Macao SAR Trademark Registration Case Study 2026: Independent Filing, Madrid Extension & Three-Year Non-Use Revocation Risks

Regulated by Decree-Law No.56/95/M (Industrial Property Legal Regime) and

administered by the Intellectual Property Division of Macao Economic and

Technological Development Bureau (DSEDT), Macao operates an independent trademark

system separated from mainland China and Hong Kong SAR. As a member of the Paris

Convention and Madrid Protocol, Macao accepts two filing channels: direct national

filing at DSEDT and international trademark extension via WIPO Madrid System. A

distinctive statutory rule unique to Macao is the 3-year consecutive non-use revocation

mechanism, which differs sharply from the 5-year non-use standard in Hong Kong and

many Southeast Asian jurisdictions. This case study dissects a typical trademark revocation

dispute triggered by insufficient local commercial use, clarifies filing formalities, Madrid

extension limits and compliance maintenance rules for cross-border brands targeting Macao’s

tourism and retail market.

Case Overview

A Singaporean luxury cosmetics group submitted a multi-class trademark application

covering Class 3 cosmetics and Class 35 retail services to DSEDT in 2020 and obtained

official registration after publication without opposition. The brand only operated online

cross-border delivery to Macao individual customers via overseas e-commerce platforms,

without setting up local physical stores, authorized distributors, offline pop-up counters or l

ocalized Macao social media promotion. No local invoices, packaging labels or on-site

commercial display records were archived within Macao territory. In early 2024, a local

Macao beauty competitor filed a revocation application under Article 231 of the Industrial

Property Legal Regime, claiming the mark had suffered three full years of genuine non-use.

The Singaporean applicant submitted offshore logistics slips and overseas sales screenshots

as defensive evidence, yet DSEDT’s trademark examination department ruled that

cross-border remote delivery without localized commercial layout could not constitute statutory

valid use. The trademark was fully revoked in August 2024. Having lost exclusive rights, the

brand faced identical counterfeit goods flooding Macao’s tourist shopping districts and severe

loss of regional market share.

Core Legal and Procedural Insights

First, 3-year non-use revocation is a rigid mandatory rule in Macao. Starting from the

registration publication date, if a mark fails to conduct genuine commercial use on its

approved goods or services for three consecutive years, any third party can launch

revocation proceedings. Only force majeure qualifies as a legal defense; mere intent to enter the

market or occasional small-batch cross-border shipments cannot avoid revocation. Second,

strict territorial standards define valid trademark use. Recognized evidence includes Macao local

sales invoices, distributor authorization contracts, physical store display photos, offline

promotional flyers and advertising published on Macao local media or social platforms. Pure

export transactions shipped from overseas territories to Macao end consumers are explicitly

excluded from legal use scope. Third, Madrid Protocol extension has special Macao filing limits.

International trademarks designating Macao do not automatically bypass local formality checks;

foreign applicants must appoint a Macao-licensed agent and submit notarized Chinese/

Portuguese translated power of attorney, identical to direct national filing requirements. Madrid

extended marks still comply with the 3-year non-use rule without any exemption. Fourth,

independent protection without cross-regional linkage. Trademarks registered in mainland China

or Hong Kong SAR cannot automatically extend exclusive rights to Macao. Enterprises must

complete separate filing through DSEDT or designate Macao under the Madrid System to

obtain regional protection.Practical Compliance Guidance for Global Brands

Complete comprehensive trademark similarity retrieval through DSEDT’s official online

database prior to filing to eliminate prior conflicting marks and reduce rejection risks.

Build systematic local use evidence archives immediately after registration: collect Macao

local transaction vouchers, cooperation agreements and offline marketing materials to form a

complete evidentiary chain against future revocation applications. Set dual time reminder

nodes: the critical 3-year use inspection deadline and the 10-year trademark renewal date.

Renewal applications can be submitted six months before expiry, with no grace period for

overdue filings. Select filing routes rationally: brands solely focusing on Macao retail and

tourism sectors adopt direct DSEDT national filing; multinational groups deploying multiple

Greater Bay Area and Portuguese-speaking markets may choose Madrid international

registration to designate Macao synchronously. Appoint qualified Macao local legal

agents uniformly for all foreign filing, Madrid extension, opposition and revocation response

procedures to avoid document formal defects leading to procedural loss.Conclusion

Macao’s trademark legal system features independent regulatory authority and unique 3-year

non-use revocation provisions, creating prominent compliance barriers for overseas brands

that only conduct remote cross-border sales without local operation. This revocation case fully

demonstrates that trademark registration alone cannot sustain long-term exclusive brand rights.

For international enterprises expanding into Macao’s tourism and consumer market, abiding

by DSEDT filing specifications, maintaining continuous localized commercial use and

reserving standardized use evidence are indispensable measures to block bad-faith squatting

and counterfeit infringement, securing stable intellectual property advantages in the Macao

SAR market.

Hyperlink List：

● DSEDT Official Trademark Registration FAQ & Compliance Guidelines (English Version)：

https://www.dsedt.gov.mo/en/web/public/pg_ip_faq

● WIPO WIPOLEX Full Text of Macao Decree-Law No.56/95/M Industrial Property Regime：

https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/128754