Madrid Protocol vs Direct CNIPA Filing: Which Route for China?¶

If you already hold an international registration, Madrid looks attractive: one form, one currency, one renewal. But for a China filing specifically, Madrid is usually the slower and more fragile option. Here is the decision logic we use with clients.

Side by side¶

	Direct CNIPA filing	Madrid designation of China
Filing basis	Your own application, no dependency	Requires a base application/registration in your home country
Who you deal with	A CNIPA-registered Chinese agent	WIPO, which forwards to CNIPA
Language	English instructions, filed in Chinese	English/French/Spanish at WIPO; CNIPA examines in Chinese
Cost structure	Fixed per class (USD 199 through us)	CHF base fee + China individual fee + your home agent's fee
Typical time to registration	7–9 months in practice (12–15 statutory ceiling)	12–18 months
Dependency on base mark	None	Yes — for 5 years, the designation can fall with the base mark ("central attack")
Scope control	You define classes and items per filing	Item scope constrained by your international registration
Refusal handling	Direct correspondence with CNIPA through your agent	Refusal relayed via WIPO, with WIPO's deadline mechanics
Renewal	Per country, every 10 years	Single renewal through WIPO
Adding classes later	New application	New designation or subsequent designation

When Madrid is the right call¶

You already have an international registration and want China added cheaply as part of a multi-country bundle.
You need one renewal date and one currency for a large portfolio, and administrative simplicity beats speed.
Your base mark is solid and unlikely to be challenged in the next five years.
Your China filing is defensive rather than launch-critical.

When direct filing wins¶

You want to file in China now and your home application is not ready. Madrid cannot start without a base filing.
Speed matters. A launch, a trade fair, a factory agreement — seven to nine months in practice beats twelve to eighteen through WIPO.
You want item-level control. China's sub-class system rewards a precise goods/services list. Madrid ties your China scope to your international registration, which is often drafted for a different market.
You want to avoid central attack. If your base mark is weak, or your home agent is handling an opposition against it, Madrid puts your China rights on the same fault line.
You expect a refusal. Refusals routed through WIPO add correspondence layers and tight deadlines. Direct representation is cleaner to argue.

The refusal question, in detail¶

China is one of the more active examiners in the Madrid system, and Madrid designations to China receive refusal notifications at a meaningful rate — often for the same reasons as direct filings (descriptiveness, earlier similar marks), plus scope problems inherited from the international registration.

What differs is the plumbing. In a direct filing, your Chinese agent receives the notice, advises you, drafts the review, and files it — one conversation. In a Madrid designation, the notice goes to WIPO, WIPO notifies your home agent, your home agent notifies you, and instructions travel back the same way. Every hop burns days against a fixed deadline, and the Chinese-language drafting still has to happen at the end of the chain.

If your mark has any meaningful refusal risk, that asymmetry alone often justifies direct filing.

Cost comparison, realistically¶

Madrid is not automatically cheaper. A Madrid designation to China typically involves:

WIPO basic fee (CHF 653 for a black-and-white mark, more for colour)
China individual fee per class (CHF 168 for the first class, then per class)
Your home attorney's handling fee
Later: a Chinese agent's fee anyway, if a refusal arrives

A direct filing at USD 199/class all-inclusive with the official fee inside it is, for one or two classes, usually the lower total — and it is a fixed number you can budget against.

The pragmatic answer for most brand owners¶

File directly in China, and use Madrid only when you are already inside the system and China is one line item among many. If you later build a large multi-country portfolio, Madrid renewals become genuinely convenient — that is a portfolio-management argument, not an argument for how to get your first Chinese registration.

A common hybrid: direct CNIPA filing for the core mark in your key classes now, then Madrid for later additions where speed is irrelevant.

Not sure which route fits? Send us your international registration number or request a quote and we will tell you which is cheaper and faster for your specific classes.

General information, not legal advice. WIPO fee figures change; check the current schedule before budgeting.