Direct CNIPA Application or Madrid System? A Strategic Guide to Choosing Your China Trademark Path
As the world’s second-largest economy, China’s vast consumer market attracts global businesses. However, over 30% of well-known foreign brands have encountered trademark squatting in China. Choosing the correct trademark registration path has become the primary strategic decision for international brands entering the Chinese market. This article provides an in-depth analysis of the two main paths—direct application and the Madrid System—combined with real failure cases, offering a clear decision-making framework.
Table of Contents
01 Two Paths for Foreign Brands: Direct CNIPA Application vs. Madrid System
Understanding the fundamental differences between the two trademark registration paths is the first step in developing an effective intellectual property strategy for China. This is not merely a procedural choice but reflects the brand’s positioning and commitment to the Chinese market.
Direct Application to the CNIPA can be seen as a “point-to-point cultivation” model. This path requires applicants to work through a China trademark agency legally registered in China, directly engaging with the Trademark Office Of China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), fully adhering to China’s local legal system and its unique “Classification of Similar Goods and Services” practice. It is an independent legal channel specifically built for the Chinese market.
Designating China through the Madrid System is a “one-stop international layout” model. The applicant, based on existing trademark rights in their country of origin (a Madrid System member such as Germany, the US, or Japan), extends protection to China through the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). This path is essentially the local implementation of an international registration system, advantageous for unified multi-country management but less flexible in adapting to the particularities of the Chinese market.
02 Core Comparison of the Two Paths: Speed, Cost, Risk, and Documentation
The two paths differ systematically across key dimensions, directly impacting registration success rates, rights stability, and long-term management costs. The following is a core comparison based on current practices:
| Comparison Dimension | Direct Application to CNIPA | Designating China via Madrid System |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Basis & Dependency | Completely Independent. No prior overseas trademark application is required; governed solely by China’s Trademark Law. | Highly Dependent. Must be based on a valid existing trademark application or registration in the country of origin; subject to “Central Attack” risk. |
| Examination Timeline & Speed | Relatively Fast, typically 7-10 months. Direct process with more efficient examination stages, facilitating quicker market entry. | Relatively Slow, typically 12-18 months. Requires a three-tiered review process involving the office of origin, WIPO International Bureau, and CNIPA. |
| Rights Stability & Risk | Very High. Once approved and registered, its validity is entirely independent and unaffected by changes in the status of trademarks in other countries. | “Central Attack” Risk exists for 5 years. If the basic trademark in the country of origin is invalidated, protection in China also ceases. |
| Management Complexity & Convenience | Requires separate management in China for subsequent changes, renewals, responses, etc., suitable for cultivating a single market. | Centralized One-Stop Management. Allows for unified changes, renewals, etc., across all designated countries through the WIPO International Bureau, with high administrative efficiency. |
| Official Certificate & Recognition | Receives the official Chinese paper/electronic “Trademark Registration Certificate”. This is the standard, universally accepted document for e-commerce platform entry and administrative enforcement in China. | Receives primarily the WIPO “International Registration Certificate”. Obtaining an official Chinese certificate requires a separate application to CNIPA for a “Trademark Registration Certification”. |
| Application Strategy Flexibility & Local Adaptation | High. Allows for precise selection of goods/services and adjustment of descriptions based on Chinese market characteristics and examination practices to circumvent risks. | Low. Descriptions must strictly match the basic trademark application. Translation is handled by the International Bureau and may not align with Chinese classification customs, increasing rejection risk. |
03 Trademark Registration Cost Analysis: Single-Point Breakthrough vs. Economies of Scale
Cost decisions require balancing short-term investment with long-term returns. The fee structure for applying for one trademark in one class (covering 10 items) is as follows:
Option A: Direct Application to CNIPA (National Route)
- Official Fee (CNIPA e-filing): 270 RMB per class (up to 10 goods/services)
- Additional Items Fee: +27 RMB for each item exceeding 10 (per class)
- Agency Service Fee: 2000 – 4000 RMB (mandatory for foreign applicants)
- Total (1 class, ≤10 items): Approximately 300 – 600 USD per class. (Note: The prices here include agency service fees, while the Madrid System fees on the right do not include agency fees, as these can vary significantly depending on the country of origin and we cannot provide a standardized estimate.)
For a detailed explanation of the fees for Direct Application to CNIPA, please refer to our article: China Trademark Registration Costs.
