MadridYearly Review 2020
International Registration of Marks

Madrid
Yearly Review 2020
International Registration of Marks

The user is allowed to reproduce, distribute, adapt, translate andpublicly perform this publication, including for commercial purposes,
without explicit permission, provided that the content is accompanied
by an acknowledgement that WIPO is the source and that it is clearly
indicated if changes were made to the original content.
Suggested citation: WIPO (2020), Madrid Yearly Review 2020: International
Registration of Marks. Geneva: WIPO.
Adaptation/translation/derivatives should not carry any official emblem
or logo, unless they have been approved and validated by WIPO. Pleasecontact us via the WIPO website to obtain permission.
For any derivative work, please include the following disclaimer: “The
Secretariat of WIPO assumes no liability or responsibility with regard
to the transformation or translation of the original content.”
When content published by WIPO, such as images, graphics, trademarks
or logos, is attributed to a third-party, the user of such content is solely
responsible for clearing the rights with the right holder(s).
To view a copy of this license, please visit https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/3.0/igo/© WIPO, 2020
First published 2020

The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WIPO concerning the legal status of any country,
territory or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of
its frontiers or boundaries.

World Intellectual Property Organization34, chemin des Colombettes, P.O. Box 18
CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland
ISBN: 978-92-805-3164-0

This publication is not intended to reflect the views of the Member Statesor the WIPO Secretariat.
The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers does
not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by WIPO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

Attribution 3.0 IGO(CC BY 3.0 IGO)
Cover: Getty Images / syolacan
Printed in Switzerland

Table of contents
Acknowledgements4
Further information

4

Key numbers for 2019

5

Special theme:
The use of the Nice Classification
over time in specifying goods
and services in Madrid
international applications7
A. Statistics on Madrid
international applications31

Highlights31
Madrid international applications37
Designations in Madrid
international applications43
Nice classes specified in Madrid
international applications
51
Statistical table 
58

B. Statistics on Madrid
international registrations,renewals and active
registrations63
Highlights63
Madrid international registrations
67
Renewals of Madrid
international registrations
75
Active Madrid international
registrations 
79
Statistical tables
83

C. Statistics on
administration,
revenue and fees

91

Highlights91
Madrid System administration,
revenue and fees
95

Annexes107

A brief presentationof the Madrid System
107
Data description
110
Acronyms111
Glossary112
Nice classes and industry sectors
115
Madrid members
117

3

Acknowledgements
The Madrid Yearly Review was prepared under the direction of Francis Gurry(Director General) and supervised by Carsten Fink (Chief Economist) and Hao
Zhou (Director of Statistics). A team led by Ryan Lamb prepared the report; theteam comprised Kyle Bergquist, Mosahid Khan, Bruno Le Feuvre and Anastasiya
Letnikava, all from the Department for Economics and Data Analytics.
Thanks go to colleagues from the Brands and Designs Sector for providing valuablecomments on drafts at various stages.
Samiah Do Carmo Figueiredo and Jovana Stojanović provided valuable administrative support. Gratitude is also due to the Communications Division for the editing
and design and to staff in the Printing Plant for their services.

Further information
Online resources
The electronic version of the Review, as well as the images and underlying data
used to produce all figures and tables, can be downloaded at www.wipo.int/ipstats.
This webpage also provides links to the IP Statistics Data Center – offering access
to WIPO’s statistical data – and to the IP Statistical Country Profiles.
The following resources are available on WIPO’s website:
Information on the Madrid Systemwww.wipo.int/madridContact information
Department for Economics and Data Analytics
Website: www.wipo.int/ipstats
Email: ipstats.mail@wipo.int
4Key numbers for 2019
66,400 (+5.7%)

Madrid international applications1

433,295 (+3.2%)

Designations in international applications

64,118 (+6.7%)

Madrid international registrations

57,041(+3.3%)
Subsequent designations in international registrations

29,262(–8%)
Renewals of international registrations

741,619 (+4.6%)

Active (in force) international registrations

6,208,277(+3.3%)
Designations in active international registrations

106 (+3 members)

Contracting Parties (Madrid members)

122(+3 countries)
Countries covered1

Due to the time lag in transmittal of applications from offices of origin to theInternational Bureau (IB) of WIPO, total Madrid applications are estimated.
5

6

Special theme:
The use of the Nice Classification overtime in specifying goods and services
in Madrid international applications

Goods and services classes definedby the Nice Classification

How many classes are specified on
average in a Madrid application?

A trademark is a sign used to distinguish the goods orservices of one enterprise from those of others and protected as an intellectual property right. Trademark holders who apply for a Madrid International Registration,
hereinafter referred to as Madrid applicants, arerequired to indicate the goods or services for which
their mark is to be registered. These are grouped
into the 45 goods and services classes listed in the
Nice Classification.

More than 580,000 applicants worldwide have filed a
combined total of just over one million Madrid applications during a 30-year period extending from 1990
through to 2019. The average number of classes ofgoods and services specified in applications hasremained between 2.2 and 2.8 for each year over thistime (figure 1). This suggests that, for the vast majorityof trademark applicants, the scope of the goods andservices to which their trademark applies is a narrow
one and that, in general, protection spanning manydifferent Nice classes is not required.

The Nice Classification is an international classificationof goods and services for the purposes of the registration of marks. It was established in 1957 by the Nice
Agreement, administered by the World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO) and is currently used bysome 150 national and regional IP offices around theworld. The Classification consists of a list of classes
together with explanatory notes and an alphabeticallist of goods and services. There are 34 classes ofgoods and 11 classes of services in total. Class headings describe, in broad terms, the nature of the goods
or services contained in each class. The explanatory
notes for a given class describe in further detail thetypes of products or services included in that class.
The most detailed level of the Classification is an alphabetical list comprised of around 10,000 indications ofgoods and 1,000 indications of services. When filinga Madrid application, applicants must indicate all the
goods and services for which registration is sought andthe classes into which they fall, as it is not possible to
add other goods and services and classes at a later
date. For the purposes of this year’s Special theme,
descriptions of Nice classes are abbreviated. For acomplete list of abbreviated descriptions for each of
the 45 Nice classes, see the table in the annex of the
Review. For full class definitions, visit www.wipo.int/
classifications/nice.

It is worth noting that this average is less than the threeclasses covered by the basic fee applied to a Madrid
application for international registration, which is 653
or 903 Swiss francs (CHF), depending on whether the
representation of the mark is in black and white or incolor. In addition to the basic fee for filing a Madrid
application, an applicant may be required to pay supplementary, complementary and individual fees.
When seeking protection in Contracting Parties tothe Madrid System, hereinafter referred to as Madrid
members, that do not apply their own individual fees,
an applicant has nevertheless to pay a supplementary
fee of CHF 100 for each class of goods and services
specified in excess of the three covered by the basic
fee, plus a complementary fee of CHF 100 for each
Madrid member designated.
However, for those Madrid members that do apply
their own individual fees, these are based on the number of classes specified in a Madrid application thatdesignates their jurisdiction. Individual fees can varyconsiderably between the Madrid members applying
them. For example, the IP office of Indonesia charges
a fee of CHF 144 for each class of goods or services
7

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

SPECIAL THEMEClasses specified
in Madrid applications

1. Average number of classes specified in Madrid applications, 1990–2019
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,00060,00040,00020,000
0

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.5

Year
MADRID APPLICATIONSCLASSES SPECIFIEDAVERAGE NUMBER OF CLASSES PER APPLICATION

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

4
3
2

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1

1990

Average number of classes
specified in Madrid applications

2. Average number of classes specified in Madrid applications from selected origins, 1990–2019

Application year
U.S.

GERMANYCHINA

FRANCE

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

8

SWITZERLAND

U.K.

JAPAN

REPUBLIC OF KOREA

AUSTRALIA

TURKEYUSE OF THE NICE CLASSIFICATION OVER TIME

When focusing on the filing behavior by applicants
located in certain Madrid member origins selectedfrom across different geographical regions and income
groups, variations appear in the average number ofclasses specified in Madrid applications (figure 2). For
example, applicants based in Germany specified, on
average, 2.1 classes in each Madrid application filed in
the early 1990s before this then increased to between
3.3 and 3.4 for the period 2015–2019. For applicantsfrom the U.S., on the other hand, the average number ofclasses specified per application has remained at lessthan two, ranging from 1.6 to 1.8 classes for every year
since the U.S. became a Madrid member in late 2003.
The average number of classes specified in Madrid
applications filed by applicants domiciled in China has
been even lower than for their U.S. counterparts, at
1.2–1.7 every year since 1990. Before 2014, the trademark office of China had a single-class filing system.
Therefore, until recently, Chinese applicants had long
been accustomed to filing a trademark application
specifying only one class. The Madrid System, however, enables multi-class filings. The fact that the basic
mark in China, which forms the basis for a Madrid
application, has historically concerned goods or services covered by a single class could help explain the
low average number of classes specified by Chinese
applicants in Madrid applications.
As for applicants located in France, their average
has increased from a low of 2.3 classes per application in 1996 to around three over the last decade.
Switzerland’s average of 1.8 classes in 1990 stood at
3.2 in 2019. Japan’s average was 1.9 in 2000, the year
the country joined the Madrid System, but has sinceedged up and reached 2.4 in 2019. Australia has seen
its average grow from 1.7 in 2002 – the first complete
year after it joined the Madrid System in July of 2001 –to 2.2 in 2019. The average for applicants based in the
United Kingdom (U.K.) has climbed from 2.1 in the late
1990s to three in 2019. Although not shown in figure 2,
but interesting to note, the Russian Federation’s average number of classes specified in a Madrid application
has fluctuated considerably, reaching a peak of 5.4 in

SPECIAL THEME

specified in either a Madrid application or subsequent
to the international registration designating Indonesia,
regardless of how many classes are specified. The individual fee for designating the United States of America(U.S.) is CHF 388 per class specified, whereas theindividual fee is CHF 95 for one class in applications
that designate Italy and CHF 32 for each additionalclass. Of the 106 Madrid members in 2019, 60 apply
their own individual fees to designations made in aninternational application or subsequent to the international registration.

1996, before then decreasing to an average ranging
from 2.6 to 3.5 between 2004 and 2019.
Whereas, the average number of classes specified inapplications has increased over time for some of theorigins selected, it has decreased for others. For theRepublic of Korea, for instance, applicants have specified an average 1.7 to 1.9 classes per application inrecent years, down from a peak of 3 in 2006. Similarly,
Turkey has undergone a drop in its average over time:in 1999, the year Turkey become a Madrid member,its applicants specified an average of 2.2 classes per
application, but this is now down to 1.6, as of 2019.

Average number of words usedby applicants per Nice class
Madrid applicants are required to indicate the namesof the goods and services for which the international
registration of the mark is sought, grouped in theappropriate classes of the Nice Classification, preferably choosing words or terms from the alphabeticallist in the Classification.
Over time, the number of words for all goods andservices indicated by applicants in their Madrid ap­­
plications has grown considerably. In 1999, Madrid
applicants indicated, on average, about 76 words
relating to goods and services per application filed(figure 3). By 2019 this had increased to almost 237
words, more than three times what it was two decades
earlier in 1999. In fact, the average number of words
per class has increased for every Nice class over thisperiod. This could be indicative of a number of factors,
such as the desire of trademark holders to broaden or,
in some cases, even narrow the scope of their marks;
the stricter rules enacted by IP offices requiring applicants to be more specific with regard to goods and services when applying for trademarks; and the fact thatsome Nice classes are inherently vaguer than others
and therefore a more detailed list of words is necessary.
Some Nice classes when they appear in Madrid applications are associated with a lower number of words
indicated by applicants, for example goods class 27,
which comprises, among other things, carpets, rugs
and materials for covering existing floors. In 2019, applicants listed an average of 24 words for this class ineach Madrid application filed, up just nine words froman average of 15 recorded in 1999. This low number
both in 1999 and 2019 is most likely due to there being
relatively few words listed under class 27 from whichapplicants can choose, coupled with a lower rate ofinnovation for goods covered by this class. Likewise,
goods class 5, which covers pharmaceuticals, is associated with fewer words than some other Nice classes
9MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

SPECIAL THEME

specified in applications. However, in the case ofclass 5, this is not due to a lack of words from which
to choose, but rather because most applicants fromthe pharmaceutical industry tend to select terms for
only a limited number of goods, such as for vaccinesor drugs for medical purposes, for instance. In 2019,
applications associated with class 5 contained anaverage of 73 words.
In contrast, other classes, such as goods class 9,
which includes computer hardware and software andother electrical or electronic apparatus of a scientificnature, have a higher average number of words associated with them, and, unlike class 27, have seen theemergence of many new products that simply did notexist two decades ago. Class 9 had an average of 48
words in 1999, but this has since increased by 77 toreach 125 by 2019. Goods class 6 (108 words), which
includes common metals and their alloys, and goods
class 7 (113), which covers machines, machine tools,
motors and engines, were both associated with a highaverage number of words in 2019.
Services class 35, however, which covers services
such as office functions, advertising and business
management, is the class to have seen the biggest
jump in the average number of words indicated per
application, rising from only 30 in 1999 to almost 200
in 2019. In addition to being the second most specified
Nice class in Madrid applications worldwide in 2019,class 35 is now the one in which the highest average
numbers of words are listed in applications. Moreover,many other services classes, for instance classes 38,
41 and 42, are likewise associated with a high average
number of words per application. Indeed, these three
exceeded 100 words in 2019, having jumped from fewer
than 40 in 1999. The multitude of functions some services cover often requires that an applicant indicate
more words in certain services-related applications
than in applications covering other classes.
The frequency with which trademark holders protect
their marks for services has been increasing overtime. This is reflected by the fact that, across manyindustries, a great many companies are not only producing products but also providing services. The NiceClassification was created at a time when services
classes did not carry the same significance as they dotoday. The Classification still lists 34 classes dedicatedto goods but only 11 to services.
A decrease in the average number of classes specified
in applications over time does not necessarily correspond to either a reduction or an increase in the average number of words indicated in these applications.
Referring back to the drop in the average number of
10classes specified in applications from the Republic ofKorea and Turkey, the decline in the average for theRepublic of Korea has likewise been accompanied bya general decrease in the average number of words
indicated in Madrid applications, from a peak of about
125 in 2010 down to 81 in 2019. Conversely, a decreasein the number of classes specified in applications of
Turkish origin has been accompanied by a tripling of
the words indicated in applications, rising from an average of only 52 in 2004 up to 172 in 2019. So, whereas
applicants from some origins may choose to specify
fewer classes on average in applications, they may or
may not increase the number of words indicated inthese applications.

Which goods and services
classes appear most frequently
in Madrid applications?
Figure 4 shows how the shares of the top eight of the 45
Nice classes specified in all Madrid applications filed in2019 have changed since 1990. Goods class 9, which
as a reminder includes computer hardware and software and other electrical or electronic apparatus of ascientific nature, has consistently had the highest shareof all classes specified in applications filed over the 30
years since 1990, recording a share of 7.6% in 1990
and over 10% since 2018. Services class 35, which
covers services such as office functions, advertisingand business management, has shown the greatest
increase over time in how frequently it is specified in
Madrid applications, boosting its share by 5.3 percentage points from just 3% in 1990 to 8.3% in 2019.
Two more services classes, class 41 (+2.3 percentage
points), mainly covering services in the areas of education, training, entertainment, sporting and culturalactivities, and class 42 (+2.2 percentage points), which
includes services provided by, for example, scientific,
industrial or technological engineers and computer
specialists, have also increased their shares considerably between 1990 and 2019. The increases seen bythese three services classes reflects the overall growthof the global services industry. In fact, since 2018, overa third of all classes specified in Madrid applications
have been services classes. This is in marked contrast
to the 17% combined share recorded by the 11 services classes back in 1990.
Whereas the top services classes specified in Madrid
applications have seen their shares of total classes
specified in applications grow over time, the shareheld by goods class 5, which is the fifth most specified class and which covers pharmaceuticals andother preparations for medical purposes, has fallen
by 2.1 percentage points over the course of last three
decades. This is noteworthy, given that pharmaceuticalUSE OF THE NICE CLASSIFICATION OVER TIME

SPECIAL THEME

Average number of words
in specification of goods and services

3. Average number of words indicated per Madrid application, 1999–2019
234.9 236.6
215.7
187.0 185.8 190.6
163.2

75.5

90.7

87.8

87.3

90.5

93.4

105.0

115.7

127.3

195.5

156.8

139.0 134.5 137.6

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Year

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

4. Top eight Nice classes specified in 2019 Madrid applications, 1990 and 2019

1990

7.6%
Class 93.0%Class 35
4.6%
Class 42
2.7%
Class 41
6.6%
Class 5
6.0%
Class 25
4.7%
Class 3
3.2%
Class 7
61.6%
Others2019

10.2%
Class 98.3%
Class 35
6.8%
Class 42
5.0%Class 41
4.5%
Class 5
4.3%
Class 25
4.1%
Class 3
2.9%Class 7
53.9%
Others

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

11

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

SPECIAL THEME

companies, which overwhelmingly seek trademark
protection within this class, made up more than a tenthof the top 100 Madrid applicants in 2019. This could
be explained in part by the fact that many pharmaceutical companies tend to specify, on average, very
few classes in their applications, often only about one.
Also, class 5 is most specific to companies operatingin the pharmaceutical industry and, to a lesser extent,
to the personal care and consumer goods industries.
This is in contrast to classes 9 and 35, which span awide range of industries, such as the technology sector, the automotive industry and even the pharmaceutical industry.
Whereas some classes have either an increase or adecrease in their overall shares over time, the shareof total applications held by 8th-ranked goods class 7,
which covers machines, machine tools, motors andengines, has remained relatively unchanged between
1990, when it was 3.2%, and 2019, when it was 2.9%.
To give an idea of how the shares of the top Niceclasses specified in Madrid applications in 2019 havechanged over time and differ across origins, it is interesting to contrast applicants based in Germany withthose in China. Similar to the picture seen at the global
level, Germany’s most preferred class is goods class 9
for all years between 1990 and 2019. However, thelargest increase of 6.4 percentage points was in theshare held by services class 35, from only 1.6% of all
the classes specified in applications filed in 1990, when
it ranked 27th, to 8% of the total in 2019, becoming thesecond most preferred class in trademarks of German
origin (figure 5). The largest decline was recorded forsixth-ranked class 5, which includes pharmaceuticals
and which has fallen from 8.5% of all applications filed
in 1990 to only 3.5% in 2019, a decrease of 5 percentage points. This does not mean that Germany’s
pharma­ceutical companies have sought less trademark
protection; rather, that German trademarks now covera broader range of goods and services spanning its
many industries than they did in 1990.
Turning to China, class 9 accounted for the largest
proportion (12.8%) of all classes specified in applications of Chinese origin in 2019, down from 15% in
1990. The greatest increase in share for any class wasrecorded by services class 35, rising from zero in 1990
to 5.4% in 2019. Services class 42 has also seen its
share increase, from zero to 3.8% over the period.
Ranked fourth most specified class in applications filed
in 2019, goods class 30, which mainly covers foodstuffs of plant origin, has seen its share fall from 6.7%
in 1990 down to 4.6% in 2019. Goods class 25, which
includes clothing, and goods class 29, which covers
meat, fish, poultry, among other foods, have seen the12steepest declines in shares, by three and almost five
percentage points respectively.

How does filing behavior look
across different industries?
This section looks at top Madrid applicants selectedfrom different countries and regions and operating indifferent industrial sectors. Starting with four applicants from the pharmaceutical industry, Novartis of
Switzerland, traditionally one of the most active usersof the Madrid System, has since 1996 filed around3,040 Madrid applications in which 3,840 Nice classes
were specified, resulting in an average of 1.3 classes
specified per application. As discussed earlier, sucha low average is typical of applicants involved in the
manufacture of pharmaceuticals. The most specified class in Novartis’s applications is goods class 5,
covering pharmaceuticals and other preparations for
medical purposes. This class occurred in over twothirds (67.5%) of all the goods and services classes
specified in Madrid applications filed by the company
over a nearly 25-year period. Second and third highest
shares were for goods class 10 (6.8%), which includes
surgical, medical, dental and veterinary apparatus andinstruments, and services class 44 (6.1%), which covers, among other things, medical and veterinary services, and hygienic and beauty care for human beings
or animals. Combined, these three classes accounted
for around 80% of all classes specified in total Madrid
applications filed by the company.
Class 5 has been specified in every application filed by
Novartis. However, it is instructive to look at the mostfrequently specified pairs of classes in applications.
Given the low overall average number of classes in its
total filings, two-class applications account for just
8% of all applications filed by Novartis since 1996.
Of all applications specifying only two Nice classes,
goods classes 5 and 10 occurred most often as apair in almost a third (29.7%) (figure 6). The next most
specified class pair comprised class 41, which includes
services in the area of education, training, entertainment, sporting and cultural activities, and class 44.
These two services classes were specified as a pair in
12.3% of all two-class applications. Goods classes 9
and 10 were specified as a pair in 11% of applications.
Only around 4% of all Novartis’s applications specified
three classes. Of these, three combinations accounted
for between 10–12% of the total: services classes 41, 42
and 44; goods classes 5, 29 and 30; and classes 9, 10 and
44, a combination of two goods and one services class.
Figure 7 shows the shares of the top classes specified in applications filed by Novartis for every year

USE OF THE NICE CLASSIFICATION OVER TIME

SPECIAL THEME

5. Top eight Nice classes specified in 2019 Madrid applications from Germany and China,
1990 and 2019

Germany, 1990

China, 1990

8.8%
Class 9
1.6%Class 35
4.1%
Class 42
1.7%
Class 41
4.9%Class 7
8.5%
Class 5
4.3%
Class 16
4.4%Class 3
61.7%
Others15.0%Class 9
6.7%
Class 70.0%Class 35
6.7%
Class 30
1.7%Class 110.0%Class 42
6.7%
Class 25
8.3%
Class 29
54.9%
OthersGermany, 2019

China, 2019

10.5%
Class 98.0%Class 35
7.3%
Class 42
4.6%
Class 41
4.1%
Class 7
3.5%
Class 5
3.5%Class 16
3.4%
Class 3
55.1%
Others12.8%
Class 9
7.1%
Class 7
5.4%
Class 35
4.6%
Class 30
4.1%
Class 11
3.8%
Class 42
3.7%
Class 25
3.4%
Class 29
55.1%
Others

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

13

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

SPECIAL THEME

since 2009. In the applications filed in 2009, class 5
accounted for the largest share (74%) of all classes
specified, followed by class 10 (13%) and class 44(4%), for a combined share of 91%. Of the 11 years
presented, seven show these same top three classes
specified in applications, however with varying combined shares. In fact, their collective share as a proportion of all applications has decreased by 24 percentage
points to 67% in 2019, indicating that a wider range ofgoods and services classes is covered by Novartis’s
most recent trademarks compared to previous years.
As with Novartis, class 5 is accounted the largest shareby far of all classes specified in Madrid applications
filed by pharmaceutical company Richter Gedeon of
Hungary, except that in this case it accounts for aneven larger proportion (90.5%) of all classes specified
in the 1,480 applications filed by the company overthe last 70 years (figure 8). All other classes together
amount to less than 10% of the total, highlighting thefact that Richter Gedeon files applications pertaining
to, on average, only one class.
In those few applications in which multiple classes
were specified, goods class pair 1 and 5 accounted
for 43.6% of all two-class applications, and a
combination consisting of goods classes 1 and 5
together with services class 31 comprised 82.6% of
all three-class applications.
For most years between 2009 and 2017, only class 5
was specified in applications filed by Richter Gedeon(figure 9); however, a number of other classes began
to appear in applications filed in 2018 and 2019, albeit
with low shares of total classes specified.
Like Richter Gedeon, the U.K.’s Glaxo Group pharma­
ceutical company overwhelmingly counts class 5(86.6%) the most specified in Madrid applications (figure 10). The next four most preferred classes make up
about 7% of all classes specified in the approximately
1,250 applications the company has filed since 1998.
Only 32 applications specified two classes and just
two applications specified three.
Differing in this from the other pharmaceutical companies presented, Glaxo Group counts goods class 32,
which includes, among other things, mineral andaerated waters and other non-alcoholic beverages,
syrups and other preparations for making beverages,
and goods class 29, covering a number of foodstuffs,
among its most preferred classes for years 2011 to2014 (figure 11).
Belgian company Janssen Pharmaceutica is different
from the other three top pharmaceutical companies

14

presented. Although class 5 accounts for the largest
share of all classes specified in the company’s 3,455
Madrid applications filed since 1947, its overall shareis 40.7% compared to the 67–91% shares recorded
for this class by the other top pharmaceutical companies (figure 12). Moreover, the company’s sharesof total classes specified are distributed across more
Nice classes, such as class 10 (19.3% of all classes
specified), class 3 (10.6%), which covers cleaning andtoiletry preparations, and class 1 (10%), which includes,
among other things, chemicals used in industry andscience. However, each year since 2014, class 5 hascome to account for between 70% and 96% of allclasses specified in applications filed by Janssen
Pharmaceutica, showing a trend towards less variety in
the Nice classes covered in its applications (figure 13).
Even though Janssen Pharmaceutica has specified
an average of 1.6 classes per application filed, it
has a larger number of two-class (15%) and threeclass applications (19%) in total applications than its
pharmaceutical counterparts. In the company’s twoclass applications, goods class pairs 3 and 5, 1 and5, and 5 and 10 accounted for the largest shares ofbetween 20% and 30% each. Of the three-class applications, the combination of goods classes 1, 3 and 5
accounted for the largest proportion (29.4%).

