The Cost Disparity Has Closed
Before the 2017 amendment, Madrid applicants enjoyed a meaningful cost edge: no limitation on the number of goods or services in the description, while direct applicants had to pay for each additional character beyond 500 (excluding spaces). Direct applicants with prior registrations also had to pay an association fee for each prior application, a cost Madrid filers were not subject to. With the Trademark Amendment Rules 2017 notified from 6 March 2017, this disparity was removed — direct applications into India now carry no limit on the description of goods or services either, largely levelling the fee playing field between the two routes.
The Remaining Advantage: Examination Speed
Despite the fee equalisation, direct filing retains one significant structural advantage over Madrid designation: speed of examination. A direct application is typically examined within a month of filing. A Madrid application, by contrast, must first pass through designation, allocation of an IRDI (International Registration Designating India) number, substantive examination, and — where objections arise — communication of a provisional refusal to the applicant via WIPO. This chain of steps introduces a time lag considerably longer than direct filing's examination timeline.
Other Considerations
- Centralisation and cost savings: Madrid still offers real savings on attorney fees and portfolio centralisation for applicants seeking protection across multiple jurisdictions from a single base application.
- Dependency risk: Madrid registrations remain dependent on the base application/registration for five years — a successful attack on the base mark can bring down all designations built on it, a risk direct filing does not carry.
- Jurisdictional reach: Madrid designation is only available where both the home country and the target country are Protocol members; direct filing has no such membership constraint.
Practical Recommendations
Applicants prioritising speed to registration — particularly where a registered mark is a precondition for enforcement action or licensing — should weigh direct filing's faster examination timeline against Madrid's portfolio-level convenience. For applicants filing across many jurisdictions simultaneously where speed in any single market is less critical, Madrid's centralisation benefits generally outweigh the examination-timeline disadvantage. Since the 2017 amendment removed the fee differential, the choice today turns primarily on speed, dependency risk tolerance, and portfolio breadth — not cost.