Option B: Designating China via Madrid System (International Route)
- WIPO Basic Fee (mandatory): 653 CHF (black & white mark, covers up to 3 classes)
- China Individual Fee: 1st class: 249 CHF, 2nd & 3rd classes: free, 4th+ classes: 125 CHF each
-
Example – 1 to 5 classes:
- 1 class: 249 CHF → total 653 + 249 = 902 CHF
- 2 classes: 249 CHF → total 653 + 249 = 902 CHF
- 3 classes: 249 CHF → total 653 + 249 = 902 CHF
- 4 classes: 249 + 125 = 374 CHF → total 653 + 374 = 1,027 CHF
- 5 classes: 249 + 125 × 2 = 499 CHF → total 653 + 499 = 1,152 CHF
-
Total Official Fees: As above
Excludes original office transmittal fee (e.g., USPTO ~100 USD) and agency service fees.
Cost Strategy Insight
For registering a trademark in China, direct application to CNIPA is the most cost-effective and efficient option. Official fees are low and the process is straightforward, especially suitable for brands focusing on or primarily targeting the Chinese market.
While the Madrid System allows simultaneous filings in multiple countries, the fees for designating China alone are not lower and do not offer a cost advantage. The true value of the Madrid System lies in streamlined management and procedural convenience across multiple countries, rather than saving money for China-specific registration.
Therefore, companies should base their strategy on target markets and the number of countries:
- Mainly targeting China → Direct CNIPA application is the most economical and efficient choice
- International multi-country strategy → The Madrid System provides administrative convenience, but official fees for each country, including China, are still required
04 Four-Step Decision Flowchart: Finding Your Ideal Registration Path
Faced with two paths, you can quickly determine the optimal solution by following this decision logic:
flowchart TD
A[Foreign Enterprise/Individual
Initiates China Trademark Registration] --> B{Do you already have a basic
trademark application/registration
in a Madrid Member country?}
B -->|No| C[Path Locked:
Must apply directly to CNIPA]
B -->|Yes| D{Do you urgently need the Chinese
Trademark Registration Certificate
for e-commerce entry or enforcement?}
D -->|Yes| C
D -->|No| E{Is this application for China only,
or for 5 or more countries simultaneously?}
E -->|China only or few countries| C
E -->|Multiple countries ≥5| F{Are the goods/services descriptions
special or non-standard?}
F -->|Yes, very specific/special| C
F -->|No, quite standard| G[Path Locked:
Prioritize Madrid System
designating China]
Three Key Scenarios for Choosing Direct CNIPA Application:
- E-commerce Driven: Plans to immediately enter platforms like Tmall, JD.com, or Douyin E-commerce, requiring the standard “Trademark Registration Certificate” for swift approval.
- Market Cultivation Focused: Views China as a core strategic market, demanding absolute rights stability to eliminate risks like “Central Attack.”
- Strategy Customization Needed: Goods/services descriptions are unique, requiring the expertise of a local Chinese agent to navigate examination risks and improve success rates.
Three Key Scenarios for Choosing the Madrid System Designating China:
- Global Layout Type: The brand is simultaneously entering multiple markets like China, the EU, and Southeast Asia.
- Cost-Efficiency Priority: Aims to manage global trademark affairs uniformly to reduce long-term administrative costs.
- Management Simplicity Seeker: Has limited in-house legal resources and seeks standardized processes and management convenience.
05 The Real Cost of Choosing the Wrong Path: Three Typical Failure Case Studies
Case 1: The Chain Reaction of “Central Attack”: Loss of the Chinese Market Due to Basic Trademark Failure
Scenario: A French niche perfume brand, “L’Arôme,” extended protection to China, Japan, and South Korea through the Madrid System, based on its registration in France. After two years of cultivation, the brand was just gaining traction in the Chinese market.
Wrong Choice: To save initial costs, the brand chose the Madrid path instead of applying directly to CNIPA.
Problem Triggered: Due to internal management oversight, “L’Arôme”‘s basic trademark in France was partially cancelled by the French IP Office for failure to submit proof of use. According to the Madrid System’s “Central Attack” principle, this cancellation directly caused its international registration to become invalid during the 5-year vulnerable period, automatically terminating trademark protection in China.
Consequences:
- The brand faced infringement risks at over 20 contracted high-end department store counters in China, halting all partnerships.
- A Chinese company immediately filed an application for an identical trademark after the original international registration lapsed.
- To recover its rights in China, the brand had to negotiate a purchase from the squatter at a cost dozens of times higher than the initial registration and re-submit an application directly through CNIPA. The entire process took nearly three years, completely disrupting market promotion plans.