Madrid applicants fromthe technology sector
This section focuses on a selection of top Madrid applicants from the technology sector, based in China, theRepublic of Korea and the U.S. Beginning with Appleof the U.S., this technology company has filed around
760 Madrid applications since 2004 (the U.S. joined
the Madrid System in November of 2003). There wereapproximately 1,025 classes specified, averaging 1.3
class per application. The maximum number of classes
specified in a single application is five, but 80% of
the applications Apple filed between 2004 and 2019
specified only one.
Class 9, which includes computer hardware, electronic
devices and software, among other things, accounts
for the largest proportion of all the classes Apple has
specified in applications, corresponding to just overhalf (52.6%) (figure 14). This goods class is followed inshare size by services classes 42 (11.5%) and 41 (8%).
Of the top 10 classes specified, seven refer to services
classes, which combined account for over a third (36%)
of all classes specified. This shows the extent to which
Apple protects its brand across different services.
As Apple continues to specify more services, goods
class 9 as a proportion of total classes specified inUSE OF THE NICE CLASSIFICATION OVER TIME

SPECIAL THEME

6. Top classes and combinations of classes specified in all Madrid applications filed by Novartis

29.7%
Classes 5+10
12.3%
Classes 41+44
11.0%
Classes 9+10
9.3%
Classes 3+5
8.1%
Classes 5+44
29.6%
Other pairs

67.5%
Class 5
6.8%
Class 10
6.1%
Class 44
4.5%
Class 92.7%Class 41
12.4%
Others

Two-class pairs

Overall distribution

11.7%
Classes 41+42+44
10.8%
Classes 5+29+30
9.9%Classes 9+10+44
4.5%
Classes 5+41+42
4.5%
Classes 3+5+10
58.6%
Other combinations

Three-class combinations

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

7. Top classes specified in Madrid applications filed by Novartis, 2009–2019

Distribution by Nice class

100

74.0

88.3

71.4

70.6

SHARE OF TOP CLASS IN ALL CLASSES SPECIFIED IN MADRID APPLICATIONS
56.7
69.0
54.7
47.0
79.6
70.3
43.0

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

75

50

25

0

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Application year
CLASS 5

CLASS 44

CLASS 10

CLASS 9CLASS 41

OTHERS

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

15

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

SPECIAL THEME

8. Top classes and combinations of classes specified in all Madrid applications filed by
Richter Gedeon

43.6%
Classes 1+5
29.1%
Classes 5+31
12.7%
Classes 3+5
7.3%
Classes 5+41
3.6%
Classes 3+30
3.7%
Other pairs

90.5%Class 5
3.2%
Class 1
2.5%
Class 31
1.5%Class 3
0.3%
Class 41
2.0%
Others

Two-class pairs

Overall distribution

82.6%
Classes 1+5+31
8.7%
Classes 9+10+44
4.3%
Classes 5+16+35
4.4%
Other combinations

Three-class combinations

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

9. Top classes specified in Madrid applications filed by Richter Gedeon, 2009–2019

Distribution by Nice class

100

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

SHARE OF TOP CLASS IN ALL CLASSES SPECIFIED IN MADRID APPLICATIONS
100.0
92.9
100.0
90.9
100.0
88.5
92.0

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

75

50

25

0

2014

2015

Application year
CLASS 5

CLASS 41

CLASS 10Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

16

CLASS 44

CLASS 16

OTHERS

2016

2017

2018

2019

USE OF THE NICE CLASSIFICATION OVER TIME

SPECIAL THEME

10. Top classes and combinations of classes specified in all Madrid applications filed by
Glaxo Group63.6%
Classes 5+10
18.2%
Classes 3+5
6.1%
Classes 9+10
3.0%Classes 16+41
3.0%
Classes 5+44
6.1%
Other pairs

86.6%
Class 5
2.8%Class 10
1.8%Class 44
1.2%
Class 32
1.0%Class 3
6.6%
Others

Two-class pairs

Overall distribution

50.0%
Classes 5+9+10
50.0%
Other combinations

Three-class combinations

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

11. Top classes specified in Madrid applications filed by Glaxo Group, 2009–2019

Distribution by Nice class

100

85.7

95.2

61.4

90.6

SHARE OF TOP CLASS IN ALL CLASSES SPECIFIED IN MADRID APPLICATIONS
71.4
94.7
98.5
84.9
75.7
100.0
96.7

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

75

50

25

0

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Application year
CLASS 5

CLASS 10

CLASS 44

CLASS 32

CLASS 29

OTHERS

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

17

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

SPECIAL THEME

12. Top classes and combinations of classes specified in all Madrid applications filed by
Janssen Pharmaceutica

29.5%
Classes 3+5
23.3%
Classes 1+5
20.2%
Classes 5+10
6.6%
Classes 9+10
2.1%
Classes 21+24
18.3%
Other pairs

40.7%
Class 5
19.3%
Class 10
10.6%
Class 310.0%
Class 1
4.8%
Class 9
14.6%
Others

Two-class pairs

Overall distribution

29.4%
Classes 1+3+5
14.8%
Classes 1+5+10
13.2%
Classes 3+5+10
5.2%
Classes 1+9+10
2.8%
Classes 3+5+21
34.6%
Other combinations

Three-class combinations

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

13. Top classes specified in Madrid applications filed by Janssen Pharmaceutica, 2009–2019

Distribution by Nice class

100

24.0

26.3

49.0

62.2

SHARE OF TOP CLASS IN ALL CLASSES SPECIFIED IN MADRID APPLICATIONS
46.2
71.4
74.0
70.0
86.4
85.7
96.3

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

75

50

25

0

2014

Application year
CLASS 5

CLASS 10

CLASS 3

CLASS 9Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

18

CLASS 44

OTHERS

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

USE OF THE NICE CLASSIFICATION OVER TIME

In the 11% of total applications in which Apple specified two classes, class pair 9 and 42 occurred in a
fifth. These two classes correspond to the two most
specified classes in all of Apple’s applications combined. Services class pairs 38 and 41, and 35 and 41
were specified in 9.5–10.7% of two-class applications.
Only about 5% of Apple’s applications specified threeclasses, thereby underlining the fact that Apple’s trademarks, on average, are specific to protecting goods andservices covered by only a small number of classes.
Another technology company, Microsoft – also of the
U.S. – has filed around 500 Madrid applications since2004, in which it specified approximately 1,060 classes
with an average 2.1 classes specified per application,
which is higher than Apple’s 1.3. Like Apple, Microsoft’s
most specified classes are goods class 9 (40% of
all classes) and services classes 42 (22.3%) and 41(11.6%), though the shares for these differ from Apple’s(figure 16). Microsoft has specified these three classes
most often in applications filed between 2009 and 2019,
except in 2010, when class 35 counted among its top
three classes (figure 17). Six of Microsoft’s 10 most
preferred classes for seeking trademark protectionrefer to services, amounting to just over half (50.4%)
of all classes specified in applications filed.
A third of all Microsoft’s Madrid applications specified
two classes. In these two-class applications, classpair 9 and 42 was specified in 61%, followed byclass pair 9 and 41 (23.8%). In about 12% of the company’s applications in which three classes were specified, class combinations 9, 41 and 42 (28.3%) and 9,
38 and 42 (23.3%) occurred most frequently together.
Samsung Electronics, based in the Republic of Korea,
has filed about 415 Madrid applications since 2003,
the year the country became a Madrid member. These
applications specified 585 classes, averaging 1.4
classes per application. Class 9 accounted for 62.6%of the classes specified in all applications, by far thelargest share of all Nice goods and services (figure 18).
The next highest shares were held by, in order of magnitude, classes 42, 7, 11, 41 and 38, ranging from only
3.6% up to 7.7%, and covering a wide array of goods
and services, for example, machines, refrigerators,
driers, telecommunications services, and services
provided by computer specialists, to name but a few.
This is a reflection of Samsung Electronics’s diversity
as a company that produces, among other things,
mobile phones, televisions, batteries, semiconductors
and home appliances.

SPECIAL THEME

applications has fallen from a peak of 87.1% in 2012
down to 42.1% in 2019 (figure 15).

About 17% of Samsung’s applications specified twoclasses. The most specified pair was goods class 9
and services class 42 with 31.9%. This is the sameclass pair specified most often in two-class applications filed by both Apple and Microsoft, and, as shown
later, Huawei. With regard to three-class applications,class combinations 9, 38 and 42; 7, 9 and 11; and 9, 10
and 14 occur in equal shares of 18.8%.
Huawei of China has filed around 360 Madrid applications since 2005, specifying approximately 670 classes.
This corresponds to an average of 1.9 classes specified per application filed. Goods class 9 represents
just over half (51.2%) of all classes specified, followed
by services classes 42 (15.2%), 35 (5.8%), 38 (5.6%)
and 41 (4.8%) (figure 20). Together, these four services
classes account for almost a third (31.4%) of classes
specified in all of Huawei’s applications.
About a fifth of Huawei’s total applications specified
two classes and of these, class pair 9 and 42 accounted
for 77%. However, only 6% of the company’s applications contained three classes and among these,class combination 9, 38 and 42 made up a third (33.3%).
Although goods class 9 has consistently accounted forthe largest proportion of classes specified in Huawei’s
applications, like for Apple, this has decreased fromabout 79% in 2017 to approximately 35% in 2019 (figure 21), indicative of a diversification in the goods andservices covered by Huawei’s marks in recent years.

Madrid applicants from theautomotive industry
Focusing on several top Madrid applicants selectedfrom the automotive industry, three from Germany andone from the Republic of Korea, it is instructive to survey the composition of goods and services covered bytheir respective trademarks. Starting with Volkswagenof Germany, one of the largest automakers by sales
worldwide, it has filed about 800 Madrid applications
covering approximately 3,900 goods and services
classes. The high number of classes specified relative
to applications has resulted in a high average of 4.9classes per application filed. It is hardly surprising that
goods class 12, which relates to vehicles, is the most
specified class in Volkswagen’s applications; however,its relatively modest 17.8% share of total classes specified does not display the same dominance by a single
class in applications as found for companies operatingin the pharmaceutical and technology industries (figure 22). Rather, Volkswagen has a wider distribution ofshares across a number of Nice classes, such as services class 37 (13.6%), which includes repair and installation services, goods class 28 (10.8%) that covers,
19

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

SPECIAL THEME

14. Top classes and combinations of classes specified in all Madrid applications filed by Apple

20.2%
Classes 9+42
10.7%
Classes 38+41
9.5%
Classes 35+41
6.0%
Classes 35+42
6.0%Classes 9+28
47.6%
Other pairs

52.6%
Class 9
11.5%
Class 42
8.0%Class 41
7.1%
Class 35
5.0%Class 38
15.8%
Others

Two-class pairs

Overall distribution

7.5%
Classes 35+41+42
7.5%
Classes 35+41+43
7.5%
Classes 9+41+42
7.5%
Classes 9+38+42
7.5%
Classes 38+41+42
62.5%
Other combinations

Three-class combinations

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

15. Top classes specified in Madrid applications filed by Apple, 2009–2019

Distribution by Nice class

100

76.9

46.9

47.1

87.1

SHARE OF TOP CLASS IN ALL CLASSES SPECIFIED IN MADRID APPLICATIONS
76.6
55.6
55.8
58.3
54.0
47.2
42.1

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

75

50

25

0

2014

2015

Application year
CLASS 9CLASS 42

CLASS 41

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

20

CLASS 35

CLASS 38

OTHERS

2016

2017

2018

2019

USE OF THE NICE CLASSIFICATION OVER TIME

SPECIAL THEME

16. Top classes and combinations of classes specified in all Madrid applications filed by Microsoft

61.0%
Classes 9+42
23.8%
Classes 9+41
2.4%
Classes 35+41
2.4%
Classes 9+38
2.4%
Classes 9+28
8.0%
Other pairs

40.0%Class 922.3%
Class 42
11.6%
Class 41
7.1%
Class 38
5.6%
Class 35
13.4%
Others

Two-class pairs

Overall distribution

28.3%
Classes 9+41+42
23.3%
Classes 9+38+42
10.0%Classes 9+35+42
5.0%Classes 38+42+45
5.0%Classes 9+39+42
28.4%
Other combinations

Three-class combinations

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

17. Top classes specified in Madrid applications filed by Microsoft, 2009–2019

Distribution by Nice class

100

54.0

56.1

23.7

40.7

SHARE OF TOP CLASS IN ALL CLASSES SPECIFIED IN MADRID APPLICATIONS
55.7
51.8
54.7
40.7
21.9
33.3
32.9

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

75

50

25

0

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Application year
CLASS 9CLASS 42

CLASS 41

CLASS 38

CLASS 35

OTHERS

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

21

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

SPECIAL THEME

18. Top classes and combinations of classes specified in all Madrid applications filed by
Samsung Electronics

31.9%
Classes 9+42
23.2%
Classes 9+41
11.6%
Classes 7+11
11.6%
Classes 9+14
5.8%
Classes 9+10
15.9%
Other pairs

62.6%Class 97.7%Class 42
7.2%
Class 7
5.5%Class 11
4.8%
Class 41
12.2%
Others

Two-class pairs

Overall distribution

18.8%
Classes 9+38+42
18.8%
Classes 7+9+11
18.8%
Classes 9+10+14
12.5%
Classes 9+42+45
12.5%
Classes 9+38+41
18.6%
Other combinations

Three-class combinations

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

19. Top classes specified in Madrid applications filed by Samsung Electronics, 2009–2019

Distribution by Nice class

100

20.0

0.0

80.0

80.6

SHARE OF TOP CLASS IN ALL CLASSES SPECIFIED IN MADRID APPLICATIONS
54.2
43.4
59.6
60.3
68.4
65.1
60.0

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

75

50

25

0

2014

Application year
CLASS 9CLASS 42

CLASS 7

CLASS 11

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

22

CLASS 41

OTHERS

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

USE OF THE NICE CLASSIFICATION OVER TIME

SPECIAL THEME

20. Top classes and combinations of classes specified in all Madrid applications filed by
Huawei Technologies

77.0%Classes 9+42
5.4%
Classes 9+10
4.1%
Classes 9+41
4.1%
Classes 9+14
2.7%
Classes 9+35
6.7%
Other pairs

51.2%
Class 915.2%
Class 42
5.8%
Class 35
5.6%
Class 38
4.8%
Class 41
17.4%
Others

Two-class pairs

Overall distribution

33.3%
Classes 9+38+42
25.0%Classes 9+35+42
8.3%
Classes 9+35+38
4.2%
Classes 40+44+45
4.2%
Classes 9+41+42
25.0%
Other combinations

Three-class combinations

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

21. Top classes specified in Madrid applications filed by Huawei Technologies, 2010–2019

Distribution by Nice class

100

66.7

100.0

78.9

68.8

2010

2011

2012

2013

SHARE OF TOP CLASS IN ALL CLASSES SPECIFIED IN MADRID APPLICATIONS
64.0
73.7
77.0
78.6
60.2
34.9

75

50

25

0

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Application year
CLASS 9CLASS 42

CLASS 38

CLASS 35

CLASS 41

OTHERS

Note: Huawei did not file any Madrid applications in 2009.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

23

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

SPECIAL THEME

among other items, sporting articles, class 35 (9.6%),
which covers services such as office functions, advertising and business management, and class 9 (6.2%),
relating, in part, to computer hardware and software.
Given its high average number of classes per application, Volkswagen filed few applications specifying only
two classes. However, applications containing exactly
three classes made up 28% of all applications filed.
In these three-class applications, class combination
12, 28 and 37 accounted for 37.2% of the total. These
three classes represent the top three classes into which
Volkswagen’s trademarks fall, as well as a selection of
a diverse group of goods and services.
Although class 28 is the third most specified in all
applications filed over all years combined, services
class 35 has ranked second or third every year since2010, except in 2014 (figure 23).
BMW (Bayerische Motoren Werke), another German
motor vehicle manufacturer, producing both cars andmotorcycles, has over the decades filed around 1,000
applications covering almost 2,900 classes, averaging a class count of 2.9 per application. Compared to
Volkswagen, BMW has an even higher share associatedwith class 12, accounting for over a quarter (26.2%)of all classes specified in applications (figure 24). Like
Volkswagen, class 28 (15.7%), which indicates thebranding of sporting articles, is one of BMW’s most
preferred classes; ranking second for BMW rather
than third as it does for Volkswagen. Class 9 (6.7%) is
the third most specified class in the company’s applications. Interestingly, it is followed by class 16 (5.6%),
which includes paper goods and office requisites,
adding variety to the scope of protection sought by
BMW’s trademarks.
BMW’s two-class applications represent 41% of all
applications filed. The top two classes specified in all
applications combined are 12 and 28 and they are also
the most specified class pair, accounting for (69.3%)of all two-class applications filed.
About a fifth of BMW’s total applications specified
exactly three classes. The most frequently occurring combination consists of classes 12, 16 and 28,
accounting for 43.4% of all three-class applications
filed, followed by class combination 12, 25 and 28(16.8%), which includes clothing covered by class 25.
And yet, when we look at the shares of top classes
specified in applications filed in the decade from 2009
to 2019, class 25 does not appear (figure 25). Services
class 35 is the fifth most specified class in all of BMW’s
applications combined and appeared among the top
three classes in 2012, 2013 and 2015, and again in 2019.
24

Hyundai motor company of the Republic of Korea has
filed around 180 Madrid applications since its homecountry joined the Madrid System in 2003. Around 265
classes have been specified, averaging 1.5 classes per
application. Class 12 relating to vehicles accounted
for the largest proportion (43.7%) of all classes specified in applications. This is much larger than for either
Volkswagen or BMW, which suggests that Hyundai
has focused more on protecting its brand as it relates
to the vehicles it produces and less on the othergoods it makes and the services it provides (figure26). Class 12 is followed by classes 9 (6.5%) and 28(5.3%), which account for much smaller shares of allclasses specified in applications by comparison. Given
Hyundai’s low average class count, as expected, very
few of its applications were two-class (6%) and threeclass (15%) ones.
Class 7, which includes machines, machine tools, motors
and engines, accounts for a relatively small proportion(2.7%) of all classes specified by Hyundai in applications;nonetheless, its pairing with class 12 is one of the mostcommon pairings in all two-class applications filed.
For five of the ten years spanning 2010 to 2019, class 12
accounted for half or more of all classes specified inHyundai’s applications, and in 2019 this company’s applications were exclusively related to class 12 (figure 27).
Daimler, another automotive corporation from Germany,has filed approximately 700 applications covering
about 1,980 classes, with an average class count of
2.8 per application. As with the other automakers presented, class 12 accounted for the largest proportion(30%) of all classes specified in Daimler’s total applications (figure 28). Goods class 12 is followed by 9
(6.6%), 28 (4.1%) and services class 35 (3.6%). It isnoteworthy that all four vehicle manufacturers countgoods class 28, which includes sporting articles,
among the three most preferred classes covered bytheir trademarks.
Almost 17% of Daimler’s trademarks specified twoclasses. The most specified pair consisted of classes
12 and 28, accounting for a large proportion (43.5%)of the two class pairs in these applications. Only
6% of Daimler’s applications specified exactly threeclasses. In these three-class applications, a services
class combination consisting of classes 35, 41 and 42
comprised the largest proportion (10.3%).
The top three classes specified in applications filed
by Daimler in 2019 had a combined share of around38%, which is much smaller than in many previous
years when they accounted for 50–80% of all classes
specified in applications (figure 29).

USE OF THE NICE CLASSIFICATION OVER TIME

SPECIAL THEME

22. Top classes and combinations of classes specified in all Madrid applications filed by
Volkswagen

17.4%
Classes 9+12
17.4%
Classes 12+28
17.4%
Classes 9+42
13.0%Classes 12+37
13.0%Classes 7+12
21.8%
Other pairs

17.8%
Class 12
13.6%
Class 37
10.8%
Class 28
9.6%
Class 35
6.2%
Class 942.0%
Others

Two-class pairs

Overall distribution

37.2%
Classes 12+28+37
15.1%
Classes 12+35+37
10.1%
Classes 7+12+37
4.6%
Classes 9+12+38
4.6%
Classes 7+9+12
28.4%
Other combinations

Three-class combinations

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

23. Top classes specified in Madrid applications filed by Volkswagen, 2009–2019

Distribution by Nice class

100

13.3

18.2

22.0

23.7

SHARE OF TOP CLASS IN ALL CLASSES SPECIFIED IN MADRID APPLICATIONS
24.9
19.6
7.1
14.5
10.0
13.2
17.8

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

75

50

25

0

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Application year
CLASS 12

CLASS 37

CLASS 35

CLASS 28

CLASS 9OTHERS

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

25

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

SPECIAL THEME

24. Top classes and combinations of classes specified in all Madrid applications filed by
BMW

69.3%
Classes 12+28
9.8%
Classes 12+35
6.8%
Classes 9+12
1.0%Classes 9+38
0.8%Classes 9+42
12.3%
Other pairs

26.2%
Class 12
15.7%
Class 28
6.7%
Class 95.6%Class 16
4.5%
Class 35
41.3%
Others

Two-class pairs

Overall distribution

43.4%
Classes 12+16+28
16.8%
Classes 12+25+28
6.6%
Classes 9+12+38
3.6%
Classes 9+12+35
3.6%
Classes 7+9+12
26.0%
Other combinations

Three-class combinations

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

25. Top classes specified in Madrid applications filed by BMW, 2009–2019

Distribution by Nice class

100

27.1

39.8

32.1

32.8

SHARE OF TOP CLASS IN ALL CLASSES SPECIFIED IN MADRID APPLICATIONS
18.3
16.8
15.6
24.9
26.1
29.6
32.0

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

75

50

25

0

2014

2015

Application year
CLASS 12

CLASS 28

CLASS 9Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

26

CLASS 35

CLASS 37

OTHERS

2016

2017

2018

2019

USE OF THE NICE CLASSIFICATION OVER TIME

SPECIAL THEME

26. Top classes and combinations of classes specified in all Madrid applications filed byHyundai Motor Company

43.7%
Class 12
6.5%
Class 95.3%
Class 28
4.2%
Class 35
4.2%
Class 41
36.1%
Others18.2%
Classes 7+12
9.1%
Classes 35+37
9.1%
Classes 41+42
9.1%
Classes 9+38
54.5%
Other pairs

Two-class pairs

Overall distribution

22.2%
Classes 9+12+14
22.2%
Classes 27+28+41
22.2%
Classes 16+18+20
22.2%
Classes 21+24+25
7.4%
Classes 12+35+42
3.8%
Other combinations

Three-class combinations

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

27. Top classes specified in Madrid applications filed by Hyundai Motor Company, 2010–2019

Distribution by Nice class

100

85.7

50.0

16.7

11.8

2010

2011

2012

2013

SHARE OF TOP CLASS IN ALL CLASSES SPECIFIED IN MADRID APPLICATIONS
42.1
96.6
46.5
66.7
34.5
100.0

75

50

25

0

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Application year
CLASS 12

CLASS 9CLASS 28

CLASS 35

CLASS 41

OTHERS

Note: Hyundai Motor Company did not file any Madrid applications in 2009.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

27

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

SPECIAL THEME

28. Top classes and combinations of classes specified in all Madrid applications filed by Daimler

43.5%
Classes 12+28
15.7%
Classes 9+12
10.2%
Classes 7+12
5.6%
Classes 12+37
3.7%
Classes 3+12
21.3%
Other pairs

30.0%Class 12
6.6%Class 94.1%
Class 28
3.6%
Class 35
3.0%Class 39
52.7%
Others

Two-class pairs

Overall distribution

10.3%
Classes 35+41+42
7.7%Classes 7+9+12
7.7%
Classes 12+36+37
5.1%
Classes 12+40+42
5.1%
Classes 12+38+41
64.1%
Other combinations

Three-class combinations

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

29. Top classes specified in Madrid applications filed by Daimler, 2009–2019

Distribution by Nice class

100

32.5

19.4

46.2

24.3

SHARE OF TOP CLASS IN ALL CLASSES SPECIFIED IN MADRID APPLICATIONS
37.6
50.5
65.1
37.6
17.8
69.8
12.5

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

75

50

25

0

2014

2015

Application year
CLASS 12

CLASS 9CLASS 28

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

28

CLASS 35

CLASS 38

OTHERS

2016

2017

2018

2019

USE OF THE NICE CLASSIFICATION OVER TIME

The average number of Nice classes specified in a
Madrid application has remained largely unchanged
from three decades ago, rising only slightly from 2.3
in 1990 to 2.5 in 2019. This shows that the majority oftrademark holders have sought brand protection formarketing goods and services that generally fall into
no more than two to three classes. This has remained
relatively constant, even as the volume of Madrid applications filed has almost quadrupled over the period
and membership to the Madrid System grown fromjust under 30 members in 1990 to over 100 in 2019.
For applicants from some countries, the average
number of classes specified in their applications has
trended upward over time, but for many by no morethan one additional class. For others, the average hasremained largely unchanged or even decreased.
Some Nice class headings are very broad and contain alist of many different goods or services belonging to thesame class. The low average number of classes specified per application masks the fact that the number ofwords a trademark holder indicates per Nice class hasgrown over time. In fact, the average number of words
indicated by applicants in their Madrid applications has
more than tripled, from around 76 in 1999 to almost
237 in 2019. This demonstrates that companies, mostof which specify only a small selection of classes intheir applications, have been indicating increasingly
more goods or services within each Nice class. This
could be due to several factors. These include trademark holders wanting to broaden or, in some cases,
even narrow the scope of protection for their marks;
IP offices requiring applicants to be more specific withregard to the goods and services to be protected by amark; and some Nice classes being vaguer than others,
thereby necessitating a more detailed list of words.

SPECIAL THEME

Conclusion

fied class, accounting for 8.3% of all classes specified in applications. Other services classes have also
seen their shares increase considerably, reflecting the
growth in the global services industry over the last
three decades.
Whereas some Nice goods and services classes
have seen their shares of total classes specified inapplications grow, others have declined. For example, the overall share of goods class 5, which covers
pharmaceuticals and other preparations for medical
purposes, has fallen by 2.1 percentage points since1990. However, this is not to suggest that there arefewer applications being filed by companies from thepharmaceutical industry; rather, the composition ofcompanies from many different industries has become
more diverse over time and the same applies to theclasses in which they seek protection when using theMadrid System.
The selection of top Madrid applicants active in thepharmaceutical, technology and automotive industries
highlights the similarities and disparities between companies operating in different sectors and also within thesame sector with regard to the Nice classes specified intheir Madrid applications. The classes and class combinations that account for the highest shares specified
in their applications, together with how the compositionof their most preferred classes has changed over thelast decade, help show how each company has used
the Nice Classification to protect their brands internationally via the Madrid System.

Since 1990, demand for trademark protection forgoods covered by class 9 has exceeded that for the
goods and services covered by any other Nice class.
As only one of a total 45 Nice classes, class 9 now
accounts for a tenth of all classes specified in Madrid
applications. This reflects the importance that many
companies operating in numerous industries placeon protecting their brands as they relate to computer
hardware, software and electronic devices.
Services class 35, covering services such as office
functions, advertising and business management, has
shown the largest increase over time in how frequently
it is specified in Madrid applications. Back in 1990, it
was the 10th most specified class in applications filed,but by 2019 it had become the second most speci29

30

Section A
Statistics on Madrid
international applications
Highlights
International
trademarkapplications filed
via the Madrid
System reached
64,400 in 2019,
marking a 10th yearof uninterrupted
growthApplicants filed an estimated 64,400 international trademark applications under
the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)-administered Madrid System
in 2019 (figure A1). This is an increase of almost 3,500 on the previous year, resulting in annual growth of 5.7% and marking a 10th year of uninterrupted expansion.
Strong growth in Madrid applications from the United States of America (U.S.)
was the main driver. The rise in filings (+1,261) from applicants based in the U.S.
alone accounted for over a third (37 percentage points) of the overall rise in Madrid
applications filed worldwide. Increases in Madrid applications from Switzerland(+344) and Turkey (+543) also contributed substantially to overall growth by 10 and
16 percentage points each.

The Madrid Systemfurther expanded
its global coverage
by welcoming
new members
Brazil, Canada
and Malaysia

Brazil, Canada and Malaysia joined the Madrid System in 2019, bringing the total
number of members to 106 as of December 31, 2019. The addition of Malaysia
brought to 32 the number of Asian countries covered by the System. In addition,
new members Brazil and Canada represent an important expansion of the System
in both Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) and North America. Their membership now facilitates the use of the Madrid System by trademark holders locatedin these two countries, as well as by holders from abroad who are now able toextend protection for their marks to these two new Madrid member countries via
international registrations. With these three accessions, the Madrid System now
offers trademark holders the ability to obtain protection for their branded products
and services within a geographical area covering 122 countries. Combined, Madrid
members represent 63% of all countries worldwide, home to approximately 80%of the world’s population, and in which about 87% of global GDP occurs, with thepotential to increase these shares as membership continues to grow.2

Worldwide, where
were the largest
users of the
Madrid Systemfrom in 2019?

