You have built a brand. Now you want to protect it beyond your home country: the markets where you sell, the countries where you manufacture, the territories you plan to enter next year. So you start researching, and quickly discover that there is not one way to register a trademark internationally. There are two very different routes, each with its own logic and risks.
The first is the Madrid System, run by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO): a single centralized application that can cover over 130 countries at once. The second is direct national filing: going market by market, registering your trademark with each country's own intellectual property office.
The choice is not obvious, and the right answer depends on your business. What is interesting, though, is that businesses in different parts of the world have made this choice very differently. Looking at the data, you can see clear patterns in how companies from different countries approach international trademark protection, and those patterns reveal something useful about what actually works.
Option A: The Madrid System. One application, many countries.
The Madrid System is WIPO's flagship tool for international trademark protection. You file one application, in one language, pay one set of fees, and select which of the 130+ member countries you want to be covered in. WIPO handles the rest, transmitting your application to each country's trademark office for local examination.
On paper, it sounds ideal. One renewal date, one portfolio to manage, one point of contact. For a business planning to operate in ten, twenty, or thirty countries simultaneously, the administrative appeal is real.
The Madrid System in brief:
One application → WIPO → local examination in each designated country. Single renewal date. Available in 130+ countries. Best suited to businesses seeking broad, multi-country coverage from the outset.
Option B: Direct national filing, country by country
Direct filing means going to each country's trademark office separately. Different forms, different fees, different languages, potentially different local attorneys in each jurisdiction. It sounds more complicated, and it is. But it comes with advantages that matter a great deal to many businesses.
With direct filing, you have full control. You can tailor each application to the local market, choose only the countries that matter to you right now, and manage each jurisdiction independently. A problem in one country does not affect the others. You keep the local expertise of attorneys who know the registry, the common objections, and the competitive landscape.
Direct filing in brief:
Separate application to each national office. Full local control. No cross-jurisdictional dependencies. Requires local expertise per country. Best suited to businesses with targeted, specific country priorities.
If you are a business owner deciding between these two paths, here is what you actually need to know: the right choice depends on how many countries you are targeting, how important flexibility is to you, and how much risk you can tolerate in your trademark portfolio. Most importantly, it depends on understanding the real trade-offs.
To get a clearer picture, it helps to look at how other businesses have made this decision. The WIPO data for 2024 covers more than 5 million trademark applications. It shows, in concrete numbers, how the Madrid-versus-direct split plays out across the world's major filing markets.
How the world actually files: A country-by-country breakdown
The table below shows the 50 largest trademark filing offices in the world in 2024, ranked by total application volume. The "Madrid adoption rate" column tells you what share of filings at each office arrived via the WIPO Madrid System, as opposed to direct national applications.