Analysis if CNIPA Direct Application was Chosen:
- Rights Independence: A trademark directly registered with CNIPA is completely independent of the French basic trademark. Even if the French trademark encountered issues, the Chinese rights would remain secure, preventing a chain-reaction collapse.
- Risk Isolation: The brand’s operations in China would not be affected by management errors in the country of origin, providing a safety net for independent operations in different markets.
Core Lesson: For enterprises that regard China as an independent strategic market (rather than a simple extension of the global market) and have high brand value, rights stability should take precedence over management convenience. The risk isolation provided by a direct CNIPA application is crucial.
Case 2: The E-commerce Entry Dilemma: The Long Wait for a Single Document
Scenario: German emerging consumer electronics brand “Klick,” focused on online sales, decided to enter the Chinese, US, and European markets via the Madrid System, planning to launch on Tmall Global for the “Singles’ Day” shopping festival.
Wrong Choice: To unify its global rollout节奏, it chose to designate China through the Madrid System.
Problem Triggered: When “Klick” prepared its Tmall entry materials, the platform requested the “Trademark Registration Certificate” issued by CNIPA. Under the Madrid System, the brand only held the WIPO “International Registration Certificate” and CNIPA’s “Trademark Registration Certification”.
- Tmall reviewers repeatedly rejected the application, citing that the “certification document is not the standard registration certificate, and its validity needs verification.”
- To obtain more authoritative documentation, the brand had to apply to CNIPA for expedited verification of the “Trademark Registration Certification,” a process that was stricter and more time-consuming than obtaining the certificate from a direct application.
- They ultimately missed the “Singles’ Day” merchant recruitment window, delaying the e-commerce launch plan by 9 months and incurring an estimated loss of 60% of first-year online sales.
Analysis if CNIPA Direct Application was Chosen:
- Document Recognition: The “Trademark Registration Certificate” issued directly by CNIPA is the universal “passport” for all administrative and commercial scenarios in China, unconditionally accepted by e-commerce platforms, market regulatory authorities, and courts without any need for explanation.
- Process Certainty: The direct application process from the outset is clearly aimed at obtaining this certificate, ensuring a smooth process without document-related obstacles at critical business junctures.
Core Lesson: For market entry that is commercially rhythm-driven (especially e-commerce-driven), priority must be given to the recognition of documents by local administrative and commercial systems. Pursuing international procedural uniformity may lead to unexpected hindrances at key local stages.
Case Three: Goods/Service Description Mismatch: When International Standards Meet Chinese Practice
Scenario: A US SaaS company, “CloudFlow,” whose core service is a “personalized business data analysis platform based on AI,” sought protection in Class 9 (software) and Class 42 (tech services) in China by designating China through the Madrid System, based on its US registration.
Wrong Choice: To maintain global consistency in trademark descriptions, it opted for the Madrid path, using the broad standard description from its US application.
Problem Triggered:
- During examination, CNIPA, based on China’s “Classification of Similar Goods and Services,” deemed the description in the international application—“computer software for business data analysis”—too broad and non-standard.
- CNIPA issued a provisional refusal, requiring limitation to specific sub-classes. Modifying goods/services descriptions through the Madrid System is extremely passive and restrictive, often leaving applicants with little choice but to accept the examiner’s limitations.
- Ultimately, the scope of approved protection was significantly narrowed, failing to fully cover the company’s actual operations and future development needs, leaving room for competitors to register similar trademarks in related services.
Analysis if CNIPA Direct Application was Chosen:
- Strategic Flexibility: In a direct application, experienced Chinese agents can employ a combination strategy of “core items + defensive items” from the start, crafting descriptions that comply with regulations while maximizing protection for the business, based on examination practices.
- Proactive Communication: Even if an office action is received, effective communication with the examiner can be facilitated through professional agents to争取 a more favorable scope definition, rather than passively accepting limitations.
Core Lesson: When a company’s goods or services are innovative, unique, or complex, the flexibility and communication space for对接 local examination practices provided by direct application are unmatched by the Madrid System. The cost of “description consistency” may be “incomplete protection scope.”