Recording double-digit growth for the second year in a row, applicants based in
the U.S. continued to top the list of origins with the greatest number of international applications filed via the Madrid System. A strong year-on-year growth of
14.3% resulted from the estimated 10,087 Madrid applications filed by U.S.-based
applicants in 2019. This was followed by applications from Germany (7,700), China(6,339), France (4,437) and Switzerland (3,729) (figure A6). As mentioned above,
applicants located in the U.S. filed 1,261 more Madrid applications in 2019 than in
2018. For comparison, applicants in Germany filed only 156 more than in the previous year and for China the increase was 71. As for applicants based in France,
they filed 83 fewer applications than the year before.

2Complete World Bank GDP and population data are available only up to 2018.

31

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

Combined, the top 10 origins of Madrid applications accounted for about 71% of
the total filed in 2019, a share that has remained more or less unchanged for overa decade. The first top nine origins and their ranking in 2019 remained the same
as for the previous year. However, Turkey’s high growth boosted it from 11th top
origin in 2018 to move ahead of the Russian Federation and become the 10th top
origin in 2019. In 2019, applicants based in Madrid member countries located on
the European continent continued to file the majority (54.4%) of all Madrid applications; however, this is about 21 percentage points less than their combined share a
decade previously in 2009. Whereas over half of all Madrid applications originatedin Europe in 2019, almost a quarter (24%) came from Asia, which is almost double
what it was only 10 years before (12.2%) (figure A5).
In addition to the notable growth recorded by the U.S., among the top 20 origins,
New Zealand (+16.7%), the Russian Federation (+15.6%), Singapore (+11.5%),
Switzerland (+10.2%) and Turkey (+37.8%) also recorded strong year-on-year growth
exceeding 10%. This is in contrast to declines in applications of one percent ormore from several origins, including Austria (–1%), Denmark (–4.6%), France (–1.8%)
and Japan (–1.1%). Among the top origins of Madrid applications, Italy recorded
the largest drop of 16% from 2018 to 2019.
China, the Russian Federation (1,712) and Turkey (1,980) are three middle-income
countries to be among the top 20 origins (figure A6).
Not only did U.S. applicants file the most Madrid applications in 2019, they also
made the most designations (69,619) in their Madrid applications in order to expand
the geographical scope of the protection for their marks. Despite a one-year declineof 21.9%, applicants in China, which ranked third according to applications filed
by origin, made considerably more designations (58,866) in their applications than
did those from Germany (43,418), and therefore ranked second in terms of designations made (figure A12). China’s higher number of total designations relative
to Madrid applications filed can be explained by the fact that applicants based in
China designated, on average, about 11 Madrid members in each application filed
in 2019 (figure A13). This is almost double the average of approximately six designated by applicants located in Germany. The average number of designations madein Madrid applications filed by all origins combined is close to seven (figure A10).
Surpassing both France and Switzerland, the United Kingdom (U.K.), with an
exceptionally high year-on-year growth of 42.6%, went from being the sixth largest
origin of designations in applications in 2018 to rank fourth in 2019. The increasein designations from the U.K. has trended upward in recent years in the run-up to
Brexit, possibly due partly to the uncertainty of some U.K.-based applicants as
to whether in the future they will be able to use the European Union Intellectual
Property Organization (EUIPO) to extend protection for their marks to European
Union (EU) member states.

32

SECTION A: STATISTICS ON MADRID INTERNATIONAL APPLICATIONS

One applicant
each from China
and India ranked
among the top
five Madrid
applicants in 2019

With 189 Madrid applications, French personal care and cosmetics company L’Oréal
was the top applicant in 2019, followed by pharmaceutical company Novartis AG
of Switzerland (135), technology company Huawei Technologies of China (131) andresearch and advisory company NirSan Connect of India (124). This is the first yearthat applicants based in middle-income Asian countries have appeared among
the top five applicants, which prior to 2019 had primarily consisted of European
companies (figure A2).
Eleven of the top 20 Madrid applicants in 2019 were companies based in Europe,
two fewer than in 2018. Six were from Asia, up from four the previous year, andtwo from North America, which were technology companies Apple and Microsoft.
Widening the scope to include the top approximately 100 Madrid applicants reveals
that 64% were from Europe, 18% from North America, specifically the U.S., and
15% from Asia. Combined, these top 100 applicants accounted for almost 4,100
applications, which is still only 6% of all Madrid applications filed in 2019. The low
share held by its most active users shows how widely use of the Madrid Systemis spread over many different applicants.
Companies located in almost 30 countries – including Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Kazakhstan, New Zealand, the Russian Federation and Turkey, to name just a
few – filed at least 19 Madrid applications in 2019 to rank among the top 100
Madrid applicants. In this list of top applicants, the most companies were basedin Germany (24), followed by the U.S. (20), Switzerland (12), France (9), Japan (5)and the Republic of Korea (4).

Which goods
and services
attracted themost trademark
protection?

Nice Classification statistics enable a ranking of the kinds of goods and services
most frequently covered by Madrid international trademark applications. Since
1985, the most specified class among a total of 45 has been goods class 9, which
includes computer hardware and software and other electrical or electronic apparatus of a scientific nature (table A22). In 2019, class 9 alone accounted for a tenth(10.2%) of all classes specified in applications filed. The other most specifiedclasses were: class 35 (8.3% of the total), which covers services such as office
functions, advertising and business management; class 42 (6.8%), which includes
services provided by, for example, scientific, industrial or technological engineers
and computer specialists; class 41 (5%), which mainly covers services in the areasof education, training, entertainment, sporting and cultural activities; class 5 (4.5%),
which covers pharmaceuticals and other preparations for medical purposes; andclass 25 (4.3%), which includes clothing. Three of the four most specified classes
are services classes. Among the top 10 classes, class 5 (+12.5%) and class 41(+9.7%) were the two that saw the fastest one-year growth.

33

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

Over a thirdof all Madrid
applications
contain marks
used in theservices industry

The first 34 of the 45 Nice classes cover goods, whereas the remaining 11 classes
cover services. For the second year in a row, more than a third (34.6%) of allclasses specified in Madrid applications in 2019 were services classes. This is
6.5 percentage points higher than the combined share of 28.1% recorded in 2005
(figure A26) and reflects the general growth in the global services industry. Goods
and services class shares differ across origins, however. For example, among theselected origins presented in table A27, Croatia (41.6%) and Switzerland (42.3%)
had the highest proportions of services-related classes in applications filed in
2019, in each case exceeding 40% of all classes specified in Madrid applications
from these countries. They were followed by the U.K. (39.5%), the U.S. (38.7%)
and France (38.2%), which likewise have developed services sectors. Conversely,
Asian countries China (20%) and Japan (25.9%) had lower than average services
class shares. Whereas a majority of selected origins showed an increase in theirservices class share in 2019 compared to 10 years earlier, several saw a decline;
for example, Cyprus (–24.4 percentage points) and the Russian Federation (–6.8).

The researchand technology
sector continues toattract the highest
share of trademark
protection via the
Madrid System

For the purpose of statistical reporting, the 45 Nice classes can be grouped into 10
industry sectors. The scientific research, information and communication technology
sector (abbreviated to research and technology), which includes top Nice classes
9 and 42, among others, continued to account for the highest share (20.6%) of allclasses specified in Madrid applications filed in 2019. It was followed by pharmaceuticals, health and cosmetics (abbreviated to health), agricultural products andservices (agriculture), and textiles, clothing and accessories (clothing and accessories), each accounting for between 10.9% and 12.7% of all filing activity. As inprevious years, the chemicals sector (3.2%) and transportation and logistics (6.4%)
continued to receive the lowest shares of total filing activity (figure A23).
The top three sectors in which Madrid applications are filed vary across origins.
Research and technology ranks in the top three industry sectors for nine of the
top 10 origins, the exception being the Russian Federation (figure A24). For eightof these origins, it is the top sector. In contrast, clothing and accessories is the top
sector for applicants based in Italy, and it is agriculture for those in the RussianFederation. Health ranks among the top three sectors for seven of the top origins.
Germany, the Russian Federation and Switzerland counted business services as
one of their top three sectors. Leisure and education is listed as one of the top
three sectors for the U.K. and the U.S. only.

Where do Madrid
applicants seek
to protect theirtrademarks
abroad?

For the third year in a row, the EU (27,102) attracted the most designations in Madrid
applications in 2019, followed by China (24,423) and the U.S. (23,851) (figure A15).
This means that Madrid applicants sought to extend protection for their marks to
the 28 EU member countries as a whole more than they did to any other Madrid
member jurisdiction. Like China, nine of the top 20 designated Madrid members
were middle-income countries, notably India (12,414), Mexico (10,715), the RussianFederation (16,090) and Turkey (8,996). Among the top destinations for international
trademark registration via the Madrid System, the U.K. saw the biggest surge inannual growth of 36.4%, almost 9 percentage points more than its increase in 2018,
and occurring during the lead-up to Brexit.
For a fourth consecutive year, the 20 most designated Madrid members, combined, received 62% of all designations made in Madrid applications filed in 2019.
In addition to the U.K., top designated Madrid members Indonesia (+20.3%) and
Thailand (+13.2) also saw double-digit annual increases in designations received. In
contrast, eight of the top Madrid members received fewer designations in Madrid
applications in 2019 than they had in 2018, with India (–3.3%) and Turkey (–3.2%)
recording the steepest declines.

34

Madrid international applications
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9

Trend in international applications, 2005–2019
Top Madrid applicants, 2019
International applications by origin, 2019
International applications by income group, 2009 and 2019
International applications by region, 2009 and 2019
International applications for the top 20 origins, 2019
Trends in international applications for the top five origins, 2005–2019
International applications for selected middle-income country origins, 2019
Trends in international applications for selected middle-income country origins, 2005–2019

37
38
40
40
41
41
42
42
43

Designations in Madrid international applications
A10
A11
A12
A13
A14
A15
A16
A17
A18
A19

Trend in designations in international applications and average number of designations per
application, 2005–2019
Distribution of designations per international application, 2019
Designations in international applications for the top 20 origins, 2019
Distribution of designations per international application for the top 20 origins, 2019
Distribution of the number of designations per international application for the top six origins, 2019
Designations in international applications for the top 20 designated Madrid members, 2019
Flows of designations from selected top origins to the top 10 designated Madrid members, 2019
Flows of designations from selected middle-income countries of origin to selected designatedMadrid members, 2019
Distribution of designations in international applications for the top 15 designatedMadrid members received from their top three origins, 2019
Distribution of designations in international applications for selected designated low- andmiddle-income Madrid members received from their top three origins, 2019

43
44
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
50

Nice classes specified in Madrid international applications
A20
A21
A22
A23
A24
A25
A26
A27
A28
A29

Trend in the number of classes specified in international applications, 2005–2019
Distribution of the number of classes specified per international application, 2019
Classes specified in international applications, 2019
International applications by industry sector, 2019
International applications by top three sectors for the top 10 origins, 2019
International applications by top three sectors for selected middle-income countries of origin, 2019
Trend in services classes versus goods classes, 2005–2019
Goods classes versus services classes in international applications for selected origins, 2009 and 2019
International applications by top three sectors for the top 10 designated Madrid members, 2019
International applications by top three sectors for selected designated low- and middle-income
Madrid members, 2019

51
51
52
53
54
54
55
56
57
57

Statistical table
A30

International applications and designations via the Madrid System, 201958

SECTION A: STATISTICS ON MADRID INTERNATIONAL APPLICATIONSMadrid international applications
Trademark holders filed an estimated 64,400 Madrid applications in 2019, almost 3,500
more than in the previous year, resulting in annual growth of 5.7% and marking a decadeof expansion.

60,00050,00040,00030,00020,000SECTION A

Madrid applications

A1. Trend in international applications, 2005–2019

–13.8
14.8

7.6

10.1

3.5

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

10.7

5.8

5.8

5.4

3.0

1.1

9.2

7.4

5.9

5.7

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Application year
MADRID APPLICATIONSGROWTH RATE (%)

Note: This figure presents the numbers and annual growth rates of international applications filed via the Madrid System. Data for 2019 are
WIPO estimates.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

37

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

Personal care and cosmetics company L’Oréal of France filed 189 Madrid applications in
2019, pushing it up one place to surpass Novartis of Switzerland and take top spot.
A2. Top Madrid applicants, 2019

RankingChange inpositionfrom 2018

Madrid applications
Madrid applicant

Origin

2017

2018

2019

SECTION A

1

1

L’OREAL

France

198

169

189

2

–1

NOVARTIS AG

Switzerland

96

174

135

3

8

HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO.,LTD.

China

36

63

131

4

18

NIRSAN CONNECT PRIVATE LIMITED

India

24

42

124

5

7

RIGO TRADING S.A. SOCIETE ANONYME

Luxembourg

57

60

103

6

–2

APPLE INC.

U.S.

74

87

101

7

0

SHISEIDO COMPANY, LTD

Japan

34

79

84

8

6

BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT

Germany

70

52

78

9

–3

HENKEL AG & CO KGAA

Germany

43

86

77

10

–6

RICHTER GEDEON NYRT.

Hungary

117

87

69

11

1

BIOFARMA

France

61

60

64
63

12

3

MICROSOFT CORPORATION

U.S.

53

50

13

42

GLAXO GROUP LIMITED

U.K.

56

27

59

14

–4

BRILLUX GMBH & CO. KG

Germany

73

68

55

14

592

SOCIETE COOPERATIVE GROUPEMENTS D ACHATS DESCENTRES LECLERC

France

12

7

55

16

n.a.

WAREHOUSE LIMITEDNew Zealand

0

0

54

17

30

AMOREPACIFIC CORPORATION

Republic of Korea

8

28

52

18

57

AUGUST STORCK KG

Germany

24

23

51

18

22

JOINT STOCK COMPANY RAKHAT

Kazakhstan

1

30

51

20

–11

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

Republic of Korea

61

73

50

21

69

JT INTERNATIONAL S.A.

Switzerland

11

21

49

22

–6

EURO GAMES TECHNOLOGY LTD.

Bulgaria

7

48

48

22

41

MERCK KGAA

Germany

45

25

48

24

3

BEIERSDORF AG

Germany

50

38

46

25

–6

SOCIETE DES PRODUITS NESTLE S.A.

Switzerland

61

45

43

26

580

BURN CABLE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS LIMITED

U.K.

1

7

41

26

1,449

KT & G CORPORATION

Republic of Korea

0

4

41

28

107

F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE AG

Switzerland

4

16

39

28

6

KRKA, TOVARNA ZDRAVIL, D.D., NOVO MESTO

Slovenia

73

35

39

30

–3

ADP GAUSELMANN GMBH

Germany

104

38

38

30

52

BASF SE

Germany

24

22

38

30

36

ROBERT BOSCH GMBH

Germany

38

24

38

33

33

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH

Germany

16

24

37

34

n.a.

LA RIVE SPOLKA AKCYJNA

Poland

0

0

36

34

–12

TRI-COASTAL DESIGN GROUP, INC.

U.S.

27

42

36

36

–6

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH EUROPE SA

Switzerland

82

37

35

36

357

GUANGDONG OPPO MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONSCORP., LTD.

China

0

9

35

36

89

INTERNATIONAL FRUIT GENETICS, LLC

U.S.

0

17

35

36

n.a.

PUBLIC JOINT STOCK COMPANY DETSKY MIR

Russian Federation

0

0

35

40

–2

SOREMARTEC S.A.

Luxembourg

33

31

33

40

437

SPIGEN KOREA CO., LTD.

Republic of Korea

10

8

33

40

–13

VOLKSWAGEN AG

Germany

41

38

33

43

32

MOOSE CREATIVEMANAGEMENT PTY LTD

Australia

30

23

32

44

–9

DERMAPHARM AG

Germany

16

33

30

44

n.a.

MEISSNER FILTRATION PRODUCTS, INC.

U.S.

0

0

30

46

n.a.

SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION AG

Switzerland

0

0

29

47

n.a.

DJECO

France

0

0

28

47

–16

PHILIP MORRIS PRODUCTS S.A.

Switzerland

59

36

28

49

n.a.

BATH & BODY WORKS BRAND MANAGEMENT, INC.

U.S.

0

0

27

49

–13

BIOGENA NATURPRODUKTE GMBH & CO KG

Austria

18

32

27

49

41

JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA N.V.

Belgium

62

21

27

49

n.a.

RELIANCE WORLDWIDE CORPORATION

U.S.

0

0

27

53

143

AUDI AG

Germany

10

13

26

53

56

LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIERFrance

12

18

26

53

–45

NINTENDO CO., LTD.

Japan

17

75

26

53

143

ZEGZWEIRAD-EINKAUFS-GENOSSENSCHAFT EG

Germany

7

13

26

57

78

ARCELIK ANONIM SIRKETI

Turkey

27

16

25

57

116

LVMH FRAGRANCE BRANDSFrance

5

14

25

57

52

WEWORK COMPANIES INC.

U.S.

4

18

25

(Continued)
38

SECTION A: STATISTICS ON MADRID INTERNATIONAL APPLICATIONS(A2 continued)

RankingChange inpositionfrom 2018

Madrid applications
Madrid applicant

Origin

2017

2018

2019

60

546

60

6

DIRK ROSSMANN GMBH

Germany

6

724

H. LUNDBECK A/S

Denmark

19

24

24

60

n.a.

HAUTE FRAGRANCE COMPANY, SIA

Latvia

0

0

24

60

–13

LIDL STIFTUNG & CO. KG

Germany

56

28

24

60

136

MAGIC LEAP, INC.

U.S.

0

13

24

60

n.a.

P.C. CREATIVE PERFUME COMPANY HOLDING SA

Switzerland

0

0

24

–40

PUBLIC JOINT STOCK COMPANY GAZPROM NEFT

Russian Federation

13

44

24

197

SEGA GAMES CO., LTD.

Japan

11

12

24

60

333

TOO FACED COSMETICS, LLC

U.S.

0

9

24

69

–53

EPIC GAMES, INC.

U.S.

1

48

23

69

127

GUERLAINFrance

2

13

23

69

n.a.

XXXLUTZ MARKEN GMBH

Austria

1

1

23

72

–9

CHANEL SARL

Switzerland

16

25

22

72

–69

DAIMLER AG

Germany

37

129

22

72

405

DAUDETTE ENTERPRISES LIMITED

Cyprus

0

8

22

72

84

FIDIA FARMACEUTICI S.P.A.

Italy

8

15

22

72

266

GRINDERS, AS

Latvia

13

10

22

72

3

HERMES INTERNATIONALFrance

25

23

22

72

24

LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

U.S.

9

20

22

72

84

SKODA AUTO A.S.

Czech Republic

4

15

22

72

–6

SONY CORPORATION

Japan

6

24

22

72

405

TORUNSKIE ZAKLADY MATERIALOWOPATRUNKOWYCHSPOLKA AKCYJNA

Poland

6

8

22

82

n.a.

3M COMPANY

U.S.

0

0

21

82

114

ECZACIBASI HOLDING ANONIM SIRKETI

Turkey

3

13

21

82

–27

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION

U.S.

20

27

21

82

114

KABUSHIKI KAISHA BANDAI (BANDAI CO., LTD.)

Japan

3

13

21

82

1,393

MISTRAL ALKO

Russian Federation

4

4

21

82

–35

SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT

Germany

16

28

21

82

0

SIEMENS HEALTHCARE GMBH

Germany

29

22

21

82

n.a.

82

1,393

SMARTBEAR SOFTWARE INC

U.S.

0

2

21

SOUTHCORP BRANDS PTY LIMITED

Australia

19

4

21

82

0

STADA ARZNEIMITTEL AG

Germany

10

22

21

92

n.a.

AMSAL PHARMACEUTICALS D.O.O. SARAJEVO

Bosnia and Herzegovina

0

0

20

92

–37

APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.

U.S.

18

27

20

92

64

BORA CREATIONS S.L.

Spain

18

15

20

92

246

DECATHLONFrance

6

10

20

92

301

HEINRICH BAUER VERLAG KG

Germany

9

9

20

92

671

KATJES FASSIN GMBH + CO. KG

Germany

9

6

20

92

–47

TRERE INNOVATION S.R.L.

Italy

0

29

20

92

514

ZKW GROUP GMBH

Austria

0

7

20

100

n.a.

CABRELUX SARL

Luxembourg

0

0

19

100

293

CARTIER INTERNATIONAL AG

Switzerland

5

9

19

100

73

DEGUSSA GMBH

Germany

14

14

19

100

157

DR. THEISS NATURWAREN GMBH

Germany

19

12

19

100

–25

GOOGLE LLC

U.S.

17

23

19

100

n.a.

KRA PREHRAMBENA INDUSTRIJA, D.D.

Croatia

2

0

19

100

192

MIGROS-GENOSSENSCHAFTS-BUND

Switzerland

23

11

19

100

35

ORIFLAME COSMETICS AG

Switzerland

8

16

19

100

n.a.

SBM MUNDIAL, S.L.

Spain

0

0

19

100

933

TRAXXAS LP

U.S.

5

5

19

100

n.a.

VISTA EQUITY PARTNERS, LLC

U.S.

0

0

19

100

96

WELSPUN INDIA LIMITED

India

0

13

19

100

377

WILD RABBIT, LLC

U.S.

0

8

19

SECTION A

60
60

Note: This table includes 112 applicants that filed 19 or more Madrid applications in 2019. New applications filed each year generally represent anincrease in the number of marks held in a trademark holder’s portfolio. Depending on various circumstances, companies or entities may choose
to expand their existing brand base either rapidly, slowly, or not at all. A decline in applications from one year to the next does not necessarily
represent a reduced trademark portfolio.
n.a. indicates not applicable.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

39

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

Use of the Madrid System by trademark holders continues to expand globally, with highconcentrations of filing in Australia, several key Asian countries, Europe and the U.S.
A3. International applications by origin, 2019

SECTION A

4,000–10,500
1,000–3,999
200–999
50–199
1–49
NO DATA
Note: Data for 2019 are WIPO estimates. Origin data are based on the country of the applicant’s address. Not all origins presented are Madrid
member jurisdictions. The inclusion of non-members reflects the fact that it is possible for applicants to claim entitlement in a Madrid member
country or jurisdiction even when domiciled in a non-member country or jurisdiction. For example, applicants domiciled in Argentina can filean international application if they have a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in a Madrid member country or region,
for example, the U.S. In such a case, Argentina is listed as the country of origin. However, Argentina cannot be designated in an international
application or registration, because as of March 2020 it is not yet a Madrid member.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

Applicants from high-income countries file the most Madrid applications, but shares frommiddle-income countries continue to grow.
A4. International applications by income group, 2009 and 201979.1%
High-income
17.9%
Upper
middle-income
2.5%
Lower
middle-income
0.0%
Low-income
0.5%
Unknown

87.3%
High-income
11.6%
Upper
middle-income
1.0%
Lower
middle-income
0.0%
Low-income
0.1%
Unknown

2009

2019

Note: Data for 2019 are WIPO estimates. Origin data are based on the country or territory of the applicant’s address. Madrid applications filed
in 2019 came from applicants domiciled in a total of 119 countries or territories of origin. Each income group included the following number ofcountries or territories: high-income (53), upper middle-income (37), lower middle-income (22) and low-income (7).
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

40

SECTION A: STATISTICS ON MADRID INTERNATIONAL APPLICATIONSApplicants based in Asian countries filed almost a quarter (24%) of all Madrid applicationsin 2019, up from just over 12% a decade before.
A5. International applications by region, 2009 and 2019

SECTION A

54.4%
Europe
24.0%
Asia
16.3%
North America
4.1%
Oceania
0.4%
LAC
0.4%
Africa0.4%
Unknown

75.5%
Europe
12.2%
Asia
9.1%
North America
2.7%
Oceania
0.1%
LAC
0.4%
Africa0.0%
Unknown2019

2009

Note: Data for 2019 are WIPO estimates. Origin data are based on the country or territory of the applicant’s address. Madrid applications filed in2019 came from applicants domiciled in a total of 119 countries or territories of origin. Each geographical region included the following number ofcountries or territories: Africa (20), Asia (33), Europe (43), Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) (16), North America (3) and Oceania (4).
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

With annual growth of 14.3%, applicants based in the U.S. consolidated their top ranking
in 2019 by filing almost 2,400 more Madrid applications than the next top-ranked
origin, Germany.
A6. International applications for the top 20 origins, 2019
14.3

2.1

1.1

–1.8

10.2

3.2

–1.1

3,729

3,460

3,160

–16.0

2.4

37.8

15.6

–0.4

8.2

–0.1

–1.0

4.6

2,094

1,980

1,712

1,414

1,392

1,360

1,059

825

ANNUAL GROWTH RATE (%)
0.3
11.5 16.7 –4.6

Madrid applications

10,087
7,700

nd

565

D

en
m

ar

k

e
ew

Ze
al
a

566

ap
or

735

N

iu
m

Si
ng

en

Be
lg

Sw
ed

Au
st
ria

Sp
ai
n

ia

752

R

us
si
a

Tu
rk
ey
n
Fe
de
ra
tio
n
N
et
he
R
r
la
ep
nd
ub
s
lic
of
Ko
re
a

tra
l

Ita
ly

2,649

Au
s

.K
.

pa
n
Ja

U

la
n

ce

itz
er

Sw

na

Fr
an

C
hi

an
y

U

G
er
m

.S
.

4,437

d

6,339

OriginNote: Data for 2019 are WIPO estimates. Origin data are based on the country or territory of the applicant’s address. The numbers of international
applications for all origins are reported in statistical table A30.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

41

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

Madrid applications from China and the U.S. have grown faster than from France, Germany
and Switzerland.
A7. Trends in international applications for the top five origins, 2005–2019

Madrid applications

10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000

SECTION A

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Application year
U.S.

GERMANYCHINA

FRANCE

SWITZERLAND

Note: Data for 2019 are WIPO estimates. Origin data are based on the country of the applicant’s address.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

After applicants located in the top-ranked middle-income countries of China, the RussianFederation and Turkey, those located in Ukraine and India filed among the highest
numbers of Madrid applications in 2019 for this income group.
A8. International applications for selected middle-income country origins, 2019
–13.5

17.6

194

193

187

8.7

15.9

28.6

74.0

95

90

87

21.3

89.7

57

55

2.9

n.a.

–6.5

10.5

n.a.

18.2

35

31

29

21

21

13

Note: Data for 2019 are WIPO estimates. Origin data are based on the country of the applicant’s address. The numbers of international
applications for all origins are reported in statistical table A30.
n.a. indicates not applicable.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.
.