Country / Office | Total Filings (2024) | Direct | Madrid | Madrid Adoption Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
United States | 590,163 | 565,040 | 25,123 | 4.3% |
India | 538,596 | 526,349 | 12,247 | 2.3% |
Brazil | 454,339 | 443,549 | 10,790 | 2.4% |
Republic of Korea | 254,893 | 242,545 | 12,348 | 4.8% |
Mexico | 200,426 | 188,593 | 11,833 | 5.9% |
Türkiye | 184,351 | 175,845 | 8,506 | 4.6% |
European Union (EUIPO) | 180,976 | 152,124 | 28,852 | 15.9% |
United Kingdom | 172,943 | 144,055 | 28,888 | 16.7% |
Japan | 158,089 | 142,540 | 15,549 | 9.8% |
Russia | 157,894 | 149,265 | 8,629 | 5.5% |
Indonesia | 145,548 | 136,815 | 8,733 | 6.0% |
Iran | 100,443 | 98,397 | 2,046 | 2.0% |
France | 97,701 | 95,291 | 2,410 | 2.5% |
Australia | 85,190 | 69,506 | 15,684 | 18.4% |
Germany | 80,241 | 77,222 | 3,019 | 3.8% |
Viet Nam | 73,092 | 64,112 | 8,980 | 12.3% |
Canada | 67,160 | 47,246 | 19,914 | 29.7% |
Pakistan | 56,023 | 53,646 | 2,377 | 4.2% |
Spain | 53,174 | 51,264 | 1,910 | 3.6% |
Thailand | 50,630 | 41,868 | 8,762 | 17.3% |
Malaysia | 45,306 | 36,850 | 8,456 | 18.7% |
Italy | 44,393 | 42,319 | 2,074 | 4.7% |
Chile | 43,213 | 38,619 | 4,594 | 10.6% |
Philippines | 42,611 | 35,536 | 7,075 | 16.6% |
Colombia | 33,609 | 28,826 | 4,783 | 14.2% |
United Arab Emirates | 32,666 | 25,545 | 7,121 | 21.8% |
Switzerland | 32,120 | 18,064 | 14,056 | 43.08% |
Singapore | 30,004 | 19,418 | 10,586 | 35.3% |
Ukraine | 28,469 | 23,817 | 4,652 | 16.3% |
New Zealand | 25,437 | 17,647 | 7,790 | 30.6% |
Benelux | 22,029 | 20,279 | 1,750 | 7.9% |
Portugal | 21,234 | 20,299 | 935 | 4.4% |
Morocco | 20,582 | 16,839 | 3,743 | 18.2% |
Kazakhstan | 19,189 | 14,188 | 5,001 | 26.1% |
Poland | 15,708 | 14,356 | 1,352 | 8.6% |
Algeria | 14,488 | 12,314 | 2,174 | 15.0% |
Uzbekistan | 13,937 | 10,969 | 2,968 | 21.3% |
Norway | 13,821 | 5,741 | 8,080 | 58.5% |
Oman | 13,725 | 11,602 | 2,123 | 15.5% |
Romania | 12,686 | 11,609 | 1,077 | 8.5% |
Qatar | 10,034 | 9,238 | 796 | 7.9% |
Israel | 8,723 | 4,327 | 4,396 | 50.4% |
Syria | 8,006 | 7,102 | 904 | 11.3% |
Bahrain | 7,866 | 6,043 | 1,823 | 23.2% |
Czech Republic | 7,745 | 6,770 | 975 | 12.6% |
Sweden | 7,310 | 6,424 | 886 | 12.1% |
Kenya | 7,284 | 5,471 | 1,813 | 24.9% |
Greece | 7,152 | 6,355 | 797 | 11.1% |
Cambodia | 7,069 | 4,383 | 2,686 | 38.0% |
Belarus | 7,013 | 3,331 | 3,682 | 52.5% |
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, 2024. Madrid Adoption Rate = Madrid applications ÷ total applications.
What jumps out immediately
The biggest filing markers in the world, the United States, India, Brazil, South Korea, Japan, Germany, and France, overwhelmingly prefer direct filing. In the US, fewer than 1 in 20 trademark applications goes through Madrid. In India and Brazil, it is closer to 1 in 40.
These are not countries where businesses are unaware of the Madrid System. They are markets with sophisticated IP ecosystems and well-established filing communities. The preference for direct filing is deliberate.
At the other end of the spectrum, smaller and more internationally-oriented economies show much higher Madrid adoption. Norway files more than half its trademarks via Madrid. Israel and Belarus are both above 50%. Switzerland is at 43.8%. These are countries where a large share of businesses are, by their nature, thinking about international brand protection from day one, and the administrative simplicity of Madrid holds genuine appeal for them.
Canada (29.7%), New Zealand (30.6%), Singapore (35.3%), and the UAE (21.8%) sit in the middle ground: open, internationally-connected economies where Madrid plays a meaningful but not dominant role.
But even in the most Madrid-friendly markets, direct filing holds a significant share. And when you look at how adoption rates have changed over the past decade, the trend tells a story that should give any business owner pause before defaulting to Madrid.
