We invite you to read the column written by our partner Eugenio Gormáz, in which he reviews the impact that the Madrid Protocol has had on Chilean trademarks three years after its entry into force.
This month marks three years since the Madrid Protocol came into force in Chile, an international treaty administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) that seeks to make it easier for individuals and companies to register and protect trademarks in several countries through a single international application, rather than having to do so through separate national registries.
At the time, Chile decided to join the treaty precisely to facilitate the international registration of Chilean trademarks among the countries that were already party to the agreement, citing as its main rationale the potential benefits it would have for Chilean companies (including SMEs), as it would promote exports from our country, hand in hand with the protection of national trademarks abroad.
However, according to Inapi’s 2024 public account, only 74 applications were submitted from Chile via Protocol in 2023, compared to 4,907 foreign applications that included Chile as one of the countries where trademark protection was required. Likewise, in 2024, we received more than 5,500 foreign applications and only 54 Chilean applications, which shows that while foreign applications are growing, local applications are falling.
The numbers reflect that the main beneficiaries have been foreign owners (mainly large multinationals) and WIPO. Most Chilean SMEs or startups continue to use alternative means of protection (such as registering their trademark directly in the country of interest), as the protocol is not user-friendly enough for them, nor does it represent the supposed advantage that this accession was supposed to bring to local entrepreneurs.
It is likely that many SMEs or startups do not have the financial capacity or a sufficiently developed internationalization strategy. In this sense, it is a mistake to think that a single international application via the protocol would solve the trademark issue.
Each country party to the treaty can impose its own requirements, deadlines, and objections, which in many cases, as before, requires specialized local advice and resources to respond to any obstacles that may arise.
It should also be noted that in our region (apart from Chile), only Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico are party to the treaty, meaning that not all countries that are key to Chilean exports are part of the system, which often forces Chile to continue registering trademarks through traditional channels.
It is clear that there is a structural asymmetry in how the Madrid Protocol is used, as it has ultimately become more of an entry highway than an exit highway, which is very different from what was proposed and defended by the authorities when they joined this agreement.
Column written by:
Eugenio Gormáz | Partner | egormaz@az.cl