42

a
ub

a

Origin

C

al

M

is

zi

l

Tu
n

ia

ac

N

or

th

M

Br
a

a

ed

on

bi

ia

om
ol

es

C

In
d

on

ne

s

co

pi

oc

lip
Ph
i

an

ia

or
M

om

ex
ic

o

113

R

ila

nd

137

M

Ka
za
k

hs
ta
n

159

Th
a

am

a

tN

us

bi

Vi
e

Se
r

ria

ar
Be
l

ga

ia

Bu
l

In
d

ne
ai
kr

–3.5

460

223

U

50.0

ay
si

14.8

ia

–8.2

Madrid applications

496

43.3

Eg
yp
t

ANNUAL GROWTH RATE (%)
6.9

SECTION A: STATISTICS ON MADRID INTERNATIONAL APPLICATIONS

Since it joined the Madrid System in 2013, applications originating from India have risen
sharply, almost to the same level as Ukraine in 2019.
A9. Trends in international applications for selected middle-income country origins, 2005–2019

Madrid applications

500
400
300
200
100

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

SECTION A

2005

2019

Application year
UKRAINE

INDIA

EGYPT

COLOMBIATHAILAND

Note: Data for 2019 are WIPO estimates. Origin data are based on the country of the applicant’s address.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

Designations in Madrid international applications
Since 2009, applicants have consistently designated, on average, around seven Madrid
members per Madrid application filed.

Designations in Madrid applications

A10. Trend in designations in international applications and average number of designations per
application, 2005–2019

AVERAGE NUMBER OF DESIGNATIONS PER APPLICATION
9.0

8.6

8.3

3.1

6.2

2006

2007

7.9

7.3

–1.5

–20.3

6.9

6.9

6.8

6.8

6.9

5.0

5.5

3.8

6.0

3.4

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

6.8

6.8

6.6

6.9

6.8

9.1

4.0

11.2

3.2

2016

2017

2018

2019

500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
–2.9

2005

2008

2009

–0.1

2015

Application year
MADRID APPLICATIONSGROWTH RATE (%)

Note: When applicants first apply for an international registration, they can initially choose from any of the Madrid members in which they aim toextend protection for their trademarks, except for the Madrid member through which the holder is entitled to use the Madrid System. These arecalled designations. The decrease in the average number of designations per application from nine in 2005 onwards can be explained by the factthat the EU joined the Madrid System in 2004, and this has enabled applicants to designate the EU as a whole via a single designation rather thanhaving to designate individual EU member states separately.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

43

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

Over half (55%) of all international applications filed in 2019 designated between one andfour Madrid members; only 5.4% of applications designated more than 20 members.
A11. Distribution of designations per international application, 2019SHARE OF TOTAL APPLICATIONS (%)
16.1

15.5

10,219

13.3

10.1

8.1

5.9

4.6

3.5

2.9

2.5

2.1

1.7

1.5

1.3

1.0

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

5.4

9,816

SECTION A

Madrid applications

8,413
6,421
5,110
3,724

3,415

2,916

1

2

3

4

5

6

2,241

7

1,860

8

9

1,613

1,314

10

1,070

957

830

663

489

461

400

358

412

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

11

> 20

Number of designations per application
Note: Just over 16% of all Madrid applications filed in 2019 designated only a single Madrid member. Madrid applications designating a single
Madrid member show how trademark holders use the Madrid System in a staged manner to first obtain protection in the jurisdiction of highest
priority, before extending protection to other jurisdictions later by filing subsequent designations.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

The largest origin of Madrid applications in 2019, applicants in the U.S., collectively, also
made the highest number of designations in international applications for expanding thegeographical scope of protection for their marks, increasing by 20.6% on the previous year.
A12. Designations in international applications for the top 20 origins, 2019
42.6

–6.5

17.8

6.0

–15.8

9.0

8.7

ANNUAL GROWTH RATE (%)
12.5 109.7 –22.5 3.6

4.4

11.8

12.1

3.6

14.8

18.9

10,749 9,406

8,879

7,921

7,132

5,633

5,297

in

–6.4

ey

–21.9

69,61958,86643,418

ar
ia

3,779

Bu
lg

iu
m

3,828

Be
lg

In
di
a

ed
en

or
e

Sw

tri
a
Au
s

Si
ng
ap

nd
s
rla

Sp
a

et
he

3,835

R

R

us

si

an

4,788

N

13,639

Ita
ly
Fe
de
ra
ep
tio
ub
n
lic
of
Ko
re
a
Au
st
ra
lia

Ja
pa
n

er
la
nd

Fr
an
ce

Sw
itz

.K
.
U

m
an
y

C

G
er

U

hi
na

19,214 16,840

Tu
rk

29,349 28,151 26,966.S.

Designations in applications

20.6

OriginNote: Origin data are based on the country of the applicant’s address. The numbers of designations in Madrid applications for all origins arereported in statistical table A30.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

44

SECTION A: STATISTICS ON MADRID INTERNATIONAL APPLICATIONS

A majority of top origin applicants designated, on average, between four and seven Madrid
members in international applications filed in 2019; this increases to an average of between
about 8 and 11 for applicants from China, India, the Republic of Korea, the RussianFederation and the U.K., and to 17 for applicants from Bulgaria.
A13. Distribution of designations per international application for the top 20 origins, 2019
7.2

5.8

5.8

ed
en

6.3

Sp
ai
n

10.7

Ja
pa
n
et
h
er
R
ep
la
nd
ub
s
lic
R
of
us
Ko
si
an
re
a
Fe
de
ra
tio
n
Si
ng
ap
or
e

5.6

8.7

6.4

Ita
ly

17.1

In
di
a

5.1

Fr
an
ce
G
er
m
an
y

100

5.3

6.1

5.0

7.7

8.0

7.2

4.5

8.5

6.9

75
50
25

SECTION A

N

.S
.
U

.K
.
U

Tu
rk
ey

itz
er
la
nd

Sw

Sw

hi
na
C

Be
lg
iu
m
Bu
lg
ar
ia

Au
st
ria

0

Au
st
ra
lia

Distribution of designations

AVERAGE NUMBER OF DESIGNATIONS PER APPLICATION
4.5

Origin1 DESIGNATION

2 DESIGNATIONS

3 TO 5 DESIGNATIONS

6 TO 10 DESIGNATIONS

MORE THAN 10 DESIGNATIONS

Note: Origin data are based on the country of the applicant’s address.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

45

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

Applicants from China tend to designate more Madrid members per international
application than applicants from any other leading origin.

A14. Distribution of the number of designations per international application for the top six origins, 2019
CHINA

U.S.

SECTION A

100

100

90

90

80

80

70

70

60

60

50

50

40

40

30

30

20

20

10

10
0

0
1 5 10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1 5 10

100

20

30

40

Share of total Madrid applications (%)

GERMANY

60

70

80

90

100

60

70

80

90

100

70

80

90

100

U.K.

100

100

90

90

80

80

70

70

60

60

50

50

40

40

30

30

20

20

10

10

0

0
1 5 10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 5 102030

FRANCE

40

50

SWITZERLAND

100

100

90

90

80

80

70

70

60

60

50

50

40

40

30

30

20

20

10

10

0

0
1 5 10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 5 1020

Number of designations per Madrid application
Note: Origin data are based on the country of the applicant’s address.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

46

50

30

40

50

60

SECTION A: STATISTICS ON MADRID INTERNATIONAL APPLICATIONSThe EU, China and the U.S. were the most designated Madrid members, each receiving
a similar number of designations from trademark holders abroad wanting to extend
protection for their marks to these three markets in 2019.
A15. Designations in international applications for the top 20 designated Madrid members, 2019
–0.4

–0.8

–2.3

3.7

36.4

–1.2

–3.3

2.4

0.0

n.a.

–3.2

–1.1

1.5

9,207

8,996

8,848

8,197

ANNUAL GROWTH RATE (%)
0.6
13.2 20.3 –2.4

ai
ne
kr

es

6,962

U

on

ila
n

d

ia

7,219

In
d

am
N

7,784

Th
a

d
la
n

Vi
et

ay
w

ke

a

8,111

R

ep

N

ew

Ze
a

or
N

Tu
r

ad

or

e

an
C

ap

ia

ic
o

Si
ng

M
ex

In
d

ea

10,715 10,692

ub

lic

of

Ko
r

.K
.

rla
itz
e

U

nd

lia
tra

Au
s

n
pa

13,379 12,414

R

us

si
an

Fe
d

er

at
io
n

.S
.

Ja

U

hi
na
C

15,552 15,238 15,060

y24,423 23,851
16,866 16,090

EU

0.8

Sw

27,102

1.1

SECTION A

Designations in applications

5.6

Madrid member
Note: The numbers of designations in international applications for all Madrid members are reported in statistical table A30.
n.a. indicates not available.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

47

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

Combined, the top five origins accounted for 45% of all Madrid applications designating
the U.S., 52% of those designating China, and 60% or more of those destined for Australia,
Japan, Switzerland and the U.K.
A16. Flows of designations from selected top origins to the top 10 designated Madrid members, 2019
Origin

SECTION A
Note: Origin data are based on the country of the Madrid registration holder’s address.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

48

Designated Madrid member

SECTION A: STATISTICS ON MADRID INTERNATIONAL APPLICATIONS

China and the U.S. were among the top three destinations selected by applicants domiciled
in seven of 10 selected middle-income countries of origin. More specifically, applicants fromIndonesia, Morocco and Viet Nam designated China more often than any other selected
Madrid member, whereas holders from India and Mexico made the U.S. the top destination
where they sought protection for their marks.
A17. Flows of designations from selected middle-income countries of origin to selected designatedMadrid members, 2019
Middle-income country of origin

Russian Federation

UkraineBulgaria

SECTION A

India

Designated Madrid member

U.S.

China

Viet Nam
Kazakhstan
MexicoIndonesia
Philippines
MoroccoColombia

EU

U.K.
Japan
Australia
TurkeyOther middle-income origins*

Switzerland
Republic of Korea

Note: Origin data are based on the country of the Madrid registration holder’s address.
* Middle-income countries of origin China, the Russian Federation and Turkey have been removed from the “Other middle-income
origins” category.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

49

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

China, Germany and the U.S. featured most frequently as the three top origins ofdesignations received by six of the top 15 Madrid members in 2019. Japan is one of the main
origins of designations for China, the Republic of Korea, Singapore and the U.S.; and the
U.K. is one of the top three origins of designations for Australia, Canada and the U.S.

50
40
30
20
10

U
.S
.

U
.K
.

y
ke
Tu
r

nd
rla

e
or
ap

Sw
itz
e

Si
ng

er

at
io
n

ea
R
us

si
an

Fe
d

of

Ko
r

w
ay
R
ep

ub

lic

M

N
or

ex

ic
o

n
pa
Ja

In
d

ia

EU

a
ad

C
hi
na

Au
s

C
an

lia

0

tra

SECTION A

Share of designations (%)

A18. Distribution of designations in international applications for the top 15 designated Madrid members
received from their top three origins, 2019

Madrid member
CHINA

FRANCEGERMANYJAPANSWITZERLAND

U.K.

U.S.

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

China was either first or second top origin of designations received by all 15 selected lowand middle-income Madrid members. The top three origins accounted for between 33%
and 75% of all designations received by these selected Madrid members.
A19. Distribution of designations in international applications for selected designated low- andmiddle-income Madrid members received from their top three origins, 2019

60
40
20

FRANCEGERMANYJAPANRUSSIAN FEDERATIONTURKEY

Note: OAPI is the African Intellectual Property Organization acting on behalf of 17 African countries.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

50

am

Vi
et
N

O
AP
I

ib
ia
N

Madrid member
CHINA

Sa
m
oa

am

U.S.

o

U.K.

M

on
te
ne
gr

ol
ia
on
g
M

zs
ta
n
gy

Ky
r

Ke
ny
a

a
G
ha
n

a

C

ol
o

m
bi

a
am

bo
di

n
C

Az
e

rb
ai
ja

a
en
i
Ar
m

Al
ge
r

Al
ba
ni

ia

0

a

Share of designations (%)

80

SECTION A: STATISTICS ON MADRID INTERNATIONAL APPLICATIONSNice classes specified in Madrid international applications
The total number of classes specified in Madrid applications has grown steadily, reflecting
the increase in the overall number of international applications.

Classes specified in
Madrid applications

A20. Trend in the number of classes specified in international applications, 2005–2019
160,000
120,000
80,00040,000SECTION A

–15.8
15.0

10.8

13.9

4.6

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

8.4

9.0

1.9

6.0

1.0

2.6

9.2

4.3

6.1

5.3

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Application year
CLASSES SPECIFIED IN MADRID APPLICATIONSGROWTH RATE (%)

Note: Within the international trademark system, many offices have adopted the Nice Classification, an international classification of goods andservices applied to trademark applications and registrations. Applicants are required to provide a description of the goods or services for which
the mark is to be used according to one or more of the 45 Nice classes (visit www.wipo.int/classifications/nice). When filing a Madrid application,
applicants must specify all the classes into which their marks fall, as it is not possible to add other classes at a later date.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

About 80% of all Madrid applications filed in 2019 included between one and three goods
or services classes.
A21. Distribution of the number of classes specified per international application, 2019SHARE OF TOTAL MADRID APPLICATIONS (%)
44.4

100
90

20.1

15.9

7.7

4.4

6.1

1.4

27,83580

Madrid applications

Share of total Madrid applications (%)

CUMULATIVE SHARE, 2019

70
60
50
40
30

12,606
9,986

20

4,813

10

2,762

3,826
862

0
1

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Number of Nice classes specified in applications

45

1

2

3

4

5

6 to 1011 to 45

Number of Nice classes specified in applications

Note: The overall average of two to three classes specified for all international applications filed in 2018 masks a significant variation in the numberof classes specified across these applications. For example, 27,835, or 44.4% of all international applications, indicated a single class to which
the trademark applied, and about 80% included up to three classes. Only 862 applications – i.e., 1.4% of the total – specified 11 or more of the 45
goods and services classes.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

51

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

Since 1985, class 9, which includes computers, electronics and software, has been the most
specified class in Madrid applications.
A22. Classes specified in international applications, 20192019

Growth (%),
2018–2019

Share of total(%), 2019

Class 9: Computer hardware and software and other electrical or electronic apparatus of ascientific nature

15,923

3.5

10.2

Class 35: Services such as office functions, advertising and business management

13,064

7.5

8.3

Class 42: Services provided by, for example, scientific, industrial or technological engineers andcomputer specialists

10,633

5.7

6.8

Class covers/includes

Class 41: Services in the area of education, training, entertainment, sporting and cultural activities

7,861

9.7

5.0

Class 5: Mainly pharmaceuticals and other preparations for medical purposes

7,045

12.5

4.5
4.3

SECTION A

Class 25: Clothing, footwear and headgear

6,656

2.7

Class 3: Mainly cleaning preparations and toilet preparations

6,430

4.8

4.1

Class 7: Mainly machines, machine tools, motors and engines

4,508

2.9

2.9

Class 30: Mainly foodstuffs of plant origin, prepared for consumption or conservation as well as
auxiliaries intended for improving the flavor of food

4,423

2.3

2.8

Class 16: Mainly paper, goods made from that material and office requisites

4,220

3.0

2.7

Class 11: Apparatus for lighting, heating, steam generating, cooking, refrigerating, drying,ventilating, water supply and sanitary purposes

3,714

10.2

2.4

Class 36: Services relating to insurance, financial affairs, monetary affairs, and real estate affairs

3,670

6.2

2.3

Class 18: Leather and imitations of leather, and products made therefrom, traveling bags andumbrellas

3,412

1.5

2.2

Class 38: Telecommunications services

3,408

0.9

2.2

Class 10: Surgical, medical, dental and veterinary apparatus and instruments

3,383

–0.7

2.2

Class 37: Building construction; repair; installation services

3,381

6.3

2.2

Class 28: Games and playthings; gymnastic and sporting articles

3,349

9.3

2.1

Class 29: Meat, fish, poultry; frozen, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables

3,236

1.4

2.1

Class 1: Chemicals used in industry, science and photography, as well as in agriculture

2,999

3.2

1.9

Class 12: Vehicles; apparatus for locomotion by land, air or water

2,925

–4.5

1.9

Class 21: Mainly household or kitchen utensils and containers; combs and sponges; articles forcleaning purposes, glassware, porcelain and earthenware

2,925

7.3

1.9

Class 44: Medical services; veterinary services; hygienic and beauty care for human beings oranimals; agriculture, horticulture and forestry services

2,782

6.8

1.8

Class 20: Mainly furniture, mirrors, picture frames and goods made from, for example, wood,cork, reed, cane, wicker

2,743

3.2

1.8

Class 33: Alcoholic beverages (except beers)

2,697

4.1

1.7

Class 43: Services for providing food and drink; temporary accommodation

2,573

0.7

1.6

Class 39: Services related to transport, packaging and storage of goods, and travel arrangement

2,505

3.7

1.6

Class 6: Mainly includes common metals and their alloys and goods of common metal notincluded in other classes

2,473

5.6

1.6

Class 32: Beers; mineral and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic beverages; fruit beverages
and fruit juices; syrups and other preparations for making beverages

2,469

–2.3

1.6

Class 14: Mainly precious metals and their alloys and goods in precious metals or coatedtherewith, not included in other classes

2,128

0.5

1.4

Class 45: Legal services; security services for the protection of property and individuals; personaland social services rendered by others to meet the needs of individuals

1,878

7.7

1.2

Class 40: Services related to the treatment of materials

1,806

3.5

1.2

Class 19: Mainly non-metallic building materials and asphalt

1,788

8.4

1.1

Class 24: Textiles and textile goods, not included in other classes; bed covers; table covers

1,754

–4.4

1.1

Class 31: Mainly grains and agricultural, horticultural and forestry products; live animals; fresh
fruits and vegetables; seeds

1,673

0.1

1.1

Class 17: Mainly rubber, plastics in extruded form for use in manufacture; packing, stopping andinsulating materials; non-metallic flexible pipes

1,513

7.3

1.0

Class 8: Hand tools and implements (hand-operated); cutlery; side arms; razors

1,490

9.6

1.0

Class 4: Mainly industrial oils, lubricants, fuels and illuminants

1,103

–0.5

0.7

Class 2: Mainly paints, varnishes, lacquers

873

–2.1

0.6

Class 34: Tobacco; smokers’ articles; matches

813

22.8

0.5

Class 27: Carpets, rugs, mats and matting, linoleum and other materials for covering existing
floors; wall hangings (non-textile)

660

–1.2

0.4

Class 26: Lace and embroidery, ribbons and braid; buttons, hooks and eyes, pins and needles;
artificial flowers

575

–1.7

0.4

Class 22: Mainly ropes, string, nets, tents, awnings, tarpaulins, sails, sacks and bags (notincluded in other classes)

574

1.4

0.4

Class 15: Musical instruments

267

14.1

0.2

Class 23: Yarns and threads, for textile use

248

2.5

0.2

Class 13: Firearms; ammunition and projectiles; explosives; fireworks

199

–27.1

0.1

1,627

235.5

1.0

156,376

5.3

100.0

Not specified
Total classes specified in Madrid applications

Note: For a complete list of class definitions, visit www.wipo.int/classifications/nice.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

52

SECTION A: STATISTICS ON MADRID INTERNATIONAL APPLICATIONS

The research and technology sector accounted for around a fifth of all filing activity via the
Madrid System in 2019.
9
38
42
45

20.6%

Health

3
5
10
44

12.7%

Agriculture

29
30
31
32
33
43

11.0%

Clothing and accessories

14
18
22
23
24
25
26
27
34

Business services

35
36

Leisure and education

13
15
16
28
41

Construction

6
17
19
37
40

Household equipment

8
11
20
21

Transportation

7
12
39

Chemicals

1
2
4

10.9%

10.8%

10.3%

Industry sector share (%)

Research and technology

SECTION A

Industry sector with Nice classes

A23. International applications by industry sector, 2019

7.1%

7.0%

6.4%
3.2%

0

5,000

10,00015,000Classes specified in Madrid applications
Note: Industry sectors based on class groups are those defined by Edital®. Some industry sectors are abbreviated. See the Nice classes andindustry sectors table in the annex for full definitions. For full class definitions, visit www.wipo.int/classifications/nice.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

53

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

The research and technology sector features among the top industry sectors for Madrid
applications from nine of the top 10 origins. For seven of the top origins, health is one of the
top three sectors, and for five, it is the agricultural sector.
60
40
20

.S
.
U

.K
.
U

nd
er

R

us

si

an

Sw

itz

er
Fe
d

la

n
at
io

n
Ja

pa

y

m

Ita
l

y
an

e

G
er

SECTION A

Fr
a

nc

na
hi
C

tra

lia

0

Au
s

Share of applications (%)

A24. International applications by top three sectors for the top 10 origins, 2019

OriginAGRICULTURE
HEALTH

BUSINESS SERVICESLEISURE AND EDUCATION

CLOTHING AND ACCESSORIESRESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

Note: Origin data are based on the country of the Madrid registration holder’s address. Industry sectors based on class groups are those definedby Edital®. Some industry sectors are abbreviated. See the Nice classes and industry sectors table in the annex for full definitions. For fullclass definitions, visit www.wipo.int/classifications/nice.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

The agricultural sector is one of the top three industries for applicants from eight of the
10 selected middle-income countries of origin, the exceptions being Bulgaria and India.
The proportion of filing activity related to agriculture was largest for applicants from
Kazakhstan, Mexico, Thailand and Viet Nam, accounting for between 33% and 48% of
their respective totals.

A25. International applications by top three sectors for selected middle-income countries of origin, 2019

60
40
20

tN
am
Vi
e

ne
U

kr

ai

y
ke
Tu
r

nd
ila
Th
a

a
Se
rb
i

co
M

or

oc

o
ic
ex
M

hs
ta
n
ak
Ka
z

In
d

Bu
l

ga

ia

0

ria

Share of applications (%)

80

OriginAGRICULTURE
HOUSEHOLD EQUIPMENT

BUSINESS SERVICESLEISURE AND EDUCATION

CLOTHING AND ACCESSORIESRESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGYHEALTH

Note: Origin data are based on the country of the Madrid registration holder’s address. Industry sectors based on class groups are those definedby Edital®. Some industry sectors are abbreviated. See the Nice classes and industry sectors table in the annex for full definitions. For fullclass definitions, visit www.wipo.int/classifications/nice.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

54

SECTION A: STATISTICS ON MADRID INTERNATIONAL APPLICATIONSThe share of services classes specified in Madrid applications has grown in 11 of the last 15
years, and since 2018, has accounted for more than a third of all classes in applications.
A26. Trend in services classes versus goods classes, 2005–2019

Classes specified
in Madrid applications

SERVICES CLASSES SHARE (%)
28.1

29.8

31.2

32.4

31.2

29.7

30.8

30.6

31.5

32.3

32.9

32.7

32.9

34.1

34.6

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

160,000

120,000

80,000SECTION A

40,000Application year
GOODS CLASSESSERVICES CLASSES

Note: The first 34 of the 45 Nice classes cover goods, whereas the remaining 11 cover services. For full class definitions, visit
www.wipo.int/classifications/nice.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

55

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

Applicants based in 11 of the 20 selected origins had shares of services-related classes
greater than a third of all classes specified in their Madrid applications filed in 2019,
whereas this share was only 20% for applications from China and 25.9% for thosefrom Japan.

A27. Goods classes versus services classes in international applications for selected origins, 2009 and 20192009 (%)
OriginGoods

2019 (%)
Services

Goods

Services

Change in services
classes sharecompared to 2009
(percentage points)

Switzerland

65.1

34.9

57.7

42.3

7.4

Croatia

70.8

29.2

58.4

41.6

12.4

U.K.

67.1

32.9

60.5

39.5

6.6

U.S.

66.8

33.2

61.3

38.7

5.5

SECTION A

France

64.1

35.9

61.8

38.2

2.3

Netherlands

65.7

34.3

62.4

37.6

3.3

Ukraine

69.3

30.7

64.0

36.0

5.3

Germany

70.4

29.6

64.4

35.6

6.0

Australia

63.5

36.5

65.0

35.0

–1.5

Sweden

66.0

34.0

66.1

33.9

–0.1

Cyprus

42.2

57.8

66.6

33.4

–24.4

Finland

70.6

29.4

66.9

33.1

3.7

Portugal

66.5

33.5

67.7

32.3

–1.2

Spain

67.0

33.0

67.7

32.3

–0.7

Russian Federation

63.0

37.0

69.8

30.2

–6.8
–0.2

Bulgaria

70.0

30.0

70.2

29.8

Turkey

79.8

20.2

70.6

29.4

9.2

Belarus

67.9

32.1

71.6

28.4

–3.7

Japan

83.3

16.7

74.1

25.9

9.2

China

88.3

11.7

80.0

20.0

8.3

Note: Origin data are based on the country of the Madrid registration holder’s address. The first 34 of the 45 Nice classes cover goods, whereas
the remaining 11 cover services. For full class definitions, visit www.wipo.int/classifications/nice.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

56

SECTION A: STATISTICS ON MADRID INTERNATIONAL APPLICATIONSIn 2019, research and technology was the leading sector for which trademark protection
was sought in the jurisdiction of every top 10 designated Madrid member. Health was also
among the three most popular sectors across these same 10 members, followed by clothing
and accessories, business services, and leisure and education.
A28. International applications by top three sectors for the top 10 designated Madrid members, 2019

40
30
20
10

U
.S
.

U
.K
.

nd
rla
Sw
itz
e

R
us

R
ep

si
an

ub

lic

Fe
d

of

er

Ko
r

at
io
n

ea

n
pa
Ja

In
d

ia

EU

C
hi
na

Au
s

tra

lia

0

SECTION A

Share of applications (%)

50

Madrid member
BUSINESS SERVICES

CLOTHING AND ACCESSORIESHEALTHLEISURE AND EDUCATIONRESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

Note: Industry sectors based on class groups are those defined by Edital®. Some industry sectors are abbreviated. See the Nice classes andindustry sectors table in the annex for full definitions. For full class definitions, visit www.wipo.int/classifications/nice.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

Both research and technology and health are among the top three sectors in all but one of
the selected designated middle-income countries. Agriculture stands out as one of the top
sectors in Georgia, Kenya, the Philippines, Viet Nam and Zambia, as does the leisure andeducation sector for trademark holders designating Brazil, Kenya and Mexico. Clothing
and accessories features as one of the top sectors for designated Madrid members Egypt
and Turkey.
A29. International applications by top three sectors for selected designated low- and middle-income
Madrid members, 2019

40
30
20
10

a
bi
Za
m

y

am
Vi
et
N

pi
lip
Ph
i

Tu
rk
e

ne
s

o
ic
ex
M

ya
Ke
n

ia
In
do
ne
s

a
rg
i
G
eo

Eg
y

Br
az

pt

0

il

Share of applications (%)

50

Madrid member
AGRICULTURE
HEALTH

BUSINESS SERVICESLEISURE AND EDUCATION

CLOTHING AND ACCESSORIESRESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

Note: Industry sectors based on class groups are those defined by Edital®. Some industry sectors are abbreviated. See the Nice classes andindustry sectors table in the annex for full definitions. For full class definitions, visit www.wipo.int/classifications/nice.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

57

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

Statistical table
A30. International applications and designations via the Madrid System, 2019
Origin¹
Name
Afghanistan

Number of applications

Designated member
Designations

Designations

..

..

824

African Intellectual Property Organization

n.a.

n.a.