Ten years of data and a clear direction
The snapshot above tells you where things stand today. The table below tells you where they have been going. It tracks Madrid adoption rates from 2014 to 2024 across the same 50 major filing offices, showing whether businesses in each country have been moving toward Madrid or away from it.
The answer, for the large majority, is away from it.
Country / Office | 2014 | 2016 | 2018 | 2020 | 2022 | 2024 | 10-year change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
United States | 5.3% | 5.5% | 5.1% | 3.8% | 5.0% | 4.3% | -1.0pp |
India | 4.3% | 3.9% | 4.0% | 3.0% | 2.7% | 2.3% | -2.1pp |
Republic of Korea | 6.3% | 6.4% | 6.8% | 5.0% | 5.3% | 4.8% | -1.5pp |
Mexico | 7.2% | 7.3% | 7.4% | 7.3% | 7.0% | 5.9% | -1.3pp |
Türkiye | 8.2% | 8.3% | 7.8% | 5.3% | 4.5% | 4.6% | -3.6pp |
EUIPO | 15.7% | 15.9% | 16.8% | 15.4% | 18.2% | 15.9% | +0.2pp |
United Kingdom | 6.9% | 8.0% | 11.6% | 14.0% | 20.8% | 16.7% | +9.8pp |
Japan | 10.3% | 9.2% | 9.3% | 9.3% | 10.6% | 9.8% | -0.5pp |
Russia | 26.5% | 23.1% | 21.9% | 16.9% | 10.6% | 5.5% | -21.1pp |
Iran | 4.9% | 7.0% | 3.2% | 1.7% | 2.0% | 2.0% | -2.8pp |
France | 3.8% | 3.6% | 3.8% | 3.2% | 2.8% | 2.5% | -1.3pp |
Australia | 18.1% | 18.6% | 18.9% | 19.5% | 22.7% | 18.4% | +0.3pp |
Germany | 6.0% | 5.5% | 6.3% | 5.2% | 5.0% | 3.8% | -2.3pp |
Viet Nam | 13.7% | 12.4% | 14.8% | 12.7% | 12.7% | 12.3% | -1.4pp |
Spain | 5.1% | 4.8% | 5.6% | 5.3% | 4.8% | 3.6% | -1.5pp |
Italy | 8.0% | 7.5% | 8.2% | 7.5% | 6.0% | 4.7% | -3.3pp |
Philippines | 16.3% | 15.8% | 17.1% | 18.6% | 16.8% | 16.6% | +0.3pp |
Colombia | 13.2% | 15.1% | 14.9% | 14.0% | 10.8% | 14.2% | +1.0pp |
Switzerland | 44.4% | 47.1% | 47.2% | 44.8% | 50.9% | 43.8% | -0.7pp |
Singapore | 39.2% | 39.8% | 41.2% | 40.7% | 41.7% | 35.3% | -3.9pp |
Ukraine | 28.8% | 18.0% | 18.8% | 19.7% | 25.5% | 16.3% | -12.4pp |
New Zealand | 27.9% | 30.9% | 33.0% | 32.6% | 35.9% | 30.6% | +2.8pp |
Benelux | 11.5% | 10.7% | 12.1% | 9.9% | 10.1% | 7.9% | -3.6pp |
Portugal | 7.7% | 7.7% | 8.0% | 6.9% | 5.5% | 4.4% | -3.3pp |
Morocco | 30.8% | 30.8% | 30.7% | 23.5% | 22.9% | 18.2% | -12.6pp |
Kazakhstan | 55.3% | 50.3% | 48.3% | 46.1% | 39.2% | 26.1% | -29.2pp |
Poland | 14.9% | 12.9% | 15.1% | 12.5% | 11.6% | 8.6% | -6.3pp |
Algeria | 13.6% | 37.6% | 29.2% | 23.6% | 18.5% | 15.0% | +1.4pp |
Uzbekistan | 48.6% | 37.7% | 37.2% | 35.5% | 24.9% | 21.3% | -27.4pp |
