces uncertainty.
Madrid Protocol
Best when expanding into multiple countries from an existing home application.
- Use when: China is part of a broader international filing plan
- Main benefit: One application, one set of fees, multiple designations
- Main tradeoff: less direct control over CNIPA office actions in China
Direct CNIPA filing
Best when China is a core market and you want faster local handling.
- Use when: China needs strong protection now, not later
- Main benefit: dedicated agent control and fewer translation issues
- Main tradeoff: not automatically connected to other countries
Even under Madrid, China still examines your mark under Chinese law. Designating China does not skip local examination and does not mean your home registration is automatically accepted.
How the Madrid Protocol route works
Madrid starts with a home application or registration in another member country. From there, you can file one international application through WIPO and designate China. WIPO then forwards the designation to CNIPA for examination.
Most Madrid filings begin with a pending or registered mark in the applicant’s home country. That base mark supports your international application.
You submit through your local IP office, pay WIPO fees, and select China as one of your target jurisdictions.
Once the designation reaches China, CNIPA reviews it like a local application. If an office action is issued, you usually need a local agent to respond.
Madrid strengths
- Useful for multi-country brand rollout
- Centralized filing from your home jurisdiction
- One international registration can cover many markets
- Practical when China is one piece of a larger IP plan
Madrid watchouts
- Central attack risk if the home mark fails within five years
- More handoffs between offices if CNIPA issues objections
- Local representation is still needed once China raises issues
- Classification and translation problems can slow down processing
Typical China individual fee example: WIPO’s Madrid fee schedule lists China as CHF 220 for one class and CHF 110 for each additional class, in addition to WIPO’s own basic and supplementary fees. Source: WIPO Madrid fees.
How direct CNIPA filing works
Direct filing means your agent submits the application directly to CNIPA. This is the most common route for foreign applicants without a Chinese business address, because a local trademark agent is required for communication with CNIPA.
A China-specific search helps identify conflicting marks before you spend time and money filing.
Your agent prepares the mark, class list, goods/services descriptions, and required documents.
CNIPA reviews completeness, distinctiveness, similarity to prior marks, and compliance with Chinese rules.
If approved, the mark is published for opposition. If no successful opposition occurs, CNIPA issues the certificate.
Direct filing strengths
- Strong control over the China-only filing strategy
- Faster local response to CNIPA office actions
- Less dependence on the fate of a foreign home application
- Usually clearer for brands focused mainly on the China market
Direct filing watchouts
- Does not automatically protect you in other countries
- Requires a China-based trademark agent
- Costs vary depending on agent scope and service level
- Goods/services wording still needs careful localization
Official CNIPA cost example: the official filing fee is commonly cited as RMB 300 per class for up to 10 items, with an extra charge for additional items. Source: CNIPA.
Side-by-side comparison
| Factor | Madrid Protocol | Direct CNIPA filing |
|---|---|---|
| Best use case | Multi-country expansion | China-first or China-only protection |
| Local control | Lower until local agent steps in | Higher from the start |
| Typical China timeline | Often longer with Madrid layers | Usually more predictable at CNIPA stage |
| Risk profile | Possible central attack risk on base mark | China filing is independent of home mark |
| Operational complexity | More translation / routing steps | Fewer translation handoffs in China stage |
| Best for RTMCN clients | Global rollout with China included | Priority China protection with faster local action |
Madrid complexity
Direct filing simplicity
Which should you choose?
Choose Madrid if
- You are filing in many countries at once
- China is part of a broader international strategy
- You already have a strong home application or registration
- Your IP team can manage multi-jurisdiction coordination
Choose direct filing if
- China is your priority market now
- You want one agent managing the full local process
- You want less dependency on your home mark status
- You need faster handling of CNIPA objections and local filings
If your main goal is brand protection in China, direct filing is usually the cleaner first move. If you later expand to other markets, you can layer Madrid on top of a strong China strategy.