2,211

Albania

12

40

2,151

Algeria

6

14

2,631

Andorra (a)

1

14

n.a.

Antigua and Barbuda

4

80

598

Argentina (a)

2

12

n.a.

SECTION A

Armenia

30

231

2,718

Australia

2,094

9,406

15,552Austria

1,059

5,633

2,560

Azerbaijan

5

59

3,070

Bahamas (a)

6

50

n.a.

Bahrain

..

..

1,832

Barbados (a)

2

11

n.a.

Belarus

194

1,341

4,795

Belgium (b)

752

3,828

n.a.

Belize (a)

5

24

n.a.

Benelux Office for Intellectual Property

n.a.

n.a.

2,774

Bermuda (a)

19

157

n.a.

Bhutan

..

..

694

Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba (d)

..

..

555

Bosnia and Herzegovina

59

266

2,759

Botswana

2

48

814

Brazil

31

76

1,952

Brunei Darussalam
Bulgaria

2

10

1,150

223

3,779

1,262

Cabo Verde (a)

1

7

n.a.

Cambodia

4

14

2,597

Cameroon (e)CanadaChile (a)
China

5

17

n.a.

359

1,888

9,207

2

3

n.a.

6,339

58,86624,423China, Hong Kong SAR (a)

1

0

n.a.

Colombia

55

421

4,274

Côte d’Ivoire (e)

13

34

n.a.

Croatia

172

881

1,274

Cuba

13

106

1,391

Curaçao (d)

7

37

601

Cyprus

231

1,652

811

Czech Republic

374

2,331

1,569

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

10

12

1,197

Denmark

565

3,466

1,306
n.a.

Dominican Republic (a)11Ecuador (a)

1

24

n.a.

Egypt

21

248

4,130

Equatorial Guinea (e)

1

24

n.a.

Estonia

103

635

1,159

Eswatini

..

..

685

Ethiopia (a)

1

3

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

27,102European Union
Finland

465

2,549

1,160

France4,437

28,151

3,483

Gambia

..

..

755

Georgia

30

154

2,702

Germany

7,700

43,418

4,562

Ghana

..

..

1,365

Greece

129

592

1,240

Guinea (e)

3

9

n.a.

Hungary

199

2,055

1,363

Iceland

31

158

2,489

(Continued)
58

SECTION A: STATISTICS ON MADRID INTERNATIONAL APPLICATIONS(A30 continued)
Origin¹

Designated member

Name

Number of applications

Designations

Designations

India

460

3,835

12,414

Indonesia

57

1,313

7,219

Iran (Islamic Republic of)

24

276

2,777

Iraq (a)

2

30

n.a.

Ireland

192

1,880

1,098

Israel

340

1,607

5,187

Italy

2,649

16,840

3,292

Japan

16,866

19,214

159

1,445

5,113

Kenya

18

107

2,013

Kyrgyzstan

14

184

2,516

Lao People’s Democratic Republic

3

33

1,666
1,269

Latvia133

937

Lebanon (a)

11

42

n.a.

Lesotho

..

..

643

Liberia

..

..

796

Liechtenstein

90

1,142

2,240

Lithuania

137

639

1,286

Luxembourg (b)

407

2,691

n.a.

Madagascar

5

11

979

Malawi

..

..

637

Malaysia (a)

21

104

62

Malta (c)

58

332

n.a.

Marshall Islands (a)

6

76

n.a.

Mauritius (a)

10

154

n.a.

Mexico113

560

10,715

Monaco

110

941

2,286

Mongolia

3

8

1,841

Montenegro

5

22

2,495

Morocco

90

515

3,719

Mozambique

..

..

1,133

Namibia

..

..

1,024

Netherlands (b)

1,414

7,132

n.a.

New Zealand

566

2,061

8,197

North Macedonia

35

153

2,447

Norway

327

1,693

8,848

Oman

..

..

2,011

Panama (a)

2

96

n.a.

Paraguay (a)

4

7

n.a.

Philippines

87

427

6,300

Poland

512

2,895

2,297

Portugal

223

1,675

1,619

Republic of Korea

1,392

10,74913,379Republic of Moldova

66

382

2,657

Romania

95

690

1,614

1,712

13,63916,090

Rwanda

3

54

853

Samoa

..

..

352

San Marino

7

17

1,061

Sao Tome and Principe

..

..

541

Senegal (e)

7

18

n.a.

Serbia

193

1,304

3,964

Seychelles (a)

10

75

n.a.

Sierra Leone

..

..

795

Singapore

735

5,297

10,692

Russian Federation

Sint Maarten (Dutch Part) (d)

4

12

630

Slovakia

96

490

1,175

Slovenia

208

1,348

1,155

7

21

n.a.

1,360

7,921

2,943

Sri Lanka (a)

1

23

n.a.

Sudan

1

7

1,117

South Africa (a)Spain

SECTION A

3,160

Kazakhstan

59

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

(A30 continued)
Origin¹
Name
SwedenSwitzerland

Number of applications

Designated member
Designations

Designations

825

4,788

1,470

3,729

26,966

15,238Syrian Arab Republic

1

1

948

Tajikistan

8

82

2,153

Thailand

137

942

7,784

Tunisia

29

136

2,503

Turkey

1,980

8,879

8,996

1

8

1,866

496

2,808

6,962

Turkmenistan
UkraineUnited Arab Emirates (a)SECTION A

23

263

n.a.

United Kingdom

3,460

29,34915,060

United States of America

10,087

69,61923,851

Uzbekistan

14

133

2,482

Vanuatu (a)

1

5

n.a.

Viet Nam

187

1,772

8,111

Zambia

2

8

1,063

Zimbabwe

..

..

1,019

Others

295

1,577

19

Total

64,400433,295

433,295

Note: Only countries or territories of origin and designated Madrid member countries or jurisdictions for which 2019 Madrid System statistics exist
are listed. Madrid application by origin data for 2019 are WIPO estimates.
¹ Origin is defined as the country or territory of the stated address of residence of the applicant for an international registration.
(a) This country or territory was not a member of the Madrid System as of December 31, 2019. Applicants from this country or territory areentitled to file via the Madrid System by claiming commercial activity or domicile in a country, or in the jurisdiction of a regional intellectual
property (IP) office, that is a member of the Madrid System. An applicant cannot designate the Madrid member for which entitlement isclaimed (no self-designation is possible).
(b) The IP office is the regional Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP), which receives designations on behalf of this country.
(c) The country is a member of the Madrid System via its membership of the European Union.
(d) The country or municipality is not a Madrid member. The Netherlands has extended the application of the Madrid Protocol to the territories ofCuracao and Sint Maarten, Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba.
(e) This country is not a Madrid member but is covered by a designation of the African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI).
.. indicates zero.
n.a. indicates not applicable.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

60

62

SECTION B: STATISTICS ON MADRID INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATIONS, RENEWALS AND ACTIVE REGISTRATIONS

Section B
Statistics on Madrid international
registrations, renewals andactive registrations
Highlights
In 2019, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) recorded 64,118 Madrid
registrations, twice the amount issued in the early 2000s (figure B1). The long-term
trend for Madrid registrations broadly follows that for Madrid applications; however,changes in the number of registrations from year to year can be more pronounced
than for applications. Madrid registrations can fluctuate considerably from one
year to the next for reasons such as the time it takes for Madrid applications to beprocessed at offices of origin before being sent to the International Bureau (IB) of
WIPO or the processing time required at the IB itself, which includes an irregularities
procedure and time limits for applicants and offices to remedy such irregularities.

How has the trend
in subsequent
designations
evolved over time?

Due in part to Madrid System accessions and the incentive for holders to extend
protection to include the jurisdictions of new Madrid members in addition to
those of longer standing members, the number of subsequent designations has
increased from about 36,000 in 2009 to 57,041 in 2019. Subsequent designations
are requests made by trademark holders to extend protection for their existing
Madrid registrations to cover new markets. There were 3.3% more such subsequent designations made in Madrid registrations in 2019 than in 2018, marking
the third annual increase in a row since the declines seen in 2015 and 2016 (figureB2). Although most requests for subsequent designations are submitted directly
by holders to the IB, fluctuations in the numbers submitted via Madrid member
offices from year to year can be significant for the reasons given for international
registrations. Subsequent designations underwent a gradual increase year-on-yearfrom 2005 to 2007. However, in 2009, at the height of the global financial crisis,
they decreased by 18.8%, on a par with that year’s 20.3% drop in designations in
new Madrid applications.

How did trademark
holders use
subsequent
designations toextend protection
for their marks toadditional export
markets in 2019?

China (2,909) received the highest number of subsequent designations in 2019and has been the most subsequently designated country every year since 2004
(figure B7). With an exceptionally high growth rate of 64.5%, the U.K. (2,082), as adestination country for trademark protection, jumped from 12th most subsequently
designated Madrid member in 2018 to rank second in 2019. This is most likely due
to a move by many Madrid registration holders to ensure protection for their marksin the U.K. post Brexit.

SECTION B

Trademark holders
worldwide received
over 64,000 Madrid
international
registrationsin 2019

In 2019, the U.S. (1,957), the Republic of Korea (1,719) and Japan (1,659) followed
behind China and the U.K. as the top countries where Madrid registration holders sought to extend protection for their marks. Canada (1,639), which joined the
Madrid System only in June 2019, already ranked sixth most subsequently designated member by the end of the same year. The 20 most designated Madrid member countries received just over half (53%) of all subsequent designations in 2019.
Twelve of these countries received more subsequent designations in 2019 than in
2018. Like the U.K., China (+10.7%), India (+16.6%) and the Philippines (+18.4%) saw
high growth in the amount of subsequent designations received in 2019.

63 63

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

Although increases were recorded for a majority of the top designated Madrid
members, about a third received fewer subsequent designations than the year
before. Japan (–6.6%), New Zealand (–7.7%), the Republic of Korea (–4.2%) and
Viet Nam (–4.2%) were the ones to see the largest decreases. Nine of the top 20
subsequently designated Madrid members are middle-income countries spanning
three continents, reflecting the widespread appeal of developing markets to Madrid
registration holders seeking to extend protection for their marks.
Among the top 15 designated Madrid members, Australia, China, Japan, Mexico,
the Republic of Korea and the Russian Federation all received their highest sharesof subsequent designations in 2019 from trademark holders in France, Germany andthe U.S. (figure B9). Holders from Japan were among the top three origins of subsequent designations in its Asian neighbors Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore,
Thailand and Viet Nam, whereas holders from Switzerland were among the top
three origins for the U.K. and the U.S.

SECTION B
64 64

Holders
renewed almost
30,000 Madrid
international
registrationsin 2019

Madrid registration holders renewed 29,262 registrations in 2019, a fall of 8% on
the previous year. The number of renewals in any given year depends both on thenumber of Madrid registrations and the number of renewals recorded 10 years
prior, therefore the trend seen in figure B13 is only a partial reflection of the trend inregistrations with a 10-year lag. The 2019 decrease was to be expected due to thelower number of Madrid registrations recorded at the height of the financial crisis
in 2009 and up for renewal 10 years later. In 2006, renewals of Madrid registrations
doubled from almost 8,000 in 2005 to just over 16,400. This was the result of areduction in the renewal period from 20 to 10 years that came into effect in 1996.
Since 2006, renewals have trended upward, despite modest declines in 2011 and2017, and a more considerable drop in 2019.

The highest
numbers ofrenewals in 2019were recordedby holders from
Germany, France,
Switzerland
and Italy

Holders from Germany (7,251), France (4,583), Switzerland (2,587) and Italy (2,400)
recorded the highest numbers of Madrid registration renewals in 2019 (figure B14).
This reflects their long-standing membership of the Madrid System. Together, these
top four origins of renewals accounted for over half (57%) of all renewals in 2019,
and their holders’ stocks of international registrations have often been maintained
for many decades.
Despite the drop in total Madrid registrations 10 years earlier and therefore thenumbers of renewals for 15 of the top 20 origins, renewals increased in 2019 forfive of the top 20 origins compared to the previous year. These were Australia(+3.8%), Austria (+2.1%), Japan (+4.3%), Switzerland (+0.1%) and Turkey (+11.8%).

SECTION B: STATISTICS ON MADRID INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATIONS, RENEWALS AND ACTIVE REGISTRATIONSOf the 1.5 million international registrations recorded since the creation of the Madrid
System, about half (741,619) remained active – that is, in force – in 2019. Totaling
almost 463,400 in 2005, active Madrid registrations have increased by between
about two and five percent each year subsequently (figure B21). In 2019, the total
number of active Madrid registrations grew by 4.6%.

Together, holders
located in just 20
countries own
almost 90% of allactive Madrid
registrations

Madrid registration holders domiciled in Germany owned 132,632 active registrations in 2019, followed by holders in France (83,499) and the U.S. (74,469) (figure B23). Together, holders based in the top 20 countries of origin owned almost
90% of all active Madrid registrations in 2019. Among the top origins, holders
from China (+15.9%), Japan (+9.7%), the Republic of Korea (+16.1%) and the U.S.
(+11.9%) were the ones whose stocks of active Madrid registrations grew the mostfrom 2018 to 2019.

Madrid members
China, the RussianFederation and
Switzerland
top the list for
designationsin active
international
registrations

In 2019, China (280,257) retained top spot as the Madrid member with the mostdesignations in active Madrid registrations, followed by Switzerland (258,361) and
the Russian Federation, with 243,094 designations. The EU (222,684) and the U.S.
(210,364) were the fourth and fifth highest-ranking Madrid members in terms ofdesignations in active registrations (figure B24). This means that, as of 2019, theover 200,000 trademarks in force in each of these four countries and the EU, via
the EUIPO, resulted from Madrid registrations.

The 6.21 million
designations in
active Madrid
registrations in2019 were owned
by about 260,600
right holders

A majority (62.9%) of holders of active Madrid registrations possessed only a single such registration in their 2019 portfolios – a situation that has remained almost
unaltered since 2012. Another 17.1% of holders owned only two active Madrid registrations. Overall, about 90% of holders held four or fewer active registrations intheir portfolios, and about 95% owned no more than seven (figure B25).

SECTION B

Almost half (49%)
of all international
registrations
recorded since theMadrid System wasestablished in 1891
are still active

Thirteen of the top 20 Madrid members had more designations in active registrations in 2019 than they did in 2018, with the U.K. recording the highest growth of
13.6%. Six of the seven Madrid members that saw declines were either individual EU member countries or the Benelux countries as a group, which comprises
Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. Nevertheless, as a single designatedMadrid member, the EU as a whole saw the second highest growth (+9.6%) among
top members.

65 65Madrid international registrations
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8
B9
B10
B11
B12

Trend in international registrations, 2005–2019
Trend in subsequent designations in international registrations, 2005–2019
Subsequent designations in international registrations for the top 20 origins, 2019
Trends in subsequent designations in international registrations for the top five origins, 2005–2019
Subsequent designations in international registrations for selected middle-income country origins, 2019
Trends in subsequent designations in international registrations for selected middle-income country
origins, 2005–2019
Subsequent designations in international registrations for the top 20 designated Madrid
members, 2019
Shares of total subsequent designations in international registrations for the top 20 origins and top 15
designated Madrid members, 2019
Distribution of subsequent designations in international registrations for the top 15 designated Madrid
members received from their top three origins, 2019
Flows of subsequent designations from selected middle-income countries of origin to selected top
subsequently designated Madrid members, 2019
Trend in provisional refusals of designations in international registrations, 2005–2019
Provisional refusals of designation by selected designated Madrid members, 2019

67
67
68
68
69
69
70
71
72
73
74
74

Renewals of Madrid international registrations
B13
B14
B15
B16
B17
B18
B19
B20

Trend in renewals of international registrations, 2005–2019
Renewals of international registrations for the top 20 origins, 2019
Trends in renewals of international registrations for the top five origins, 2005–2019
Renewals of international registrations for selected low- and middle-income country origins, 2019
Trends in renewals of international registrations for selected middle-income country origins, 2005–2019
Trend in renewed designations in international registrations, 2005–2019
Renewed designations in international registrations for the top 20 origins, 2019
Top 20 designated Madrid members in renewals of international registrations, 2019

75
75
76
76
77
77
78
78

Active Madrid international registrations
B21
B22
B23
B24
B25
B26

Trend in active international registrations, 2005–2019
Trend in designations in active international registrations, 2005–2019
Active international registrations for the top 20 origins, 2019
Designations in active international registrations for the top 20 designated Madrid members, 2019
Distribution of active international registrations per right holder, 2019
Classes specified in active international registrations, 2019

79
79
80
80
81
82

Statistical tables
B27
B28

66

International registrations and subsequent designations covered by international registrations, 2019
Renewals of international registrations and designations covered by renewed international
registrations, 2019

83
86

SECTION B: STATISTICS ON MADRID INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATIONS, RENEWALS AND ACTIVE REGISTRATIONSMadrid international registrations
In 2019, trademark holders received a total of 64,118 Madrid registrations, representing an
increase of 6.7% on the previous year.
B1. Trend in international registrations, 2005–2019
Madrid registrations

70,00060,00050,00040,00030,00020,000

–12.3
41.9

12.2

3.3

6.5

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

–4.5
4.5

8.5

3.1

5.9

2010

2011

2012

2013

–13.9
22.4

2014

2015

2016

25.8

6.8

6.7

2017

2018

2019

Registration year
MADRID REGISTRATIONSGROWTH RATE (%)

Note: The significant decrease in 2016 was mainly due to the deployment of a new back-end IT system that year, which resulted in a temporary
reduction in the IB’s production capacity. The total numbers of international registrations for all origins are reported in statistical table B27.

SECTION B

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

Subsequent designations have increased from about 40,500 in 2005 to just over 57,000
in 2019.
Subsequent designations

B2. Trend in subsequent designations in international registrations, 2005–2019
60,00050,00040,00030,00020,000

–3.5
4.4

7.4

5.3

2005

2006

2007

2008

–18.8

2009

–3.3
6.8

13.1

4.6

0.1

10.0

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

–5.7

2016

15.3

4.9

3.3

2017

2018

2019

Year
SUBSEQUENT DESIGNATIONSGROWTH RATE (%)

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

67

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

For more than three decades, holders based in Germany have been the most active insubsequently extending protection for their marks to other Madrid member markets,and in 2019 they were followed by holders located in the U.S. and Switzerland.
B3. Subsequent designations in international registrations for the top 20 origins, 2019
10.3

6.6

4.5

3.1

–13.7

2.7

25.0

3,141

3,049

11.1

1.4

–30.3

–9.8

–0.9

1,957

1,908

1,898

1,789

1,587

1.7

12.2

20.8

ANNUAL GROWTH RATE (%)–14.7 –3.5 –12.0 91.0 54.7

1,129

1,079

889

833

615

ep
ub
l

ic

Au
st
ria

529

Po
la
nd

694

of
Ko
re
a
Sw
ed
en
D
en
m
ar
k
Be
l
gi
C
ze
um
ch
R
ep
ub
lic

811

R

R

us
si
an

N

Sp
ai
n
et
he
rla
nd
s
Au
st
ra
lia

hi
na
C

at
io
n

Fe
de
r

Ita
ly

Fr
an
ce

.S
.
itz
er
la
nd

U

Sw

G
er
m

an
y

3,889

Tu
rk
ey

4,911

.K
.

5,253

Ja
pa
n

5,950

U

Subsequent designations

8,700

OriginNote: Origin data are based on the country of the Madrid registration holder’s address.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

SECTION B

Subsequent designations from the top five origins have been converging over the last
15 years.

Subsequent designations

B4. Trends in subsequent designations in international registrations for the top five origins, 2005–2019
15,00010,000

5,000

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Year
GERMANYU.S.

SWITZERLAND

FRANCE

ITALY

Note: Origin data are based on the country of the Madrid registration holder’s address.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

68

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

SECTION B: STATISTICS ON MADRID INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATIONS, RENEWALS AND ACTIVE REGISTRATIONS

Subsequent designations made by holders based in many middle-income countries
remain low.

B5. Subsequent designations in international registrations for selected middle-income country origins, 2019
–14.1

–2.9

–12.2 380.0 439.4

269

252

23.2

55.1

418.8

6.3

83

67

256.3 103.8 163.2 –34.2 –50.0

ANNUAL GROWTH RATE (%)
275.0 –43.3 114.3 0.0

..

..

35

30

240

50

48

45

ub
a
G
eo
rg
ia
M
or
oc
co
R
om
N
or
an
th
ia
M
ac
ed
on
ia
In
do
ne
si
a

53

30

17

15

7

M
ex
ic
o
Ph
ilip
pi
ne
s
Al
ba
ni
a
Th
ai
la
nd

57

C

Ar
m

en
ia

107

Eg
yp
Ka
t
za
kh
st
an

138

Se
rb
ia

Be
la
ru
s
R
V
ep
ie
t
ub
N
am
lic
of
M
ol
do
va

Bu
lg
ar
ia

U

kr
ai
ne

178

In
di
a

Subsequent designations

451

OriginNote: Origin data are based on the country of the Madrid registration holder’s address. The total numbers of subsequent designations ininternational registrations for all origins are reported in statistical table B27.
.. indicates not available.

SECTION B

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

Between 2016 and 2018, subsequent designations from China increased sharply comparedto the other selected middle-income countries of origin, but in 2019 they dropped toapproximately the same level as those made by holders based in the Russian Federation
and Turkey. Subsequent designations from Ukraine and Viet Nam have been similar
in magnitude.
B6. Trends in subsequent designations in international registrations for selected middle-income country
origins, 2005–2019
Subsequent designations

3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Year
TURKEYRUSSIAN FEDERATIONCHINAUKRAINE

VIET NAM

Note: Origin data are based on the country of the Madrid registration holder’s address.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

69

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

China has received the highest number of subsequent designations each year since 2004,
whereas the U.K. moved from 12th spot in 2018 to rank second in 2019, most likely due to amove by many Madrid registration holders to ensure protection for their marks in the U.K.
post Brexit.

B7. Subsequent designations in international registrations for the top 20 designated Madrid members, 2019
10.7

64.5

1.0

–4.2

–6.6

..

3.4

1.8

0.9

1,719

1,659

1,639

1,626

1,621

1,586

–3.5

4.1

–0.3

–4.2

1,464

1,403

1,325

1,310

18.4

0.6

0.3

1,176

1,165

1,165

ANNUAL GROWTH RATE (%)–7.7 16.6 –0.7
6.3

1,102

EU

ay
or
w

1,111

N

In
di
a

Tu
rk
ey
Ze
al
an
d

1,137

N

ew

ex
ic
o
Au
st
ra
lia
Th
ai
la
nd
In
do
ne
si
a
Si
ng
ap
or
e
Vi
et
N
am
Ph
ilip
pi
ne
s
Sw
itz
er
la
nd

M

at
io
n

an
ad
a

Fe
de
r

us
si
an

1,159

R

R

ep
ub
l

ic

C

1,957

U
.S
.
of
Ko
re
a

.K
.
U

C

hi
na

2,082

Ja
pa
n

Subsequent designations

2,909

Madrid member
Note: The total numbers of subsequent designations in international registrations for all Madrid members are reported in statistical table B27.

SECTION B.. indicates not available.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

70

SECTION B: STATISTICS ON MADRID INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATIONS, RENEWALS AND ACTIVE REGISTRATIONS

The largest share of subsequent designations received by 13 of the top 15 designatedMadrid members in 2019 came from Germany, with the U.K. receiving 44.1% of its total
from German registration holders alone. Exceptions were the Philippines, where the top
origin of subsequent designations was Japan, and Singapore, for which the U.S. was thelargest origin.

B8. Shares of total subsequent designations in international registrations for the top 20 origins and top 15
designated Madrid members, 2019

6ZLW]HUODQG

3KLOLSSLQHV

9LHW1DP

6LQJDSRUH

,QGRQHVLD7KDLODQG$XVWUDOLD0H[LFR)HGHUDWLRQ

5XVVLDQ

&DQDGD-DSDQ

.RUHD

86

5HSXEOLFRI

8.

&KLQD'HVLJQDWHG0DGULGPHPEHU*HUPDQ\





























86





























6ZLW]HUODQG





























2ULJLQ)UDQFH





























,WDO\



























































-DSDQ





























7XUNH\





























5XVVLDQ)HGHUDWLRQ































&KLQD





























6SDLQ































1HWKHUODQGV





























$XVWUDOLD





























$XVWULD





5HSXEOLFRI.RUHD

















































6ZHGHQ































'HQPDUN





























%HOJLXP





























&]HFK5HSXEOLF































3RODQG





























2WKHURULJLQV





























SECTION B

8.

Note: Origin data are based on the country of the Madrid registration holder’s address.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

71

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

In 2019, the top three origins of subsequent designations for 14 of the top 15 designatedMadrid members accounted for between 33% and 41% of all subsequent designations
received except for the U.K., where this share was an exceptional 62.4%.
B9. Distribution of subsequent designations in international registrations for the top 15 designatedMadrid members received from their top three origins, 201940
20

GERMANY

ITALY

JAPAN

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

SECTION B
72

SWITZERLAND

U.K.

U.S.

N
am

Vi
et

U
.S
.

U
.K
.

y
ke

d
ila
n

Tu
r

e

Madrid member
FRANCE

Th
a

or
ap

Si
ng

R
us

si
an

Fe
d

er

Ko
r
of

at
io
n

ea

s
in
e
R
ep

ub

lic

n

ic
o

Ph
ilip
p

ex
M

pa
Ja

ia
es
on

In
d

C
hi
na

ad
C
an

tra
Au
s

a

0

lia

Share of subsequent
designations (%)

60

SECTION B: STATISTICS ON MADRID INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATIONS, RENEWALS AND ACTIVE REGISTRATIONSFlows of subsequent designations from 10 selected middle-income countries tocertain top subsequently designated members show the extent to which holders
from these countries are using existing Madrid registrations to extend protection
for their marks to these markets.
B10. Flows of subsequent designations from selected middle-income countries of origin to
selected top subsequently designated Madrid members, 2019
Middle-income country of origin

Subsequently designated Madrid member

China

TurkeyU.S.

SECTION B

Russian Federation
UkraineJapan
Bulgaria
Republic of Korea
Belarus
Viet Nam
India
SerbiaRepublic of Moldova
Egypt
Armenia
Other middle-income origins*

U.K.
Australia
MexicoIndonesia
ThailandNote: Origin data are based on the country of the Madrid registration holder’s address.
*Middle-income countries of origin China and the Russian Federation have been removed from the“Other middle-income origins” category.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

73

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

Provisional refusals issued by designated Madrid members increased by 16.5% in 2019.
B11. Trend in provisional refusals of designations in international registrations, 2005–2019

Provisional refusals

160,000

120,000

80,00040,000
–1.8
21.5

25.9

3.9

2005

2006

2007

–4.5

–3.7

–1.6

2.6

2008

2009

2010

2011

6.3

9.0

15.5

12.8

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

8.6

7.6

16.5

2017

2018

2019

Year
PROVISIONAL REFUSALSGROWTH RATE (%)

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

SECTION B

China and the U.S. issued similarly high numbers of provisional refusals of designationin 2019.