Norway | 53.3% | 53.0% | 54.2% | 55.9% | 62.7% | 58.5% | +5.2pp |
Romania | 17.0% | 15.2% | 17.0% | 12.5% | 12.7% | 8.5% | -8.5pp |
Israel | 47.8% | 51.6% | 51.1% | 49.6% | 52.1% | 50.4% | +2.6pp |
Bahrain | 29.8% | 27.8% | 25.2% | 26.8% | 24.3% | 23.2% | -6.7pp |
Czech Republic | 18.3% | 15.8% | 19.6% | 15.6% | 16.5% | 12.6% | -5.7pp |
Sweden | 14.0% | 13.1% | 14.8% | 13.2% | 14.8% | 12.1% | -1.8pp |
Greece | 19.1% | 16.8% | 16.7% | 14.7% | 13.6% | 11.1% | -7.9pp |
Cambodia | N/A | 24.4% | 31.4% | 29.7% | 33.4% | 38.0% | +13.6pp |
Belarus | 60.5% | 61.8% | 61.2% | 58.2% | 60.6% | 52.5% | -8.0pp |
OAPI | N/A | 33.2% | 35.0% | 34.1% | 36.9% | 32.9% | -0.3pp |
Azerbaijan | 62.6% | 63.7% | 60.9% | 55.2% | 37.7% | 42.9% | -19.8pp |
Serbia | 66.7% | 64.1% | 66.1% | 62.3% | 62.6% | 59.1% | -7.7pp |
Armenia | 56.7% | 57.2% | 54.9% | 50.3% | 43.3% | 41.3% | -15.5pp |
Austria | 30.0% | 30.9% | 31.3% | 27.4% | 29.3% | 26.6% | -3.4pp |
Georgia | 61.9% | 53.6% | 56.1% | 55.6% | 54.2% | 56.2% | -5.7pp |
Bulgaria | 25.1% | 22.1% | 25.3% | 24.5% | 21.5% | 18.4% | -6.7pp |
Hungary | 27.6% | 26.2% | 29.2% | 22.9% | 23.3% | 18.8% | -8.8pp |
Kyrgyzstan | 76.0% | 77.5% | 73.5% | 74.5% | 68.5% | 60.3% | -15.7pp |
Mongolia | 48.3% | 47.6% | 50.4% | 44.4% | 41.0% | 37.3% | -11.0pp |
Moldova | 58.9% | 58.4% | 61.2% | 54.7% | 57.9% | 52.1% | -6.8pp |
Slovakia | 31.5% | 27.4% | 33.1% | 26.0% | 25.2% | 17.9% | -13.5pp |
Source: WIPO Statistics Database, 2014–2024. Change column shows percentage-point shift from 2014 to 2024.
The trend is hard to ignore
Of the 50 offices tracked, the large majority show declining Madrid adoption rates over the decade. Some declines are modest: Germany (−2.3pp), France (−1.3pp), Mexico (−1.3pp). Others are dramatic: Kazakhstan dropped from 55.3% to 26.1% (−29.2pp), Uzbekistan from 48.6% to 21.3% (−27.4pp), and the Russian Federation from 26.5% to just 5.5% (−21.1pp). Morocco, Armenia, Slovakia, and Kyrgyzstan all fell by more than 10 percentage points.
Over ten years, across markets of very different sizes, legal traditions, and economic profiles, businesses have consistently been moving away from Madrid and toward direct national filing. That sustained shift deserves an explanation.
The Madrid System sells itself on simplicity. One application, one fee, one renewal. But experienced trademark practitioners, and businesses that have used Madrid and later regretted it, point to a set of structural problems that are hard to gloss over.
