Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 03 AUGUST 2026

Jersey’s New Individual Fee Under The Madrid Protocol

Adams & Adams
Adams & Adams
Contributor
Adams & Adams

Adams & Adams

Who we are: Established in 1908, Adams & Adams is an internationally recognised and leading African...

View firm profile
Explore more from Adams & Adams

The World Intellectual Property Organization has announced that Jersey will introduce individual fees for Madrid Protocol designations from August 2026, requiring businesses to pay jurisdiction-specific charges when seeking international trade mark protection. This procedural change coincides with Jersey's new standalone trade mark registration system, fundamentally altering how brand owners must approach protection strategies in the jurisdiction.

JerseyIntellectual Property
Bontle Monnya
Bontle Monnya
Author LinkedIn connections

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has announced that, from 1 August 2026, the Bailiwick of Jersey will introduce an individual fee for designations under the Madrid Protocol. For businesses that use the Madrid System to secure international trade mark protection, the practical effect is that Jersey will now carry its own official fee and will need to be considered separately when filing internationally. The change follows Jersey’s declaration* under Article 8(7)(a) of the Madrid Protocol, which allows a jurisdiction to receive an individual fee rather than participate in WIPO’s complementary fee system. Although the change is procedural, it has practical consequences for applicants and legal advisers preparing international filing strategies and budgets.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Trade Mark Changes In Jersey, And Why They Might Affect You

Jersey has completely overhauled its trade mark system, establishing its own Intellectual Property Office and abolishing the previous UK re-registration requirement. The new framework aligns closely with UK trade mark law while enabling Jersey to participate directly in the Madrid System for international registrations. These changes, effective August 1, 2026, include automatic cloning of existing UK designations into Jersey rights and signal further IP modernization ahead.
JerseyIntellectual Property
HGF Law
HGF Law
Article

A Standalone Designation For Jersey Under WIPO’s Madrid System

The World Intellectual Property Organisation has announced that Jersey will become an independent designation under the Madrid System for international trade mark registration from August 2026. This significant change means UK designations will no longer automatically cover Jersey, requiring brand owners to take specific action to maintain protection across both territories. Portfolio managers and brand owners with interests in this leading offshore finance hub will need to understand the implications for t
JerseyIntellectual Property
Boult Wade Tennant LLP
Boult Wade Tennant LLP
Article

Jersey Becomes An Independent Designation Under The Madrid System

From August 2026, Jersey will operate as an independent designation under the Madrid System for international trade mark protection, ending its automatic coverage through UK designations. This reform introduces new procedural requirements, including separate fees and declarations of intent to use, while establishing Jersey's own trade mark registry. Rights holders must now actively include Jersey in their filing strategies to avoid gaps in protection across the Crown Dependencies.
JerseyIntellectual Property
Keltie LLP
Keltie LLP
Article

Frozen Accounts And Fraudulent Funds: Navigating The Rights Of Banks, Customers And SARS

A South African High Court has ruled on the lawfulness of account freezing by banks based on fraud suspicions and affirmed SARS's authority to issue third-party notices under section 179 of the Tax Administration Act. The case arose after a close corporation fraudulently claimed a VAT refund of R3.28 million, transferred R900,000 to an individual's account, prompting the bank to freeze the account and SARS to pursue recovery through a third-party notice.
South AfricaTax
Adams & Adams
Adams & Adams
Article

Constitutional Court Delivers Landmark But Incomplete Copyright Ruling. Parliament Must Now Seize The Opportunity To Modernise South Africa’s Copyright Law For The AI Era

South Africa's Constitutional Court has delivered a landmark ruling on the Copyright Amendment Bill, upholding the controversial shift to 'fair use' while striking down broad educational exceptions for textbook copying. The judgment leaves critical questions unresolved about contract terms, ministerial powers, and the Bill's complete silence on generative AI—creating both constraints and opportunities as Parliament must now revisit legislation conceived over a decade ago.
South AfricaIntellectual Property
Adams & Adams
Adams & Adams
Article

Nigeria Clarifies Copyright Ownership Of Musical Works

A Nigerian Federal High Court has ruled on a high-stakes copyright dispute over the globally acclaimed gospel song "Way Maker," examining whether a music producer's technical contributions to a recording constitute co-authorship. The judgment clarifies the critical distinction between creative authorship and production services in determining copyright ownership. This decision carries significant implications for how the music industry documents and allocates rights between artists and technical contributor
NigeriaIntellectual Property
Adams & Adams
Adams & Adams
Article

Contractual Liability Exclusion Must Be Assessed Against Each Cause Of Action Separately, Not Applied Wholesale Where Multiple Claims Are Pleaded In One Action

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals examined whether a directors' and officers' liability policy's contractual liability exclusion could bar coverage for an entire multi-count lawsuit, or whether each legally distinct cause of action—breach of contract, fraud, and quantum meruit—must be assessed separately against the exclusion's terms. The decision addresses the critical question of how insurers must apply policy exclusions when a single complaint pleads multiple claims arising from the same und
United StatesInsurance
Adams & Adams
Adams & Adams