26,295

7.4

4.6

–12.3

6.7

94.7

43.0

10.1

7,387

6,839

5,946

5,571

5,236

5,115

–1.0

61.0

46.9

106.4 –50.2

–0.8

18.5

3,538

3,498

3,387

3,354

3,263

2,714

2,213

co

2.6

nd

54.6

ay

B12. Provisional refusals of designation by selected designated Madrid members, 2019

Provisional refusals

25,283.. indicates not available.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

y

a

C

ol
om
bi

1,496

ke

1,510

Tu
r

.K
.

1,897

U

nd
ila

am

2,149

Th
a

N

la

nd

Vi
et

er

ex
i

itz
Sw

M

Ze
al
a

w
N

ew

ne

s

or
N

l

pi

ae
Is
r

Ph
ilip

re
po

ia

ga

In
d

Si
n

lia
tra

EU

Au
s

n

n
pa
Ja

ea

at
io
er

Ko
r
us

si
an

Fe
d

.S
.
U

R

R

ep

ub

lic

of

C

hi

na

10,089Madrid member

74

ANNUAL GROWTH RATE (%)..
30.2
6.2 –14.6

SECTION B: STATISTICS ON MADRID INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATIONS, RENEWALS AND ACTIVE REGISTRATIONS

Renewals of Madrid international registrations
In 2019, renewals of Madrid registrations fell by 8% to 29,262, only the third annual
decrease in the last 15 years.

Renewals of Madrid registrations

B13. Trend in renewals of international registrations, 2005–2019
30,00020,00010,000

–1.6
7.6

106.7

6.0

11.2

0.4

13.0

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

–0.5

2011

0.4

6.3

14.1

9.4

2.0

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

–8.0
8.8

2017

2018

2019

Year
RENEWALS OF MADRID REGISTRATIONSGROWTH RATE (%)

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

SECTION B

About 57% of all renewals in 2019 came from just four European countries – Germany,
France, Italy and Switzerland – reflecting their long-standing membership of the Madrid
System and holders’ large stocks of existing registrations up for renewal.

–6.8

0.1

–4.4

2,587

2,400

–13.9 –18.2

2.1

–6.3

–9.9

4.3

–7.7

–12.7 –19.8

977

863

810

809

779

764

3.8

11.8

–9.9

358

350

347

at
io
n

Renewals of Madrid registrations

–7.9

y

B14. Renewals of international registrations for the top 20 origins, 2019

ANNUAL GROWTH RATE (%)–15.5 –38.3 –20.3 –1.8

7,251

d

d
Fi
nl
an

lic

C

ze

ch

Po
la
n

k

222

ub

ar

232

ep

m

R

en

er
Fe
d

si
an

283

R

us

339

D

ke

lia

Tu
r

tra

en
ed

Au
s

na
hi

365

Sw

C

um

n

in

pa

gi
Be
l

Ja

Sp
a

U

s

tri
a
Au
s

et
he

rla

nd

.S
.
U

1,402

N

Ita
ly

rla

nd

e
nc

itz
e

Sw

Fr
a

G
er

m

an

y

1,431

.K
.

4,583

OriginNote: Origin data are based on the country of the Madrid registration holder’s address. The total numbers of renewals of international registrations
for all origins are reported in statistical table B28.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

75

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

Renewals of Madrid registrations from the U.S. have trended upward since 2013, marking
the end of the first 10-year validity period for registrations recorded in 2003 when thiscountry first joined the Madrid System.
Renewals of Madrid registrations

B15. Trends in renewals of international registrations for the top five origins, 2005–2019
8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Year
GERMANYFRANCE

SWITZERLAND

ITALY

U.S.

Note: Origin data are based on the country of the Madrid registration holder’s address.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

SECTION B

Renewals from many low- and middle-income countries are relatively low. For some, this ispartly due to having only relatively recently become a member of the Madrid System.

7.8

8.1

500.0 –25.0 –60.0

25.0–61.1 250.0

33.3

..

..

..

..

12

9

7

6

6

Af
ric

–7.1

ia

–21.8 –28.2

ANNUAL GROWTH RATE (%)
..
..
..
..

93
79

78
55

ia
In
d

a

G
ui
ne

3

Pa
p

ua

N

ew

a

4

ub

4

C

.K
.

a

.P
.R
D

rg

So
u

th

va

G
eo

ol
do

vi
lic
ub

an

ep
R

d

H

of

er

M

ze

ak

5

Bo
s

ni
a

go

hs

of
)
lic

R
Ira

n

(Is

N

la
m

or

ic

Ka
z

ep

ub

ia

M
th

ta
n

14

pt

14

Eg
y

on
ed

an

15

ac

om

tN

am

ia

16

R

ia
en

18

Vi
e

us

Ar
m

co
oc
or

Be
la
r

ne
ai

M

bi

a

kr
U

Bu
l

Se
r

ria

18

na

40

ga

Renewals of Madrid registrations

B16. Renewals of international registrations for selected low- and middle-income country origins, 2019

OriginNote: Origin data are based on the country of the Madrid registration holder’s address. The total numbers of renewals of international registrations
for all origins are reported in statistical table B28. D.P.R.K. is the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
.. indicates not available.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

76

SECTION B: STATISTICS ON MADRID INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATIONS, RENEWALS AND ACTIVE REGISTRATIONS

Among selected middle-income country origins, China has seen the sharpest growth
in renewals.
Renewals of Madrid registrations

B17. Trends in renewals of international registrations for selected middle-income country origins, 2005–2019
1,000
800
600
400
200

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Year
CHINA

RUSSIAN FEDERATIONTURKEYSERBIA

MOROCCO

Note: Origin data are based on the country of the Madrid registration holder’s address.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

SECTION B

Renewals have contained an average of between 9 and 12 designations for the last 15 years.
B18. Trend in renewed designations in international registrations, 2005–2019

Renewed designations
in registrations

AVERAGE NUMBER OF RENEWED DESIGNATIONS
10.7

11.3

11.7

11.7

11.8

11.6

10.4

118.0

9.9

11.9

0.6

11.8

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

11.7

11.5

–1.7

–1.4

11.6

11.0

10.2

8.0

7.9

1.3

2013

2014

2015

9.9

9.6

–1.0

–3.9

9.3

9.2

400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000

2011

2012

–8.5
5.8

2016

2017

2018

2019

Year
RENEWED DESIGNATIONS IN REGISTRATIONSGROWTH RATE (%)

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

77

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

In 2019, the top 20 origins accounted for about 93% of all renewed designations in
Madrid registrations.
B19. Renewed designations in international registrations for the top 20 origins, 2019
–8.1

–4.6

–6.0

–5.5

–5.7

–14.1 –18.6

ANNUAL GROWTH RATE (%)–18.8 –22.4 –27.4 10.4

3.9

–7.9

–10.6

–0.5

–6.0

–5.4

–17.2 –32.6

1.3

8,215

7,073

6,220

5,776

4,737

4,601

3,864

2,963

Renewed designations

69,46642,808

2,348

1,930

1,774

R

us
si
an

2,284

Po
la
nd
D
en
m
ar
Lu
k
xe
m
bo
ur
g

3,319

Tu
rk
ey
Fe
de
r
at
C
ze
io
n
ch
R
ep
ub
lic
H
un
ga
ry
Sw
ed
en

Ja
pa
n

N

U

Be
lg
iu
m

Sp
ai
n

.S
.
Au
st
ria

8,432

U

C
hi
na
et
he
rla
nd
s

Ita
ly

itz
er
la
nd

Fr
an
ce

Sw

G
er
m
an
y

11,146 10,636.K.

28,368 26,221

OriginNote: Origin data are based on the country of the Madrid registration holder’s address. The total numbers of designations in renewals ofinternational registrations for all origins are reported in statistical table B28.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

SECTION B

For a fourth consecutive year, Switzerland, the Russian Federation and China were the threemost designated countries in renewals of Madrid registrations.

–7.4

–8.7

–5.6

2.4

–9.9

5,569

5,381

5,377

5,054

al

–5.8

ay

B20. Top 20 designated Madrid members in renewals of international registrations, 2019
–7.6

–8.4

–6.1

–6.9

–9.7

–9.0

–11.7 –12.4 –10.0 –10.0

7,912

7,824

7,477

7,195

6,999

6,644

6,462

ANNUAL GROWTH RATE (%)–7.9 –5.7 –8.5 –14.1

pa

n

lia

4,584

Ja

Au
s

tra

co

ry

4,676

oc

4,806

or
M

ga

at
ia

un

y

4,997

H

ro
C

ke
Tu
r

tu
g

Po
r

w
or

bi

a
N

U

5,973

Se
r

ai

ne

6,438

kr

EU

y

in
Sp
a

an
m

e

tri
a

nc

G
er

Fr
a

Au
s

Ita
ly

el
ux

na
hi
C

n
at
io
er

Fe
d

9,279

R

us

si

an

Sw

itz
e

rla

nd

10,362BenRenewed designations

13,046

Madrid member
Note: Benelux comprises the territories of Belgium, Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands. These three territories are deemed to be asingle country for the application of the Madrid System. The total numbers of designations in renewals of international registrations for all Madrid
members are reported in statistical table B28.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

78

SECTION B: STATISTICS ON MADRID INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATIONS, RENEWALS AND ACTIVE REGISTRATIONS

Active Madrid international registrations
In 2019, active Madrid international registrations numbered 741,619; a net increase ofaround 32,500 over 2018.
Active Madrid registrations

B21. Trend in active international registrations, 2005–2019
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000

5.0

3.6

4.2

3.7

1.9

2.0

2.8

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

3.2

3.6

3.1

2.8

3.8

4.1

4.4

4.6

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Year
ACTIVE MADRID REGISTRATIONSGROWTH RATE (%)

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

SECTION B

Over the last decade and a half, the average number of Madrid members designated per
active international registration has declined from 11 to around eight.
B22. Trend in designations in active international registrations, 2005–2019
Designations in active registrations

AVERAGE NUMBER OF DESIGNATIONS PER ACTIVE REGISTRATION
11.2

11.1

11.1

10.9

10.7

4.4

2.7

3.8

1.7

0.1

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

10.4

10.1

–0.6

–0.2

9.8

9.5

9.3

9.0

8.8

8.6

8.5

8.4

0.3

0.6

0.2

0.2

1.4

1.9

2.5

3.3

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

7,000,000
5,000,000
3,000,000
1,000,000

2010

2011

Year
DESIGNATIONS IN ACTIVE REGISTRATIONSGROWTH RATE (%)

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

79

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

In 2019, active Madrid registrations owned by holders from Germany totaled more than
1.5 times those owned by holders from France, the next highest ranked origin.
B23. Active international registrations for the top 20 origins, 2019
1.8

1.2

11.9

1.8

1.6

15.9

6.5

9.7

0.8

1.6

0.4

8.8

0.1

7.0

4.8

3.9

ANNUAL GROWTH RATE (%)
3.2
16.1
0.4
4.4

74,469

8,126

6,213

5,824

Tu
rk
ey
Sw
ed
en
D
en
R
ep
m
ar
ub
k
lic
of
Ko
C
re
ze
a
ch
R
ep
ub
lic
Fi
nl
an
d

8,315

R

us
si
an

N

Be
lg
iu
m
Fe
de
ra
tio
n

14,626 14,262 13,146 10,436

Au
st
ra
lia

20,352 18,346 17,237

Au
st
ria

C

27,860 27,839

Ja
pa
n
et
he
rla
nd
s

32,857Spain40,120

.K
.

Ita
ly

U
.S
.
itz
er
la
nd

50,413

Sw

Fr
an
ce

G
er
m
an
y

58,235

U

83,499hinaActive registrations

132,632

OriginNote: Origin data are based on the country of the Madrid registration holder’s address.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

SECTION B

In 2019, for the ninth year in a row, designations in active Madrid registrations were highest
for China, the Russian Federation and Switzerland, with China heading the list of the top 20
designated Madrid members for a second year running.

8.0

4.2

–2.3

3.3

–3.4

–2.6

–3.5

ANNUAL GROWTH RATE (%)
7.9–2.8 –0.6 13.6

.K
.
U

in

bi
a
Se
r

re

Sp
a

po

tri
a

ga

110,498 105,645 100,870

Si
n

Au
s

e
nc
Fr
a

el
ux

Be
n

ay
w

y

or
N

m

an

y

y

ke
Tu
r

G
er

lic

123,829 119,508 114,335

ep

ub

Ita
l

lia
tra

135,399 134,151 131,252 128,609 128,237 127,646 126,217

R

pa

n

156,360

Au
s

Ja

.S
.
U

EU

n
er

Fe
d

si
an

–3.0

R

us

at
io

d
la
n
er

hi
na

itz

1.6

210,364
167,258

Sw

8.0

ai
ne

222,6847.7

kr

243,094

7.2

U258,3619.6

ea280,257

3.3

Ko
r

1.8

of

5.8

C

Designations in active registrations

B24. Designations in active international registrations for the top 20 designated Madrid members, 2019

Madrid member
Note: Benelux comprises the territories of Belgium, Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands. These three territories are deemed to be asingle country for the application of the Madrid System.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

80

SECTION B: STATISTICS ON MADRID INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATIONS, RENEWALS AND ACTIVE REGISTRATIONS

Overall, 80% of holders of active Madrid registrations held either one or two suchregistrations in their portfolios in 2019.
B25. Distribution of active international registrations per right holder, 2019SHARE OF TOTAL RIGHT HOLDERS (%)

CUMULATIVE SHARE, 2019

62.9

90

Number of right holders

Share of total right holders (%)

100
80
70
60
50
40
30
20

17.1

6.7

17,41215

20

Number of active registrations

25

9,541

5,500

4

5

4.3

3.2

0.1

0.01

330

35

44,4750
10

2.1

163,96110
1 2 3 4 5

3.7

1

2

3

11,088

8,257

6–10

11–100 101–500 >500

Number of active registrations

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

SECTION B

81

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

Computers, electronics and software, business services, and pharmaceuticals are among
the top three classes specified in active Madrid registrations.
B26. Classes specified in active international registrations, 2019
Class covers/includes

Share oftotal (%)

SECTION B

Class 9: Computer hardware and software and other electrical or electronic apparatus of a scientific nature

165,680

8.8Class 35: Services such as office functions, advertising and business management

121,357

6.4

Class 5: Mainly pharmaceuticals and other preparations for medical purposes

101,499

5.4

Class 42: Services provided by, for example, scientific, industrial or technological engineers and computer specialists

101,246

5.4

Class 25: Clothing, footwear and headgear

87,281

4.6

Class 3: Mainly cleaning preparations and toiletry preparations

79,072

4.2

Class 41: Services in the area of education, training, entertainment, sporting and cultural activities

76,276

4.0

Class 16: Mainly paper, goods made from that material and office requisites

66,811

3.5

Class 30: Mainly foodstuffs of plant origin, prepared for consumption or conservation as well as auxiliaries intended
for improving the flavor of food

61,613

3.3

Class 7: Mainly machines, machine tools, motors and engines

60,5203.2

Class 11: Apparatus for lighting, heating, steam generating, cooking, refrigerating, drying, ventilating, water supply
and sanitary purposes

50,713

2.7

Class 29: Meat, fish, poultry; frozen, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables

47,6102.5Class 18: Leather and imitations of leather, and products made therefrom, traveling bags and umbrellas

46,557

2.5

Class 1: Chemicals used in industry, science and photography, as well as in agriculture

46,315

2.5Class 37: Building construction; repair; installation services

41,137

2.2

Class 12: Vehicles; apparatus for locomotion by land, air or water

39,8092.1Class 38: Telecommunications services

38,8792.1Class 28: Games and playthings; gymnastic and sporting articles

38,6462.0
2.0Class 10: Surgical, medical, dental and veterinary apparatus and instruments

38,576Class 6: Mainly includes common metals and their alloys and goods of common metal not included in other classes

38,376

2.0

Class 33: Alcoholic beverages (except beers)

37,9312.0Class 20: Mainly furniture, mirrors, picture frames and goods made from, for example, wood, cork, reed, cane, wicker

37,6282.0Class 21: Mainly household or kitchen utensils and containers; combs and sponges; articles for cleaning purposes,
glassware, porcelain and earthenware

36,142

1.9Class 36: Services relating to insurance, financial affairs, monetary affairs, and real estate affairs

35,666

1.9Class 32: Beers; mineral and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic beverages; fruit beverages and fruit juices;
syrups and other preparations for making beverages

35,049

1.9

Remaining 20 classes

353,69018.8

Note: For full class definitions, visit www.wipo.int/classifications/nice.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

82

2019

SECTION B: STATISTICS ON MADRID INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATIONS, RENEWALS AND ACTIVE REGISTRATIONS

Statistical tables
B27. International registrations and subsequent designations covered by international registrations, 2019
Origin¹

Name
Afghanistan

Number ofregistrations

Designations

Designated member
Subsequent
designations

Designations

Subsequent
designations

..

..

..

705

222

African Intellectual Property
Organization

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

2,357

509

Albania

21

123

15

2,196

452

Algeria

21

75

..

2,705

637

Andorra (a)

4

18

..

n.a.

n.a.

Antigua and Barbuda

1

20

..

562

104

Argentina (a)

3

20

11

n.a.

n.a.

Armenia

24

326

83

2,722

442

Australia

2,135

9,500

1,129

15,982

1,586

Austria

1,027

5,386

1,079

2,597

204

Azerbaijan

5

60

..

3,106

536

Bahamas (a)

..

..

2

n.a.

n.a.

Bahrain

..

..

..

1,862

453
n.a.

1

6

4

n.a.

BelarusBarbados (a)

206

1,521

252

5,022

678

Belgium (b)

773

4,151

694

n.a.

n.a.
n.a.

Belize (a)

37

13

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

2,843

251

Bermuda (a)

11

74

1

n.a.

n.a.

Bhutan

..

..

..

781

88

Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba (d)

..

..

6

472

91

Bosnia and Herzegovina

19

101

31

2,757

489
169

Botswana

1

24

..

851

Brazil

9

16

2

668

3

Brunei Darussalam

3

22

4

1,239

263

208

4,274

269

1,301

180

Cabo Verde (a)Bulgaria

1

7

..

n.a.

n.a.

Cambodia

7

40

..

2,947

532

Cameroon (e)

5

17

..

n.a.

n.a.

Canada

219

1,285

57

5,509

1,639

Chile (a)

2

3

..

n.a.

n.a.

7,585

86,072

1,898

24,6492,909

Colombia

26

87

3

4,420

925

Côte d’Ivoire (e)

6

16

..

n.a.

n.a.

Croatia

121

605

74

1,215

188

Cuba

9

120

53

1,553

232

China

Curaçao (d)

11

79

9

562

110

Cyprus

229

1,933

275

798

144

Czech Republic

358

2,614

615

1,688

184

Democratic People’s Republic of
Korea

13

16

1

1,291

148

Denmark

589

3,547

811

1,250

197

Dominican Republic (a)

1

1

3

n.a.

n.a.

Egypt

30

322

67

4,409

862

Equatorial Guinea (e)

1

24

..

n.a.

n.a.

Estonia

108

575

37

1,090

132

Eswatini

..

..

..

643

94

Ethiopia (a)

1

3

..

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

27,169

1,111

Fiji (a)European Union

..

..

4

n.a.

n.a.

Finland

481

2,370

419

1,063

174

France4,616

29,728

4,911

3,784

241

Gambia

..

..

..

850

150

Georgia

31

168

50

2,797

509

Germany

7,588

43,251

8,700

4,872

260

Ghana

..

..

..

1,387

282

Greece

131

583

116

1,231

165

Guinea (e)

4

19

..

n.a.

n.a.

SECTION B

6

Benelux Office for Intellectual Property(Continued)
83

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

(B27 continued)
Origin¹

Name

Number ofregistrations

Designations

Subsequent
designations

Hungary

224

2,608

258

1,437

177

Iceland

47

327

88

2,505

409

India

326

2,495

107

13,2701,137

Indonesia

43

300

30

7,515

1,403

Iran (Islamic Republic of)

32

355

3

3,227

491

Iraq (a)

2

30

..

n.a.

n.a.

Ireland

201

1,986

198

1,028

162

Israel

362

1,688

150

5,456

1,055

Italy

2,998

19,532

3,889

3,464

252

Japan

3,493

20,595

3,049

17,635

1,659

Kazakhstan

Designations

Subsequent
designations

SECTION B

179

1,219

57

5,428

759

Kenya

8

49

2

2,185

454

Kyrgyzstan

14

177

..

2,696

343

Lao People’s Democratic Republic

3

29

4

1,909

287

Latvia

120

857

190

1,294

142

Lebanon (a)

10

32

..

n.a.

n.a.

Lesotho

..

..

..

615

96

Liberia

..

..

..

807

105

Liechtenstein

95

1,098

63

2,205

253

Lithuania

126

622

64

1,255

157

Luxembourg (b)

393

2,725

345

n.a.

n.a.

Madagascar

5

11

..

1,055

189

Malawi

..

..

..

366

207
n.a.

Malaysia (a)

10

80

1

n.a.

Malta (c)

57

294

63

n.a.

n.a.

Marshall Islands (a)

7

80

39

n.a.

n.a.

Mauritius (a)

10

169

4

n.a.

n.a.

Mexico

62

209

30

10,980

1,621

Monaco

64

496

75

2,236

267

Mongolia

2

6

..

2,041

329

Montenegro

5

45

..

2,599

478

100

613

48

3,935

789

Mozambique

..

..

..

1,182

200

Namibia

..

..

..

1,053

173

Netherlands (b)

1,442

7,352

1,587

n.a.

n.a.

New Zealand

514

1,917

339

8,521

1,159

North Macedonia

27

159

35

2,498

431

Norway

316

1,576

288

8,996

1,102

Morocco

Oman

..

..

..

2,024

510

Panama (a)

5

13

20

n.a.

n.a.
n.a.

Paraguay (a)

5

11

..

n.a.

Peru (a)

..

..

14

n.a.

n.a.

Philippines

63

301

17

6,851

1,176

Poland

508

3,560

529

2,396

244

Portugal

197

1,179

239

1,666

178

Republic of Korea

1,404

10,481889

14,244

1,719

Republic of Moldova

65

438

178

2,757

394

Romania

78

582

45

1,684

220

1,558

11,816

1,908

17,020

1,626

Russian Federation
Rwanda

3

54

..

865

186

Samoa

..

..

..

180

120

San Marino

13

30

20

1,009

157

Sao Tome and Principe

..

..

..

496

74

Saudi Arabia (a)

3

94

..

n.a.

n.a.

Senegal (e)Serbia

2

4

2

n.a.

n.a.

206

1,330

138

4,052

695
n.a.

Seychelles (a)

9

47

2

n.a.

Sierra Leone

..

..

..

824

116

Singapore

789

5,717

422

11,311

1,325

Sint Maarten (Dutch Part) (d)

3

9

..

553

97

Slovakia

93

449

92

1,193

152

Slovenia

197

1,398

134

1,066

166

7

21

4

n.a.

n.a.

South Africa (a)84

Designated member

SECTION B: STATISTICS ON MADRID INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATIONS, RENEWALS AND ACTIVE REGISTRATIONS(B27 continued)
Origin¹

Designated member

Name

Number ofregistrations

Designations

Subsequent
designations

Designations

Spain

1,448

7,928

1,789

3,169

281

2

27

..

n.a.

n.a.
192

Sri Lanka (a)Subsequent
designations

Sudan

..

..

..

1,247

Sweden

806

4,774

833

1,433

210

3,500

25,262

5,253

15,4991,165

Switzerland
Syrian Arab Republic

4

24

15

917

210

Tajikistan

2

8

..

2,342

294
1,464

Thailand

152

942

7

8,165

Tunisia

27

107

..

2,473

672

Turkey

1,273

8,150

1,957

9,335

1,165

Turkmenistan
UkraineUnited Arab Emirates (a)

2

28

..

1,987

274

478

2,946

451

7,367

967

24

367

38

n.a.

n.a.

United Kingdom

3,245

17,985

3,141

14,9662,082

United States of America

65,033

5,950

24,663

1,957

12

92

..

2,495

440

Vanuatu (a)

1

5

..

n.a.

n.a.

Viet Nam

202

1,558

240

8,865

1,310

Zambia

2

8

..

1,125

148

Zimbabwe

..

..

..

1,159

214

Others

199

948

10

..

10

Total

64,118442,696

57,041

442,696

57,041SECTION B

9,583

Uzbekistan

Note: Only countries or territories of origin and designated Madrid member countries or jurisdictions for which 2019 Madrid System statistics exist
are listed.
¹ Origin is defined as the country or territory of the stated address of residence of the holder of an international registration.
(a) This country or territory was not a member of the Madrid System as of December 31, 2019. Applicants from this country or territory are entitled
to file via the Madrid System by claiming commercial activity or domicile in a country, or in the jurisdiction of a regional intellectual property (IP)
office, that is a member of the Madrid System. An applicant cannot designate the Madrid member to which entitlement is claimed (no selfdesignation is possible).
(b) The IP office is the regional Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP), which receives designations on behalf of this country.
(c) The country is a member of the Madrid System via its membership of the European Union.
(d) The country or municipality is not a Madrid member. The Netherlands has extended the application of the Madrid Protocol to the territories ofCuracao and Sint Maarten, Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba.
(e) This country is not a Madrid member but is covered by a designation of the African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI).
.. indicates zero.
n.a. indicates not applicable.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

85

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

B28. Renewals of international registrations and designations covered by renewed international
registrations, 2019
Origin¹
Name
Afghanistan

Number of renewals

Designated member
Number of designations

Number of designations

..

..

5

n.a.

n.a.

91

Albania

..

..

2,233

Algeria

..

..

2,766

Antigua and Barbuda

1

6

366

Armenia

18

262

2,238

Australia

358

1,563

4,676

Austria

977

8,215

7,477

Azerbaijan

..

..

2,361

Bahamas (a)

2

14

n.a.

Bahrain

..

..

1,070

African Intellectual Property Organization

SECTION B

Barbados (a)

3

52

n.a.

Belarus

40

425

4,424

Belgium (b)

779

6,220

n.a.

Benelux Office for Intellectual Property

n.a.

n.a.

7,912

Bermuda (a)

4

52

n.a.

Bhutan

..

..

349

Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba (d)

..

..

351

Bosnia and Herzegovina

9

152

3,959

Botswana

..

..

378

Brazil1

1..

Brunei Darussalam

..

..

21

Bulgaria

93

1,083

2,897

Cambodia

..

..

66

Canada

19

87

11

China

764

11,146

9,279

Colombia

..

..

292

Croatia

95

534

5,054
1,288

Cuba

4

59

Curaçao (d)

20

322

377

Cyprus

27

416

552

Czech Republic

283

3,319

4,455

5

55

1,476

339

1,930

2,378

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
Denmark
Dominica (a)

1

71

n.a.

Egypt

14

352

3,967

Estonia

35

141

1,469

Eswatini

..

..

590

n.a.

n.a.

6,462

European Union
Finland

222

1,340

1,950

France4,583

42,808

7,195

Gambia..

..

18

Georgia

6

107

2,147

Germany

6,999

7,251

69,466

Ghana

..

..