⚠ The "central attack" risk: one problem brings everything down
This is Madrid's most serious flaw, and the one most likely to matter to your business. For the first five years after you file a Madrid application, your entire international registration depends on your home-country trademark remaining intact. If your base mark gets cancelled, restricted, or successfully opposed back home, for any reason, every single country covered by your Madrid filing loses protection simultaneously.
Imagine spending years building your brand across Europe and Asia, only to have a competitor successfully challenge your home registration and wipe out your international portfolio in one move. That is central attack. It is not hypothetical. It is a known, documented risk that IP attorneys regularly warn clients about. For businesses in contested sectors, or with aggressive competitors, it can be a dealbreaker.
⚠ You cannot go broader than your home registration
Madrid ties the scope of your international applications directly to the scope of your home-country registration. If your home mark covers Classes 25 and 35, that is all Madrid can cover internationally. You cannot use Madrid to get broader protection in a country where a wider scope might be available or advisable. For businesses whose home market has a narrow or restrictive trademark registry, this is a real constraint.
⚠ Refusals still require local attorneys, which defeats the point
Madrid promises a single application, but each designated country still examines it under its own rules. When a national office issues a refusal (and refusals are common), you have to respond locally, usually with local counsel. In practice, businesses facing refusals across several designated countries can end up managing a patchwork of local disputes, each requiring separate engagement. The administrative simplicity you paid for starts to look illusory.
⚠ It is not always cheaper
Madrid's fee structure is based on the number of classes and countries designated. For businesses targeting a small number of specific markets, direct filing is often cheaper, especially once you factor in the local attorney costs that Madrid does not actually eliminate. Madrid delivers its cost advantage at scale: if you are filing in fifteen or twenty countries simultaneously, the economics shift in its favour. For targeted two- or three-country strategies, run the numbers both ways before assuming Madrid saves you money.
Alternative way: The best of both worlds
Here is the problem with the way this choice is usually framed: it treats Madrid and direct filing as the only two options. Either you accept Madrid's convenience and its risks, or you take on the cost and complexity of managing multiple local filings across multiple jurisdictions.
But that trade-off is not as fixed as it appears. A growing number of businesses are finding a third path: one that delivers the global reach and unified experience of Madrid, without its structural vulnerabilities.
How services like Trama change the equation
Platforms like Trama are built specifically to close the gap between what Madrid promises and what direct filing delivers. The model is straightforward: instead of filing through WIPO and accepting all the dependencies that come with it, Trama handles direct national filings in each country you need, through a single, coordinated process that feels nothing like the traditional fragmented approach.
What this means in practice:
Your trademark is filed directly with each national office.
No base-mark dependency, no five-year vulnerability window.
You manage the entire process through one platform, with consistent pricing, coordinated timelines, and a single point of accountability.
Crucially, real legal expertise stays in the picture. Rather than substituting a standardised WIPO procedure for local knowledge, Trama connects you to qualified trademark professionals in each jurisdiction. You get the on-the-ground expertise that direct filing has always offered: the local attorneys who know which objections to expect, how to respond to them, and how to protect your brand if it comes under challenge. And you get all of this without the overhead of managing multiple independent firms yourself.
The result is a filing strategy that is simultaneously more protected than Madrid (because each country is independent), easier to manage than traditional direct filing (because everything runs through one system), and backed by real expertise rather than algorithmic standardisation.
The bottom line
The data from 50 countries over ten years tells a consistent story: businesses that have a real choice are increasingly choosing direct filing over Madrid. That is not because direct filing is without its own challenges. It is because those challenges are manageable, and the risks of Madrid are proving harder to live with than its convenience is worth.
The smartest move is not to choose between the two systems as they have traditionally existed, but to find an approach that captures what is genuinely good about each. That means the legal security and independence of direct national filing, delivered with the simplicity and professional support that makes international trademark protection accessible to any business, not just those with large legal budgets and specialist IP teams.
