The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) lowered the individual fee for designating China with effect from 12 April 2026. Most English-language guides still quote the old figures.
After filing, WIPO's International Bureau first examines the application for formalities, records it and forwards it to each Contracting Party you have designated—this stage typically takes 2–6 months. Each designated Office then examines the mark on the merits under its own law; from there to registration typically takes 2–18 months, with wide variation between countries.
In other words, where Madrid is “fast” is mainly the filing stage—one application, one language, one payment. Each country's examination still takes as long as it takes, so when you plan your timeline, plan around the slowest country on your list.
On 2026-03-12 the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) issued Information Notice No. 9/2026, lowering the individual fee payable for designating China with effect from 2026-04-12.
| Item | Before 2026-04-12 | From 2026-04-12 |
|---|---|---|
| Application or subsequent designation—first class | 249 | 220 CHF |
| Application or subsequent designation—each additional class | 125 | 110 CHF |
| Collective mark—first class | 747 | 661 CHF |
| Collective mark—each additional class | 374 | 331 CHF |
| Renewal—first class | 498 | 441 CHF |
| Renewal—each additional class | 249 | 220 CHF |
When it applies: The individual fee applies to international applications received by the Office of origin on or after 2026-04-12; to subsequent designations received by the Office of origin, or presented directly to the International Bureau, on or after that date; and to renewals of international registrations on or after that date.
Source: WIPO Information Notice No. 9/2026 (PDF; we consulted the original document directly). Last checked: 2026-09-18.
File directly with the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and you must go through a Chinese trademark agency. That is not a recommendation—it is Article 18 of the Trademark Law:
An applicant for trademark registration or other trademark matters may handle the matter itself or entrust a lawfully established trademark agency to handle it. A foreigner or foreign enterprise applying for trademark registration or handling other trademark matters in China shall entrust a lawfully established trademark agency to handle them.
— Trademark Law, Article 18 (currently in force, through 31 December 2026)
Read together with Article 5 of the Implementing Regulations of the Trademark Law, which defines “foreigner or foreign enterprise” as one with no habitual residence or place of business in China. A foreign enterprise that already has a branch or representative office in China is not subject to this requirement and may file on its own.
From 2027-01-01, this provision becomes Article 11(2) of the Trademark Law (2026 revision)—the revision writes the above qualification directly into the article and adds “other foreign organizations.” The obligation itself is unchanged.
What you get in return is a list of goods and services drafted directly against China's Classification of Similar Goods and Services, by people who work with the Classification Table every day—not a translation of a list drafted for somewhere else. In a jurisdiction where the similar group an item falls into defines the scope of your rights, that is not a formality. This article explains why.
Three claims about how the Madrid System fits with Chinese practice keep circulating online. On 2026-09-20 we checked each one against the official texts. The results fall into two groups.
Two are verified:
“Non-standard goods and services items are treated more leniently via Madrid than via a national filing”—we have still not found this stated anywhere in an official source. The closest provision we found is Article 16 of the Measures for the Implementation of International Registration of Marks under the Madrid Agreement: the goods and services items in a limitation must conform to China's classification standards, or the limitation is declared invalid—that is about how limitations are handled, not about leniency. So we do not endorse this claim.
Refusal period: verified—and there are two answers (checked 2026-09-18). China has declared an 18-month refusal period under Article 5(2)(b) and (c) of the Madrid Protocol (the footnote to China's row in WIPO's “Members of the Madrid Union” list, status as of 2026-07-08, and WIPO's page of member declarations say the same; on the Chinese side, Question 23 of the CNIPA Trademark Office's Madrid FAQ gives 18 months where the Office of origin belongs to a Protocol-only Contracting Party and 12 months where it belongs to a Contracting Party bound by both the Agreement and the Protocol—the two sources match exactly). But Article 9sexies(1)(b) of the Protocol provides that, as between Contracting Parties bound by both the Agreement and the Protocol, that declaration—together with the individual fee declaration—has no effect. So the answer splits according to the country of origin:
That is where the “usual answer” of 18 months comes from. It is right for most applicants, but for applicants from dual-member countries it drops the 9sexies layer—which is exactly why we insist on reading the original texts.
If you want a definite answer for your own application rather than a generic one, ask us. Where we do not know, we will check with CNIPA or WIPO and pass their reply on to you as given—and, as this page shows, that is not how the industry usually works.
From 2026-04-12, the individual fee is CHF 220 (Swiss francs) for the first class and CHF 110 for each additional class. These figures were lowered—from 249 and 125 respectively. If a source still quotes you CHF 249, its information predates April 2026. Exception: where the country of origin is, like China, bound by both the Agreement and the Protocol (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Switzerland and others), the individual fee does not apply under Article 9sexies(1)(b) of the Protocol and the standard Madrid fees are paid instead—see the section “What we have verified—and what we have not”.
It depends on two things: how many countries you want to designate, and how much control you want over your list of goods and services. For covering a basket of countries, the Madrid System is efficient. A Chinese national filing, by contrast, has its list drafted from day one against China's Classification of Similar Goods and Services—and because of the similar-group system, that matters far more in China than in most jurisdictions. If China is your main market rather than one of twenty boxes ticked on a list, that control is usually worth having.
For a national filing the answer is unambiguous: yes—Article 18 of the Trademark Law. The Madrid route is more nuanced. Rather than repeat what everyone else says, we set out below, point by point, what we have verified and what we have not.