449

Greece

41

215

1,225

Hungary

203

2,963

4,997

Iceland

11

44

1,908

India

3

29

..

Indonesia

..

..

54

Iran (Islamic Republic of)

14

380

1,809

Ireland

38

297

855

Israel

5

17

498

Italy

2,400

26,221

7,824

Japan

4,584

809

4,737

Jordan (a)

1

6

n.a.

Kazakhstan

12

70

3,025

Kenya

..

..

1,235

Kyrgyzstan

..

..

2,118

Lao People’s Democratic Republic

..

..

23

Latvia

38

406

2,089

(Continued)
86

SECTION B: STATISTICS ON MADRID INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATIONS, RENEWALS AND ACTIVE REGISTRATIONS(B28 continued)
Origin¹
Name

Number of renewals

Designated member
Number of designations

Number of designations

Lebanon (a)

2

6

n.a.

Lesotho

..

..

549

Liberia

..

..

614

Liechtenstein

93

1,340

4,549

Lithuania

28

132

1,899

Luxembourg (b)

160

1,774

n.a.

Madagascar

2

6

410

Malawi..

..

3

Malaysia (a)

2

17

n.a.

Malta (c)

4

32

n.a.

Mexico

..

..

388

Monaco

39

287

4,174

Mongolia

..

..

1,388

..

..

3,877

Morocco

55

324

4,806

Mozambique

1

8

809

Namibia

..

..

448

1,402

10,636n.a.

New Zealand

4

29

316

North Macedonia

15

177

3,496

Norway

155

998

5,569

Oman

..

..

1,045

Panama (a)

6

59

n.a.

Papua New Guinea (a)

4

12

n.a.

232

2,284

3,881

Netherlands (b)PolandPortugal

124

1,061

5,381

Republic of Korea

120

1,036

3,922

Republic of Moldova

7

70

2,714

Romania

16

146

4,067

Russian Federation

347

3,864

10,362

Rwanda

..

..

54

Samoa

..

..

1

San Marino

8

61

2,312

Sao Tome and Principe

..

..

188

Saudi Arabia (a)

1

1

n.a.

Serbia

79

480

5,973

Seychelles (a)

1

2

n.a.

Sierra Leone

..

..

632

Singapore

90

554

3,503

Sint Maarten (Dutch Part) (d)

..

..

368

Slovakia

51

400

3,794

Slovenia

149

1,686

3,567

6

19

n.a.

810

7,073

6,644
1,088

South Africa (a)
Spain
Sudan

1

6

Sweden

365

2,348

2,171

2,587

28,36813,046

Syrian Arab Republic

1

49

1,020

Tajikistan

..

..

1,755

Thailand1

2

54

Tunisia

..

..

185

Turkey

350

4,601

5,377

..

..

1,296

Switzerland

Turkmenistan
Uganda (a)

1

4

n.a.

Ukraine

78

829

6,438

United Arab Emirates (a)United Kingdom
United States of America

3

54

n.a.

863

5,776

4,013
4,137

1,431

8,432

Uzbekistan

..

..

2,178

Viet Nam

18

178

3,834

Zambia

..

..

455

SECTION B

Montenegro(Continued)
87

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

(B28 continued)
Origin¹
Name

Number of renewals

Designated member
Number of designations

Number of designations

Zimbabwe..

..

Others

22

282

44
..

Total

29,262271,086

271,086

Note: Only countries or territories of origin and designated Madrid member countries or jurisdictions for which 2019 Madrid System statistics exist
are listed.
¹ Origin is defined as the country or territory of the stated address of residence of the holder of an international registration.
(a) This country or territory was not a member of the Madrid System as of December 31, 2019. Applicants from this country or territory are entitled
to file via the Madrid System by claiming commercial activity or domicile in a country, or in the jurisdiction of a regional IP office, that is a memberof the Madrid System. An applicant cannot designate the Madrid member to which entitlement is claimed (no self-designation is possible).
(b) The IP office is the regional Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP), which receives designations on behalf of this country.
(c) This country is a member of the Madrid System via its membership of the European Union.
(d) The country or municipality is not a Madrid member. The Netherlands has extended the application of the Madrid Protocol to the territories ofCuracao and Sint Maarten, Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba.
.. indicates zero.
n.a. indicates not applicable.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

SECTION B
88

90

SECTION C: STATISTICS ON ADMINISTRATION, REVENUE AND FEES

Section C
Statistics on administration,
revenue and fees
Highlights
Electronic transmission was introduced in 1998, and its share of total transmissions to the International Bureau (IB) of WIPO was just 0.2% by the end of that year.
Since then, the proportion of Madrid applications received electronically by the IB
has increased significantly. In 2019, almost 80% of all Madrid applications were
submitted to the IB electronically, up from 36.7% 10 years previously (figure C1).

Four out of every
five Madrid
applications were
submitted to the
IB in English

In 2019, 83.5% of Madrid applications were submitted in English, 14.1% in Frenchand 2.4% in Spanish (figure C2). Every year since 2014, about four out of every
five applications have been submitted in English. The reason for only a small proportion of applications having been submitted in Spanish since it was introduced
as a filing language in 2004 is that, to date, the Madrid System includes only four
Spanish-speaking countries (i.e. Colombia, Cuba, Mexico and Spain), of which Spainis the only one listed among the top 20 origins of Madrid applications (figure A6).

Almost 60%
of all Madrid
applications
received by
the IB in 2019
met all formal
requirements

The IB considers irregular any Madrid application that fails to meet all formal requirements, including the classification of goods and services in accordance with theInternational Nice Classification. In such instances, the IB informs both the Madrid
member’s office of origin and the applicant of the irregularities. Responsibility for
remedying these lies with either the office of origin or the applicant, dependingon the nature of the irregularity. In 2019, 58.6% of Madrid applications met all formal requirements. This does mean, however, that 41.4% contained irregularities,
a considerable portion of which were classification irregularities. For every year
since 2010, the share of irregularities in Madrid applications filed has exceeded
30% (figure C5).

Holders of Madrid
registrations
submitted over
80% of subsequent
designations
directly to WIPO

Holders of a Madrid registration can request subsequent designation of Madrid
members via their respective office or directly with the IB itself. In recent years,
including 2019, holders have submitted a large majority of requests for subsequent designation directly to the IB without going via their office. The proportionof requests by holders choosing this route has grown from about 13% in 2005 toreach 81.5% of the total in 2019 (figure C6).

SECTION C

About 80%of Madridinternational
applicationsin 2019 were
submitted to theInternational
Bureauelectronically

91 91

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

Recordingsof changes
in ownershipof Madrid
registrations
remainrelatively low

An international registration may change ownership following either assignmentof a mark, the merger of one or more companies, a court decision, or for otherreasons. Such a change is subject to the recording of the new owner as the newholder of the registration in the International Register, and the new holder mustmeet the requirements necessary for holding an international registration. These
include having entitlement, that is, the required connection to a Madrid member,which means being a national of, being domiciled in, or having a real and effective
industrial or commercial establishment in a Madrid member’s jurisdiction.
In 2019, the IB recorded approximately 17,800 changes in ownership of international
registrations, which is only about 320 more than in 2018. The share of changes inownership recorded in any given year relative to the total number of active registrations in the same year is small and has remained relatively stable over time.
Only 2.4% of all active Madrid registrations changed ownership in 2019 (figure C9).

Just under 70%
of cancellationsof Madrid
registrations
due to ceasing ofeffect of the basic
mark were partial
cancellations, so,
although the scopeof a registration
may be restricted,
the international
registration
remained valid
SECTION C
92 92

A Madrid registration is dependent on the basic mark (the national or regional rightwhich formed the basis for the Madrid application) for the first five years, counted
from the date of the international registration. Madrid member offices, acting as
offices of origin, are obliged to notify the IB of decisions concerning basic marks
made or initiated within this five-year dependency period that negatively affect thescope of the protection of the Madrid registration. Where this is the case, the officeof origin must request that the IB cancel the Madrid registration to the applicable
extent (to reflect the facts and decision concerning the basic mark). The IB thenrecords the cancellation in the International Register and informs the offices of thedesignated Madrid members and the holder of the Madrid registration.
In 2019, 5,631 Madrid registrations were canceled (in part or entirely) due to theceasing of effect of the basic mark, which is about 500 more than in 2018 (figureC10). Partial cancellations comprised the bulk (68.1%) of all cancellations, meaningthat most basic marks (applications/registrations) remained valid but with a reduced
list of goods and services for which they were protected. Slightly less than a third(31.9%) of all cancellations in 2019 were total cancellations. Where a Madrid registration is canceled due to the ceasing of effect of the basic mark, the Protocol
affords the holder the possibility of transforming the Madrid registration into anational or regional application in the designated Madrid members covered by the
Madrid registration. Such a transformation must be requested directly before theoffices of those Madrid members concerned, within three months of the date thatthe cancellation of the Madrid registration is recorded in the International Register.
Because requests for transformation are submitted directly to the Madrid member
offices concerned, WIPO does not have statistics on how many transformation
requests were filed in 2019.

Madrid System administration, revenue and fees
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11
C12
C13
C14
C15
C16
C17
C18

Trend in international applications by medium of transmission, 2009–2019
Trend in international applications by filing language, 2009–2019
Average timeliness in transmitting international applications to the IB by selected offices oforigin, 2019
Trend in translations, 2009–2019
Trend in irregularities in international applications, 2009–2019
Trend in the share of requests for subsequent designations filed directly with the IB, 2005–2019
Average timeliness in transmitting requests for subsequent designations to the IB by selected officesof origin, 2019
Trend in timeliness of formalities examination and Nice classification carried out by the IB, 2009–2019
Trend in changes in ownership, 2009–2019
Trend in cancellations due to ceasing of effect of the basic mark as notified by offices of origin, 2009–2019
Trend in cancellations by international registration holders, 2009–2019
Trend in renunciations, 2009–2019
Trend in limitations, 2009–2019
Trend in total revenue collected by the IB, 2009–2019
Fees distributed to offices by the IB, 2018–2019
Trend in average fees paid per new international registration, 2005–2019
Distribution of international registration fees, 2019
Average timeliness in receiving provisional refusals of designations from selected offices, 2019

95
95
96
96
97
97
98
98
99
99
100
100
101
101
102
104
104
105

SECTION C: STATISTICS ON ADMINISTRATION, REVENUE AND FEES

Madrid System administration, revenue and fees
In 2019, about 80% of Madrid applications were submitted to the IB electronically –10 years previously it was only around 37%.
C1. Trend in international applications by medium of transmission, 2009–2019

ELECTRONIC SHARE (%)
36.7

38.2

44.6

45.6

52.3

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

52.0

66.9

73.3

72.0

73.4

79.9

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Madrid applications

70,00060,00050,00040,00030,00020,00010,000Application year
PAPER

ELECTRONIC

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

Every year since 2014, around four out of every five Madrid applications have been filed
in English.
C2. Trend in international applications by filing language, 2009–2019

ENGLISH LANGUAGE SHARE (%)
72.4

74.4

75.6

77.7

78.4

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

79.6

79.8

81.8

82.8

83.0

83.5

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

60,000SECTION C

Madrid applications

70,00050,00040,00030,00020,00010,000Application year
ENGLISHFRENCHSPANISH

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

95

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

Six of 20 selected offices of origin transmitted 90%, or more, of all Madrid applications to
the IB within a month of receipt.

C3. Average timeliness in transmitting international applications to the IB by selected offices of origin, 2019SHARE OF APPLICATIONS TRANSMITTED WITHIN ONE MONTH (%)
99.4

Distribution bytime category (%)

100

98.1

96.6

96.2

95.6

93.8

89.0

81.5

80.5

77.6

76.1

75.9

74.5

72.1

67.3

62.5

44.7

36.9

34.0

3.1

75
50
25

hi
na
C

kr
ai
ne

U

Au
st
ria

Ita
ly

In
di
a

Sp
ai
n

R

R

N

us
si
an

Ja
pa
n
Fe
de
ra
tio
n

EU
Ze
al
an
d
Si
ng
ap
or
e
Tu
rk
ey
Be
ne
lu
x
G
er
m
an
Sw
y
itz
er
la
nd
ew

U
.K
.
Au
st
ra
lia

ep
ub
l

U

.S
.
Fr
an
ce
ic
of
Ko
re
a

0

Office of origin
WITHIN 1 MONTH

IN THE 2ND MONTH

IN THE 3RD MONTH

IN THE 4TH MONTH

MORE THAN 4 MONTHS

Note: Benelux comprises the territories of Belgium, Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands. These three territories are deemed to be asingle country for the application of the Madrid System.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

Of the approximately 16.6 million words translated in 2019, 80.9% were translated fromEnglish, 17.4% from French and 1.7% from Spanish.
C4. Trend in translations, 2009–2019
62.9

66.8

69.8

73.1

76.1

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

74.6

79.2

79.1

2014

2015

2016

ENGLISH LANGUAGE SHARE (%)
80.5
82.4
80.9

SECTION C

Words translated

18,000,000
16,000,000
14,000,000
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
2017

2018

2019

Year
ENGLISHFRENCHSPANISH

Note: This figure presents the total number of words translated by the IB from each of the three languages that are required for recording andpublishing Madrid registrations.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

96

SECTION C: STATISTICS ON ADMINISTRATION, REVENUE AND FEES

Every year since 2009, irregularities have been reported in between 28% and around 41% of
all Madrid applications filed.
C5. Trend in irregularities in international applications, 2009–2019

SHARE OF IRREGULARITIES IN TOTAL (%)
28.4

30.4

34.2

35.0

36.3

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

36.8

39.0

39.8

40.3

40.0

41.4

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

70,000Madrid applications

60,00050,00040,00030,00020,00010,000Year
ERROR FREE

IRREGULAR

Note: There are three types of irregularities: irregularities with regard to the classification of goods and services; irregularities with regard to theindication of goods and services; and other irregularities.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

In 2019, holders submitted 81.5% of requests for subsequent designation directly to the IB.

80
70
60
50

SECTION C

Share of requests for subsequent designations
filed directly with the IB (%)

C6. Trend in the share of requests for subsequent designations filed directly with the IB, 2005–2019

40
30
20
10
0
2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Year
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

97

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

Around a fifth of requests for subsequent designation in 2019 were filed via Madrid member
offices of origin rather than directly with the IB. It took the offices of China, Italy, Serbia
and Viet Nam over a month to transmit to the IB more than half of the requests received for
subsequent designations.
C7. Average timeliness in transmitting requests for subsequent designations to the IB by selected offices oforigin, 2019SHARE OF SUBSEQUENT DESIGNATIONS TRANSMITTED WITHIN ONE MONTH (%)
100.0

Distribution bytime category (%)

100

99.6

98.9

98.6

97.2

95.7

93.3

92.6

92.1

85.0

79.9

76.7

76.5

70.1

66.7

63.0

43.9

37.0

28.0

4.2

75
50
25

hi
na
C

Se
rb
ia

Ita
ly
Vi
et
N
am

R

R

ep
ub
l

ic

Tu
rk
ey
of
M
ol
do
va
U
kr
ai
ne
Au
C
st
ze
ria
ch
R
ep
ub
lic

Sp
ai
n
G
er
m
an
y

EU

ep
ub
l

ic

Fr
an
ce
of
Ko
re
a
R
M
us
or
si
oc
an
co
Fe
de
ra
tio
n
Sw
itz
er
la
nd

.S
.

Ja
pa
n

U

C

ro
at
ia

0

Office of origin
WITHIN 1 MONTH

IN THE 2ND MONTH

IN THE 3RD MONTH

IN THE 4TH MONTH

MORE THAN 4 MONTHS

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

In 2019, the IB completed about 84% of all Madrid registrations within four months ofreceiving the Madrid application, up from 77% a year earlier.

C8. Trend in timeliness of formalities examination and Nice classification carried out by the IB, 2009–2019
SHARE OF MADRID APPLICATIONS REGISTERED WITHIN ONE MONTH (%)
100

Distribution by timecategory (%)

SECTION C

32.6

46.7

42.5

25.1

38.6

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

14.7

21.3

12.5

8.5

14.4

28.9

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

75

50

25

0

Registration year
WITHIN 1 MONTH

IN THE 2ND MONTH

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

98

IN THE 3RD MONTH

IN THE 4TH MONTH

MORE THAN 4 MONTHSSECTION C: STATISTICS ON ADMINISTRATION, REVENUE AND FEES

Over the last decade, a change in ownership has been recorded in only between 2% and 3%of all active Madrid registrations.
C9. Trend in changes in ownership, 2009–2019

Changes in ownership ofMadrid registrations

SHARE OF ACTIVE REGISTRATIONS THAT HAVE CHANGED OWNERSHIP (%)
2.8

2.5

2.5

2.3

2.5

2.0

2.8

2.1

2.6

2.5

2.4

27.7

0.6

1.8

2017

2018

2019

20,00015,00010,000
5,000

–8.1
0.2

2009

–2.2
2.3

2010

2011

–16.8

–21.4

10.7

2012

2013

40.3

2014

2015

2016

Year
CHANGES IN OWNERSHIP OF MADRID REGISTRATIONSGROWTH RATE (%)

Note: The change in ownership of an international registration may be total or partial. It may relate to all or just some of the goods and services
covered by the international registration, and may be made in respect of all or some of the designated Madrid members.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

Of the around 5,600 Madrid registrations canceled in 2019, about 32% were canceledentirely and the remainder in part only.
C10. Trend in cancellations due to the ceasing of effect of the basic mark as notified by offices oforigin, 2009–2019
40.4

34.8

26.0

31.6

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

37.3

32.8

34.2

34.2

33.2

31.9

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

7,000

SECTION C

Cancellations due toceasing of effect

TOTAL CANCELLATIONS SHARE (%)
37.0

6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000

Year
PARTIAL CANCELLATIONS OF MADRID REGISTRATIONSTOTAL CANCELLATIONS OF MADRID REGISTRATIONS

Note: Madrid member offices acting as offices of origin are obliged to notify the IB of decisions concerning the ceasing of effect of basic marks
made or initiated within the five-year dependency period. Where this is the case, the office of origin is obliged to request that the IB cancel aninternational registration to the same extent.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

99

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

The 401 cancellations recorded in 2019 reflects the fact that few Madrid registration holders
choose to reduce the list of goods and services covered.

Cancellations by Madrid
registration holders

C11. Trend in cancellations by international registration holders, 2009–2019
500
400
300
200
100

–12.7
8.2

2009

–11.4
5.6

2010

2011

–4.7
18.9

2012

–1.1
6.4

2013

2014

2015

2016

–6.3
1.7

16.9

2017

2018

2019

Year
CANCELLATIONS BY MADRID REGISTRATION HOLDERSGROWTH RATE (%)

Note: Holders of an international registration can request the recording of cancellation of their registration in all designated Madrid members withregard to all or just some of the goods and services specified in the registration.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

Renunciations have remained at around 1,650 for the last three years.

SECTION C

Renunciations of somedesignated Madrid members

C12. Trend in renunciations, 2009–2019
2,000
1,500
1,000
500

–13.6

–1.3

–18.3

3.7

2009

–5.2
41.7

2010

2011

2012

2013

–5.7
10.7

2014

2015

–0.4
25.5

2016

2017

0.2

2018

2019

Year
RENUNCIATIONS OF SOME DESIGNATED MADRID MEMBERSGROWTH RATE (%)

Note: Holders may wish to restrict protection of an international registration through renunciation of protection for all goods and services in some(but not all) designated Madrid members.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

100

SECTION C: STATISTICS ON ADMINISTRATION, REVENUE AND FEES

The approximately 6,400 requests for recording limitations made in 2019 is only about 1,700
more than recorded 10 years earlier. This is despite an increase of around 213,200 in thenumber of active Madrid registrations over the same period.
C13. Trend in limitations, 2009–2019
7,000

Limitations

6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
–0.4
8.1

5.0

2009

2010

–0.4

–6.2
7.1

2011

2012

2013

2.1

5.8

3.6

0.8

2014

2015

2016

2017

15.6

2018

2019

Year
LIMITATIONSGROWTH RATE (%)

Note: Holders may wish to restrict protection of a Madrid international registration through restricting the list of goods and services for some or all
designated Madrid members.
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

In 2019, total revenue collected by the IB reached 76.5 million Swiss francs (CHF),
an increase of 2.6% over 2018.
C14. Trend in total revenue collected by the IB, 2009–2019

ANNUAL GROWTH RATE (%)
6.7

5.6

3.1

4.6

0.7

18.5

65.8

45.4

2009

48.4

2010

51.2

52.7

2011

2012

55.2

55.6

2013

2014

2015

–8.8

17.0

70.3

6.2

2.6

74.6

76.5

2018

2019

SECTION C

Revenue (million Swiss francs)

–8.2

60.1

2016

2017

Year
Source: WIPO, March 2020.

101

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

The EU via the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), the U.S., Australia andJapan received the largest shares of the CHF 265.6 million in fees collected by the IB anddistributed to offices in 2019.
C15. Fees distributed to offices by the IB, 2018–2019

Fees distributed (Swiss francs)
Office201820192019 share of total (%)

European Union

35,169,693

37,208,982

14.0

United States of America

25,487,882

27,023,773

10.2

Australia

12,558,055

13,029,826

4.9

Japan

14,484,669

12,817,060

4.8

Bahrain

11,355,925

11,677,281

4.4

China

11,290,506

11,475,033

4.3

Republic of Korea

10,004,245

11,092,587

4.2

Singapore

8,416,302

8,663,356

3.3

Thailand

5,239,198

8,507,928

3.2

Switzerland

6,495,607

6,694,936

2.5

United Kingdom

4,934,770

6,619,918

2.5

Israel5,500,220

6,268,167

2.4

Norway5,638,998

5,482,456

2.1

India

3,631,565

4,940,186

1.9

Uzbekistan

4,398,497

4,698,106

1.8

Mexico3,860,294

4,572,189

1.7

Oman

3,853,547

4,141,994

1.6

Russian Federation

3,542,229

3,573,400

1.3

Ukraine3,195,717

3,213,301

1.2
1.2

Viet Nam

2,765,489

3,060,880

Indonesia

1,421,640

2,767,104

1.0

Colombia

2,189,616

2,504,945

0.9Georgia

2,460,161

2,490,886

0.9Belarus2,339,734

2,351,593

0.9

2,323,769

0.9
0.9CanadaSECTION C

African Intellectual Property Organization *1,900,200

2,320,894

New Zealand

1,975,084

2,263,416

0.9

Syrian Arab Republic

1,827,077

2,165,252

0.8Philippines

1,558,547

1,971,126

0.7

Iceland1,720,161

1,711,815

0.6

Ghana

1,264,673

1,635,242

0.6

Morocco1,299,319

1,614,051

0.6

Turkey2,518,381

1,531,916

0.6

Sweden1,530,578

1,449,324

0.5

Denmark

1,571,024

1,433,583

0.5

Serbia1,419,599

1,318,181

0.5

Benelux **1,273,271

1,282,962

0.5

Spain

1,301,156

1,249,148

0.5

Finland1,347,824

1,204,719

0.5

Kazakhstan

1,137,215

1,135,670

0.4

Egypt

1,115,359

1,133,867

0.4

Germany

1,165,195

1,129,093

0.4France1,090,932

1,038,626

0.4

Kyrgyzstan

1,039,047

1,025,639

0.4

Turkmenistan

1,096,401

1,022,460

0.4

Republic of Moldova

1,053,934

967,926

0.4

Austria

1,002,918

956,623

0.4
0.4

Kenya

856,196

946,486

Cambodia

546,131

938,502

0.4

Portugal

938,329886,504

0.3
0.3

Bosnia and Herzegovina

927,259

882,015Montenegro

898,809855,6290.3

Poland888,781813,5150.3

Hungary

888,253

813,301

0.3

Armenia

845,167

806,646

0.3

Italy

834,052

781,516

0.3

Ireland914,366

771,6160.3

Algeria

780,060

749,492

0.3

Zambia772,927

744,774

0.3(Continued)
102

SECTION C: STATISTICS ON ADMINISTRATION, REVENUE AND FEES

(C15 continued)
Fees distributed (Swiss francs)
2018

2019

Azerbaijan

Office750,981739,2222019 share of total (%)
0.3

Romania

802,000

731,841

0.3

Tajikistan

734,432

719,236

0.3

Iran (Islamic Republic of)780,500

686,161

0.3

Slovakia

726,049

634,040

0.2

Bulgaria

688,718

598,677

0.2

Albania

653,246597,746

0.2

North Macedonia

670,151

597,3620.2

Croatia

684,349

597,0610.2

Czech Republic

861,699

585,098

0.2

Cuba

621,479

572,379

0.2

Lao People's Democratic Republic

378,848528,775

0.2

Estonia

539,431527,0220.2

Mongolia

496,661

462,865

0.2

Brunei Darussalam

353,653

461,805

0.2

Slovenia

509,789

440,3310.2

Liechtenstein

467,088428,252

0.2

San Marino

456,372

422,694

0.2

Monaco437,226

410,128

0.2

Tunisia

417,805

396,966

0.1

Curaçao ***398,657

376,182

0.1

Democratic People's Republic of Korea

366,103354,241

0.1

Greece370,092

344,116

0.1

Latvia371,787

325,4820.1

334,272

324,1350.1

327,646

308,4280.1

Lithuania

350,264

306,932

0.1

Mozambique

240,715

266,307

0.1

Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba ***271,194

244,888

0.1

Zimbabwe

179,827

217,831

0.1

Antigua and Barbuda

206,844

207,100

0.1

Namibia

205,907

206,163

0.1

Madagascar

180,314202,985

0.1

Sierra Leone

204,318

193,1280.1

Liberia

210,787

187,8140.1

Gambia172,229

187,655

0.1

Cyprus

220,977

184,106

0.1

Botswana

169,693

170,516

0.1

Eswatini

157,335

161,428

0.1

Bhutan168,018

150,225

0.1

Rwanda128,624

133,6110.1

120,855

0.0

BrazilLesotho

115,414

113,987

0.0

Afghanistan

16,929113,074

0.0

Samoa

100,744

0.0

91,651

0.0

Malawi

68,642

0.0

Malaysia

4,921

0.0

265,555,993

100.0

Sao Tome and Principe

Totals80,558249,011,761

SECTION C

Sint Maarten (Dutch Part) ***Sudan* The African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI) acts on behalf of its 17 member states.
** Benelux comprises the territories of Belgium, Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands. These three territories are deemed to be asingle country for the application of the Madrid System.
*** The country or municipality is not a Madrid member. The Netherlands has extended the application of the Madrid Protocol to the territories ofCuracao and Sint Maarten, Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba.
Source: WIPO, March 2020.

103

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

On average, holders paid CHF 3,424 per Madrid registration recorded in 2019. This isabout CHF 200 more than the overall average for the 15-year period from 2005 to 2019.

Average fee per Madrid
registration (Swiss francs)

C16. Trend in average fees paid per new international registration, 2005–2019

3,249

2005

3,430

3,549

3,734
3,408
2,996

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

3,099

2011

2,926

2012

3,039

3,102

3,102

2013

2014

2015

2,968

2016

3,166

3,186

2017

2018

3,424

2019

Year

Source: WIPO, March 2020.

