An application for international registration must designate one or more Contracting Parties in which an application for protection is sought. Other names may be taken a posteriori. A Contracting Party may be designated only if it is a party to the same contract as the party whose seat is the point of origin. The latter point cannot be designated in the international application itself. However, where designated Contracting Parties verify the international registration in accordance with their national law and certain substantive provisions are not complied with, they shall have the right to refuse protection in their territory. Any refusal, including the grounds on which it is based, shall normally be notified to the International Bureau within twelve months of the date of notification. However, a party to the minutes may declare that this period will be extended to eighteen months when it is appointed in accordance with the Protocol. That Party may also declare that a refusal based on an opposition may be communicated to the International Bureau even after the expiry of the eighteen month period. The protocol has been operational since 1996 and has 100 members [5], making it more popular than the agreement, which has been in service for more than 110 years and has 55 members. [4] The main reason why the Protocol is more popular than the Agreement is that the Protocol introduced a number of amendments to the Madrid System that have significantly increased its usefulness for trademark owners.

For the control of the provisional registration, the holder of the international registration has the right to present arguments to overcome the grounds for registration set out in the notification of provisional refusal and only by the registered representative lawyer (in Russian) of the Russian Federation, in accordance with Article 1247, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Part IV. of international registrations cancelled as a result of a central attack. [6] In the run-up to the introduction of a multi-judicial (or at least pan-European) European Community trade mark (GM), the relevance of the Madrid system has been put to the test. The pressure on WIPO to maintain its relevance and strengthen the agreement by increasing the number of members, possibly through amendments. This culminated in the introduction of the Madrid Protocol, according to which the registration of the Community trade mark could be a `foundational registration` or `origin`, on the basis of which an international registration could be established. This mechanism is called “interconnection determination”. The Protocol was signed by many countries as a result of significant lobbying efforts by WIPO, including most of the current members of the Madrid Agreement and some countries that were members of the European Union but were not members of the Madrid Agreement. The Protocol entered into force on 1 December 1995 and entered into force on 1 April 1996. One of the disadvantages of the Madrid system is that any refusal, withdrawal or deletion of the basic application or registration within five years of the date of international registration results in the refusal, revocation or cancellation of the international registration to the same extent. For example, when a basic application covers “clothing, head covering and footwear” and the “head covering” is removed from the basic application (for any reason), the “head covering” is also removed from the international application. Therefore, the protection granted by the international registration in each designated Member State applies only to “clothing and footwear”. In the event of a total rejection of the basic application, the international registration would also be totally rejected.

. . .