06 Key Decision Review Table: Avoiding Past Mistakes
Based on the case studies above, we summarize the main risk types of choosing the wrong path and their warning signals:
| Risk Type | Wrong Choice (Chose Madrid when CNIPA was better) | Potential Business Consequences | Signals to Prioritize Direct CNIPA Application |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rights Stability Risk | Problems with the basic trademark in the country of origin lead to “Central Attack” on Chinese rights. | Loss of Chinese market, trademark squatting, extremely high recovery costs. | High brand value; China is an independent strategic market; potential instability in rights of origin. |
| Business Process Risk | Rights documentation not fully recognized by local e-commerce or administrative departments. | Severe delays at critical business junctures (e.g., platform entry), missing market windows. | Plans for imminent e-commerce entry; frequent need for offline enforcement; strict market launch timelines. |
| Protection Scope Risk | Goods/services descriptions constrained by the application in the country of origin, unable to adapt to Chinese classification practices. | Narrow scope of granted rights, failing to cover core business, leaving vulnerabilities. | Highly innovative business; non-standard service descriptions; uncertainty in future business plans. |
| Response Risk Cost | Procedures for refusals, oppositions, etc., take longer and are more passive to handle. | Extended problem-resolution cycles, increased legal costs with less controllable outcomes. | High requirement for registration success rate; desire to maintain initiative in application strategy. |
07 Trademark Registration Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q1: If registering through the Madrid System, will I encounter difficulties when enforcing rights in China?
A: In terms of legal effect, protection obtained in China through a Madrid international registration is essentially the same as through a direct application. However, in practice, when filing complaints with market regulatory authorities or e-commerce platforms, presenting the Chinese “Trademark Registration Certificate” is generally more readily accepted than the WIPO International Registration Certificate. If using the Madrid route, it is advisable to apply for a “Trademark Registration Certification” from CNIPA in advance as backup.
Q2: When should I register a Chinese-language trademark? Any strategy suggestions?
A: It is strongly recommended to register the corresponding Chinese trademark simultaneously when submitting the foreign-language trademark application. Strategies can include: transliteration (e.g., “奔驰” for Mercedes-Benz), translation (e.g., “微软” for Microsoft), or a creative adapted name. A good Chinese name not only helps prevent squatting but is also a crucial step in brand localization.
Q3: What exactly is the “similar group” system in Chinese trademark examination?
A: This is a unique classification practice in China. Under the 45 Nice Classification classes, the Chinese Trademark Office further subdivides goods and services into thousands of “similar groups.” During examination, goods within the same group are considered similar, posing a higher risk of trademark conflict. In a direct application, experienced agents can navigate this risk by strategically selecting items.
Q4: If a trademark faces a refusal, how do response strategies differ between the two paths?
A: After a direct application refusal, a review application must be submitted to CNIPA within 15 days. Under the Madrid System, a “provisional refusal notification” issued by CNIPA is transmitted via WIPO. The response deadline is typically 30 days or longer from the notification date, but international transmission consumes part of this time, requiring early preparation.
Q5: How can the “Central Attack” risk of the Madrid System be specifically mitigated?
A: The key is to maintain the validity of the basic trademark in the country of origin for 5 years after the international registration date. Measures include: ensuring timely renewal of the basic trademark; actually using it and retaining evidence in the country of origin; avoiding cancellation of the basic trademark for non-use. After 5 years, the international registration becomes independent of the basic trademark.
08 Action Guide and Risk Mitigation Strategies
If choosing direct application:
- Agency Selection: Verify the agency is legally registered with CNIPA and has successful cases serving similar foreign enterprises.
- Search & Classification: Conduct a comprehensive trademark similarity search and rely on the agent’s expertise to navigate China’s “similar group” system.
- Document Preparation: Ensure foreign entity qualification documents was signed and accompanied by Chinese translations.
If choosing the Madrid path:
- Strengthen Basic Rights: Ensure the basic trademark in the country of origin is secure and maintain its validity for the next 5 years.
- Description Pre-review: Even for standard descriptions, consult experts familiar with Chinese practice to anticipate potential translation issues.
- Deadline Management: Strict deadlines apply at various stages of the Madrid process. Entrust a professional agency to monitor and respond promptly.
Regardless of the chosen path, a comprehensive pre-filing trademark search is the most cost-effective risk investment. A professional search report can reveal potential registration risks in advance, avoiding the被动 situation of receiving a refusal notice after months of waiting.
Trademark strategy for the Chinese market is not an isolated legal procedure but an integral part of a brand’s global strategy. Which path to choose depends on your market positioning for China, the pace of your global expansion, and your risk tolerance.
[Immediate Action Steps]:
With a clear roadmap, your first step into the Chinese market will be more steady and assured.
📌 Part of China Trademark Encyclopedia
👉 China Trademark Encyclopedia – Complete Guide