About 72% of all trademark holders paid less than the average CHF 3,424 per
Madrid registration recorded in 2019, with half paying CHF 2,340 or less.
C17. Distribution of international registration fees, 2019

SECTION C

Registration fee (Swiss francs)

20,00015,00010,000

5,000
3,000
1,500
500
0

20

40

60

Share of total Madrid registrations (%)

Note: The line at CHF 3,424 represents the average fee paid per Madrid registration in 2019.
Source: WIPO, March 2020.

104

80

100

SECTION C: STATISTICS ON ADMINISTRATION, REVENUE AND FEES

In 2019, the IB received 92% or more of all provisional refusals of designations from
9 of the 20 selected offices within six months from when they issued them to Madrid
registration holders.

C18. Average timeliness in receiving provisional refusals of designations from selected offices, 2019SHARE OF REFUSALS RECEIVED WITHIN 6 MONTHS (%)

Distribution bytime category (%)

100

99.6

99.3

98.9

98.1

96.0

93.7

93.5

92.4

92.0

70.3

67.5

29.9

9.0

6.3

2.4

2.0

0.3

0.1

0.0

0.0

75
50
25

Th
ai
la
nd
Vi
et
N
am

Ja
pa
n

Is
ra
el
itz
er
la
nd
R
M
ep
ex
ub
ic
o
lic
of
Ko
re
a
N
or
w
ay
Sw

U
.K
.
Au
st
ra
lia
R
us
Tu
si
rk
an
ey
Fe
de
ra
tio
n

In
di
a
G
er
m
an
y

hi
na
C

EU

N

ew

U
.S
.
Ze
al
an
d
Si
ng
ap
or
e
Ph
ilip
pi
ne
s

0

OfficeWITHIN 6 MONTHSBETWEEN 6 AND 9 MONTHSBETWEEN 9 AND 12 MONTHS

MORE THAN 12 MONTHS

Source: WIPO Statistics Database, March 2020.

SECTION C

105

106

A brief presentationof the Madrid System

The Madrid System makes it possible for a trademark
holder to seek protection in multiple countries by filinga single Madrid international application via a nationalor regional intellectual property (IP) office.3 It simplifies
the process of multinational trademark registration byeliminating the need to file a separate application ineach jurisdiction in which protection is sought. The
Madrid System also simplifies managing the mark after
registration by making it possible to centrally request
the recording of further changes or to renew the registration through a single procedural step.
Between December 1995 and October 2016, two treaties administered by the World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO) governed the Madrid System for
the International Registration of Marks: the Madrid
Agreement Concerning the International Registrationof Marks, adopted in 1891, and the Protocol Relating
to the Madrid Agreement, adopted in 1989. As of
October 11, 2016, following a decision by the Madrid
Union Assembly that no country could accede only to3This publication uses the generic term “IP
office” to refer to a national or regional officethat receives trademark applications andissues registrations, since not all offices are
specifically named “trademark office”.

the Agreement, the Protocol is now the sole governing treaty of the Madrid System. As of December 31,
2019, the Madrid System comprised 106 Contracting
Parties. The 122 countries which are party to theProtocol (some also to the Agreement), as well as thetwo intergovernmental organizations that are party to
the Protocol – namely, the European Union (EU) covering 28 countries, and the African Intellectual Property
Organization (OAPI) covering 17 countries – are referred
to as Contracting Parties (or Madrid members), andtogether form the Madrid Union.

Advantages offered by
the Madrid System
The Madrid System offers many advantages to bothtrademark holders and IP offices compared with thealternative method of obtaining international protection
for marks called the Paris or direct route. The Parisroute involves filing separate applications directly at IP
offices in the countries or regions where protection issought (under the Paris Convention for the Protectionof Industrial Property). In contrast, by paying a single
set of fees in one currency (Swiss francs), the Madrid
System allows trademark holders to submit a single

Madrid members in 2019

Source: WIPO, March 2020.

107

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

application indicating the Madrid members where
protection is sought (designations) in one language(English, French or Spanish).
As outlined above, the Madrid System also makes themaintenance and management of the international registration easier, as any renewal or change in the registration (such as a change of ownership or limitation of
the list of goods and services) can be made through asingle central procedure with effect for the countries
concerned covered by the international registration.
Changes are recorded in the International Register.
The international registration has one registration number and one renewal date, regardless of the numberof designations.
Where protection has been obtained through the Parisroute – and not through the Madrid System –, suchchanges or renewals must be requested directly witheach of the national or regional IP offices concerned.
For every such registration, there is a different registration number and renewal date to manage, eachdepending on the country where protection is obtained.
Furthermore, the Madrid System benefits IP offices
by reducing their workload. Since the IB carries out
the formal examination of Madrid applications, each
designated IP office need only perform a substantive
examination to determine whether the mark can beprotected in its territory.

International application andregistration procedure
When seeking protection for marks in multiple jurisdictions, a trademark holder can either file separate
applications directly with each IP office – the Paris route– or file a single international application through the
Madrid System. The Madrid System process is illustrated by the figure on the following page.
An international application can only be filed by a person or legal entity that has the necessary connection(entitlement) – through commercial establishment,
domicile or nationality – with a member of the Madrid
Union. This Madrid member’s IP office becomes theapplicant’s “office of origin”.
To file an international application for a mark under
the Madrid System, the applicant must have a basic
mark, meaning that the same mark must first havebeen applied for at, or registered by, the office of origin. The international application must be filed through108

this office, as there is no direct filing to the IB. The IB
accepts international applications filed in three languages – English, French and Spanish – but the officeof origin may restrict the choice of filing language.
The international application must contain a list of thegoods and services for which protection is sought
and must indicate the designations, that is, the Madrid
members in which the holder of the mark seeks protection. Additional Madrid members can be designated at
a later date (subsequent designation).4 The IB is responsible for carrying out an examination to verify that theinternational application meets all the formal requirements. In the event of any irregularities, the office oforigin and/or the applicant is given an opportunity toremedy them in order to prevent the application frombeing considered abandoned. Where the application
meets all the formal requirements, the mark is recordedin the International Register and published in the WIPO
Gazette of International Marks (“the Gazette”), and the
IB notifies the offices of those designated.
The international application is subject to a basicfee (CHF 653 or CHF 903 Swiss francs), the amount
depending on whether the representation of the mark isin black and white or in color. The applicant must also
pay for the designations indicated: a complementaryfee (CHF 100) per designated Madrid member and a
supplementary fee (CHF 100) per class of goods andservices above three. Nevertheless, under the Protocol,
Madrid members may declare that they wish to receive
individual fees instead of sharing the revenues produced by the complementary and supplementary fees.
Only the designated Madrid member can determine
whether protection can be granted in its jurisdiction,in accordance with its domestic trademark legislation. If the designated Madrid member cannot grant
protection, it must submit a provisional refusal to theIB within the prescribed time limit (12 months, or 18
months where a Madrid member has declared that it
will apply the longer limit). If no refusal is communicated by a designated Madrid member within the specified refusal period, or if a designated Madrid member
issues a grant of protection within that period, themark is then considered protected within that Madrid
member’s jurisdiction.

4

The office of origin cannot be designatedin an international application, nor can it besubsequently designated.

ANNEXESThe Madrid System processmonths0

Basic mark

2

4

16–22

Madrid System

Refusal period

Trademark application
or registration

filed or registered atnational/regional IP officeInternational application

International application

filed at office of origin(home IP office of Madrid
member)transmitted to WIPO

International application

certified by office of origin

Examination of formalities

by WIPOWIPO notifies offices of adesignated member ofinternational registration(refusal period begins)

Substantive examination

Irregularity notified

by WIPO (3-monthdeadline to resolve)

International registration

recorded in the Register andpublished in WIPO Gazette

Benefits

120

by each office of adesignated member
Decisions by office of adesignated member

on the scope of protection:– protection granted(explicit); or– protection provisionallyrefused-Apply just once in one language for registration in 120-plus countries-

Pay one set of fees in a single currency-

Manage renewals and changes through a single central system-

Expand your trademark to other countries through subsequent designation

RenewalEvery 10 years
Time limit to issue arefusal expires – if norefusal has been issued,
protection is deemed to be
granted automatically(tacit acceptance)

Notice appears in
Madrid Monitor:“The refusal period has
expired and no notificationof provisional refusal has
been recorded (applicationof Rule 5 preserved)”
Final decisions

on the scope of protection:– protection granted; or– refusal confirmed

Source: WIPO, March 2020.

For the first five years from the date of an international
registration, an international registration is dependent
on the basic mark. The office of origin must informthe IB of any change concerning the scope of protection regarding the basic mark. Where the basic markis abandoned or canceled (either totally or partially)
during this dependency period, the consequence isthat the international registration is canceled to thesame extent (either totally or partially). When this happens, the cancellation of the international registrationis recorded in the International Register, publishedin the Gazette, and the designated Madrid members
concerned are notified. A holder then has the option
to continue protection in the territories covered by theinternational registration by transferring their right into
national or regional applications filed directly before
each of the IP offices concerned.

International registrations are valid for a period of
10 years and may be renewed for additional 10-year
periods indefinitely. The IB administers the renewal
process and sends an unofficial notice six months
before renewal is due, reminding holders and theirrepresentatives (if any) of the upcoming renewal. Theinternational registration may be renewed in respect ofall designated Madrid members or in respect of onlysome. However, it is not possible for the holder to makevoluntary changes to the list of goods and services
at the time of the renewal. Therefore, if holders wish
to remove some of the goods and services from theinternational registration at the time of renewal, theymust separately request the recording of limitation orcancellation in respect of those goods and services ingood time before the due date for renewal.

For more information regarding the Madrid System,
visit www.wipo.int/madrid.

109

Data description

Data are compiled by WIPO in the processing of international applications and registrations through the Madrid System. Complete data exist up to calendar year 2019.
The Madrid application statistics used are based on the original filing date at a
Madrid member office of origin. This removes the time lag between the date on
which an application is first filed at an office of origin and the date it is received
and recorded by the International Bureau of WIPO. The 2019 data on Madrid applications by origin are estimated, as not all applications filed at offices of origin had
been transmitted to WIPO at the time the Review was drafted. Data published in
WIPO’s press release of April 7, 2020, as well as related infographics and previous editions of the Review may differ slightly from those published in this year’s
edition, because these data are continually updated as WIPO receives more datafrom Madrid member offices of origin.
The figures and tables shown in this publication are subject to change. Regular
updates are available at www.wipo.int/ipstats.

110

Acronyms

BOIP
EU
EUIPO
IB
IP
LAC
OAPI
U.K.
U.S.
WIPO

Benelux Office for Intellectual Property
European Union
European Union Intellectual Property OfficeInternational Bureau of WIPO
intellectual property
Latin America and the Caribbean
Organisation Africaine de la Propriété Intellectuelle(English: African Intellectual Property Organization)
United Kingdom
United States of America
World Intellectual Property Organization

111

Glossary

This glossary provides definitions of key technical terms and concepts used in trademark registration systems
and the Madrid System.
Active Madrid registration: A Madrid registration thatis in force. (See “International registration in force”.)
Applicant: A natural person or legal entity that files
an application. There may be more than one applicant
in an application.
Application: The formal request for the protection ofa trademark at a national or regional IP office, whichusually examines the application and decides whether
to grant or refuse protection in the jurisdiction concerned. (See “International application”.)
Application date: The date on which an IP officereceives an application that meets the minimum filingformality requirements. This may also be referred toas the filing date.
Basic application/registration: The national orregional application/registration on which an international application is based.
Basic mark: The national or regional application (basic
application) or the registration (basic registration) on
which an international application is based.
Cancellation: A procedure to cancel the effects ofan international registration for all or some goods andservices in respect of all the Madrid members designated in any given international registration.
Class: Refers to the classes defined in the NiceClassification. Classes indicate the categories ofgoods and services for which trademark protection isrequested. (See “Nice Classification”.)

112

Class count: The number of classes specified in a
trademark application or registration. In the Madrid
System and at certain national and regional offices,
an applicant can file an application that specifies
one or more of the 45 goods and services classes of
the Nice Classification. Offices use either a singleclass or multi-class filing system. The Madrid System
is a multi-class system.
Contracting Party (Madrid member): A state orintergovernmental organization – for example, theEuropean Union (EU) or the African Intellectual
Property Organization (OAPI) – that is party to theMadrid Protocol.
Designation: The request, in an international application or registration, by which the applicant/international
registration holder specifies the jurisdiction(s) in which
they seek to protect their trademarks.
Direct route: See “Paris route”.
Entitlement: In order to file an international application, the applicant needs to be entitled to do so by
having a connection with a member of the Madrid
System through domicile, nationality or having a realand effective industrial or commercial establishment in
one of the Contracting Parties to the Madrid System.
Holder: The natural person or legal entity in whosename an international registration is recorded.

ANNEXESIntellectual property (IP): Refers to creations of themind: inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, images and designs used in commerce.
IP is divided into two categories: industrial property– which includes patents, utility models, trademarks,
industrial designs and geographical indications ofsource – and copyright, which includes literary and artistic works (such as novels, poems, plays, films), musical works, artistic works (such as drawings, paintings,
photographs and sculptures) and architectural designs.
Rights related to copyright include those of performing artists in their performances, those of producersof sound recordings in their recordings and those ofbroadcasters in their radio and television programs.

Madrid Agreement Concerning the International
Registration of Marks: The founding treaty of the
Madrid System, which is no longer in operation.

International application: An application for international registration under the Madrid System, which
is a request for protection of a trademark in one ormore Madrid members’ jurisdictions. An international
application must be based on a basic mark, that is,prior application or registration of a mark in a Madrid
member. (See “Basic mark”.)

Madrid route: The Madrid route (the Madrid System)
is an alternative to the direct national or regional route(also called the Paris route).

International Bureau (IB): The International Bureau of
WIPO administers the Madrid System. It is responsible
for procedural tasks related to international applications, as well as for the subsequent management ofinternational registrations.
International Register: A register, maintained by theIB, in which marks in international applications that conform to the applicable requirements are registered asinternational registrations. Changes made to these registrations are also recorded in the International Register.
International registration: An application for international registration of a mark leads to its registrationin the International Register and the publication of
the international registration in the WIPO Gazette ofInternational Marks. If the international registration is
not refused protection by a designated Madrid member, it will have the same effect as a national or regional
trademark registration made under the law applicablein that Madrid member’s jurisdiction.
International registration in force: An international
registration enjoys a 10-year period of protection. To
remain in force, a registration must be renewed. In mostjurisdictions, a mark can be maintained indefinitely andis renewed on a 10-year basis.
Limitation: Limitation is a procedure for restricting thelist of goods and services in respect of all or some ofthe designated Contracting Parties (Madrid members)in an international registration.

Madrid member (Contracting Party): A state orintergovernmental organization – for example, theAfrican Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI)or the European Union (EU) – that is party to theMadrid Protocol.
Madrid Protocol (Protocol Relating to the Madrid
Agreement): One of two treaties administered by the
IB of WIPO that governs the system of international
registration of marks. (See “Madrid System”.)

Madrid System: An abbreviation describing the system for the international registration of trademarks,
originally established by the Madrid Agreement
Concerning the International Registration of Marksand later also governed by the Protocol Relating to
the Madrid Agreement. Following the decision by the
Madrid Union Assembly in October 2016, the Protocol
is now the sole governing treaty of the Madrid System.
The Madrid System is administered by the International
Bureau of WIPO.
Nice Classification: The abbreviated form of theInternational Classification of Goods and Services for
the Purposes of Registering Marks, an internationalclassification established under the Nice Agreement.
The Nice Classification consists of 45 classes, which
are divided into 34 classes for goods and 11 forservices. (See “Class”.)
Non-resident application: For statistical purposes,
a “non-resident” application refers to an application
filed with an IP office of a given country/territory/
region in which the applicant does not reside or does
not have a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment. Non-resident applications are
sometimes referred to as foreign applications. A nonresident registration is an IP right issued on the basisof a non-resident application.
Opposition: An administrative process for disputing
the validity of a trademark right. An opposition procedure is often limited to a specific time period before
or after the right has been granted. For the Madrid
System, opposition procedures are accommodated
and are defined by the national or regional laws ofdesignated Madrid members.

113

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

Origin: The country or territory of residence, nationality or establishment of the applicant filing a trademark
application. The country or territory of the applicant’s
address is used to determine the origin of the application. In the Madrid System, the office of origin is the IP
office of the Madrid member in which the applicant isentitled to file an international application.
Paris Convention: The Paris Convention for theProtection of Industrial Property, signed on March
20, 1883, is one of the most important IP treaties, as
it establishes general principles applicable for all IP
rights. It establishes the “right of priority” that enables
an IP applicant, when filing an application in countries
other than the original country of filing, to claim priorityof an earlier application filed up to 12 months previously
for patents and utility models, and up to six months
previously for trademarks and industrial designs.
Paris route: An alternative to the Madrid route, theParis route (also called the “direct route”) enables
individual IP applications to be filed directly with an IP
office of a country/territory that is a signatory to theParis Convention.

Renunciation: A procedure intended to abandon theeffects of an international registration for all the goods
and services in respect of one or some of the designated Madrid members.
Resident application: For statistical purposes, a “resident” application refers to an application filed with an
IP office by an applicant residing or having a real andeffective industrial or commercial establishment in the
country/territory/region in which that office has jurisdiction. Resident applications are sometimes referred toas domestic applications. A resident registration is an
IP right issued on the basis of a resident application.
Subsequent designation: A designation made subsequent to an international registration to extend its
geographical scope.

Regional application/registration: A trademark
application filed with or registered by an IP officehaving regional jurisdiction over more than one
country. For trademark protection, there are currently four regional offices: the African Intellectual
Property Organization (OAPI), the African Regional
Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO), the Benelux
Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP) (for Belgium,
the Netherlands and Luxembourg) and the European
Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

Trademark: A sign used to distinguish the goods orservices of one undertaking from those of others. A
trademark may consist of words and combinationsof words (for instance, names or slogans), logos, figures and images, letters, numbers, sounds, or in rare
instances, smells or moving images, or a combination
thereof. The procedures for registering trademarks aregoverned by the legislation and procedures of nationaland regional IP offices and WIPO. Trademark rights arelimited to the jurisdiction of the IP office that registers
the trademark. Trademarks can be registered by filing an application at the relevant national or regional
office(s), or by filing an international application throughthe Madrid System.

Registration: An exclusive set of rights legally
accorded to the applicant when a trademark is registered or issued. Registrations are issued to applicants
to make use of and exploit their trademarks for a limited
period of time and can, in some cases, be renewed
indefinitely. (See “International registration”.)

WIPO Gazette of International Marks: The official
publication of the Madrid System, published online
weekly and containing information regarding newinternational registrations, renewals, subsequent
designations and modifications affecting existing
international registrations.

Renewal: The process by which a trademark rightis maintained (kept in force). This usually consists ofpaying renewal fees to an IP office at regular intervals.
If renewal fees are not paid or, in some jurisdictions, if
the holder cannot prove that the mark is being actively
used, the registration may lapse. Once recorded, aninternational registration is valid for a period of 10 years
and can be renewed for additional 10-year periods on
payment of the prescribed fees. International registra-

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO):
A United Nations specialized agency dedicated tothe promotion of innovation and creativity for the economic, social and cultural development of all countries
through a balanced and effective international IP system. WIPO was established in 1967 with a mandate
to promote the protection of IP throughout the world
through cooperation between states and in collaboration with other international organizations.

Priority date: The filing date of the application on the basis of which priority is claimed. (See“Paris Convention”.)

114

tions must be renewed in order to remain active. To
facilitate the renewal process, the IB sends an unofficial
reminder to holders and their representatives (if any) six
months before renewal is due. The international registration may be renewed in respect of all designatedMadrid members or for only some.

Nice classes and industry sectors

Class covers/includes
Class 1: Chemicals used in industry, science and photography, as well as in agriculture
Class 2: Mainly paints, varnishes, lacquers
Class 3: Mainly cleaning preparations and toiletry preparations
Class 4: Mainly industrial oils, lubricants, fuels and illuminants
Class 5: Mainly pharmaceuticals and other preparations for medical purposes
Class 6: Mainly includes common metals and their alloys and goods of common metal not included in other classes
Class 7: Mainly machines, machine tools, motors and engines
Class 8: Hand tools and implements (hand-operated); cutlery; side arms; razors
Class 9: Computer hardware and software and other electrical or electronic apparatus of a scientific nature
Class 10: Surgical, medical, dental and veterinary apparatus and instruments
Class 11: Apparatus for lighting, heating, steam generating, cooking, refrigerating, drying, ventilating, water supply and sanitary purposes
Class 12: Vehicles; apparatus for locomotion by land, air or water
Class 13: Firearms; ammunition and projectiles; explosives; fireworks
Class 14: Includes mainly precious metals and certain goods made of precious metals or coated therewith, as well as jewelry, clocks and watches, andcomponent parts therefor
Class 15: Musical instruments
Class 16: Mainly paper, goods made from that material and office requisites
Class 17: Mainly rubber, plastics in extruded form for use in manufacture; packing, stopping and insulating materials; non-metallic flexible pipes
Class 18: Leather and imitations of leather, and products made therefrom, traveling bags and umbrellas
Class 19: Mainly non-metallic building materials and asphalt
Class 20: Mainly furniture, mirrors, picture frames and goods made from, for example, wood, cork, reed, cane, wicker
Class 21: Mainly household or kitchen utensils and containers; combs and sponges; articles for cleaning purposes; glassware, porcelain and earthenware
Class 22: Mainly ropes, string, nets, tents, awnings, tarpaulins, sails, sacks and bags not included in other classes
Class 23: Yarns and threads, for textile use
Class 24: Textiles and textile goods not included in other classes; bed covers; table covers
Class 25: Clothing, footwear and headgear
Class 26: Lace and embroidery, ribbons and braid; buttons, hooks and eyes, pins and needles; artificial flowers
Class 27: Carpets, rugs, mats and matting, linoleum and other materials for covering existing floors; wall hangings (non-textile)
Class 28: Games and playthings; gymnastic and sporting articles
Class 29: Meat, fish, poultry; frozen, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables
Class 30: Mainly foodstuffs of plant origin prepared for consumption or conservation, as well as auxiliaries intended for the improvement of the flavor of foodClass 31: Mainly grains and agricultural, horticultural and forestry products; live animals; fresh fruits and vegetables; seeds
Class 32: Beers; mineral and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic beverages; fruit beverages and fruit juices; syrups and other preparations for making
beverages
Class 33: Alcoholic beverages (except beers)
Class 34: Tobacco; smokers’ articles; matches
Class 35: Services such as office functions, advertising and business management
Class 36: Services relating to insurance, financial affairs, monetary affairs, and real estate affairs
Class 37: Building construction; repair; installation services
Class 38: Telecommunications services
Class 39: Services related to transport, packaging and storage of goods, and travel arrangement
Class 40: Services related to the treatment of materials
Class 41: Services in the area of education, training, entertainment, sporting and cultural activities
Class 42: Services provided by, for example, scientific, industrial or technological engineers and computer specialists
Class 43: Services for providing food and drink; temporary accommodation
Class 44: Medical services; veterinary services; hygienic and beauty care for human beings or animals; agriculture, horticulture and forestry services
Class 45: Legal services; security services for the protection of property and individuals; personal and social services rendered by others to meet the needsof individuals

Note: For full class definitions, visit www.wipo.int/classifications/nice.

115

MADRID YEARLY REVIEW 2020

Industry sector
Agricultural products and services
Management, communications, real estate and financial services
Chemicals
Textiles – clothing and accessories
Construction, infrastructure
Pharmaceuticals, health, cosmetics
Household equipment
Leisure, education, training
Scientific research, information and communication technology
Transportation and logistics

Note: For full class definitions, visit www.wipo.int/classifications/nice.
Source: Edital®

116

Abbreviation (where applicable)

Nice classes

Agriculture

29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 43

Business services

35, 36–

1, 2, 4

Clothing and accessories

14, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 34

Construction

6, 17, 19, 37, 40

Health3, 5, 10, 44–

8, 11, 20, 21

Leisure and education

13, 15, 16, 28, 41

Research and technology

9, 38, 42, 45

Transportation

7, 12, 39Madrid members

As of December 31, 2019, the Madrid System comprised 106 members covering 122 countries.
Afghanistan (P)Egypt (A) (P)Liechtenstein (A) (P)Samoa (P)Albania (A) (P)

Estonia (P)Lithuania (P)San Marino (A) (P)Algeria (A) (P)Eswatini (A) (P)Luxembourg (A) (P)

Sao Tome and Principe (P)Antigua and Barbuda (P)European Union (P)Madagascar (P)Serbia (A) (P)Armenia (A) (P)Finland (P)Malaysia (P)Sierra Leone (A) (P)Australia (P)France (A) (P)Malawi (P)Singapore (P)Austria (A) (P)Gambia (P)Mexico (P)Slovakia (A) (P)Azerbaijan (A) (P)Georgia (P)Monaco (A) (P)

Slovenia (A) (P)Bahrain (P)Germany (A) (P)

Mongolia (A) (P)Spain (A) (P)Belarus (A) (P)Ghana (P)Montenegro (A) (P)Sudan (A) (P)Belgium (A) (P)Greece (P)Morocco (A) (P)Sweden (P)Bhutan (A) (P)Hungary (A) (P)Mozambique (A) (P)Switzerland (A) (P)Bosnia and Herzegovina (A) (P)Iceland (P)Namibia (A) (P)Syrian Arab Republic (P)Botswana (P)India (P)Netherlands (A) (P)Tajikistan (A) (P)Brazil (P)Indonesia (P)New Zealand (P)Thailand (P)Brunei Darussalam (P)Iran (Islamic Republic of) (A) (P)North Macedonia (A) (P)Tunisia (P)Bulgaria (A) (P)Ireland (P)Norway (P)Turkey (P)Cambodia (P)Israel (P)Oman (P)Turkmenistan (P)Canada (P)Italy (A) (P)African Intellectual Property
Organization - OAPI (P)Ukraine (A) (P)China (A) (P)Japan (P)Philippines (P)United Kingdom (P)Colombia (P)Kazakhstan (A) (P)Poland (A) (P)United States of America (P)Croatia (A) (P)Kenya (A) (P)Portugal (A) (P)Uzbekistan (P)Cuba (A) (P)Kyrgyzstan (A) (P)Republic of Korea (P)Viet Nam (A) (P)Cyprus (A) (P)Lao People’s Democratic Republic (P) Republic of Moldova (A) (P)Zambia (P)Czech Republic (A) (P)Latvia (A) (P)Romania (A) (P)Zimbabwe (P)Democratic People’s Republicof Korea (A) (P)Lesotho (A) (P)Russian Federation (A) (P)Denmark (P)Liberia (A) (P)Rwanda (P)(A) Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks.
(P) Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement.

117

World Intellectual Property Organization34, chemin des Colombettes
P.O. Box 18
CH-1211 Geneva 20
Switzerland
Tel: + 41 22 338 91 11
Fax: + 41 22 733 54 28
For contact details of WIPO’s
External Offices visit:www.wipo.int/about-wipo/en/offices

WIPO Publication No. 940E/20
ISBN 978-92-805-3164-0