The answer depends on which and how many jurisdictions are involved and how much risk the mark carries.
Madrid is usually the better route when the filing programme covers several member jurisdictions at once, the mark is distinctive and unlikely to be refused, and the base trademark registration is stable. If offers one application, one filing language, a single set of fee payment, and centralised renewal and recordal of later changes.
National filings are usually better when the target list includes non-member jurisdictions, when the mark is likely to draw objections, or when the base trademark registration is itself vulnerable. Under Madrid, an international registration depends on its base mark for five years from the registration date. If the base mark is cancelled or restricted in that period, protection falls away in every designated jurisdiction. This is the central attack risk. The holder can transform the affected designations into national applications that keep the original date, but only at the cost of a fresh round of local filings.
For Asia specifically, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan currently require separate local filings. Several other jurisdictions in the region are also outside the system or apply local use and examination requirements that make a national filing more reliable.
In practice most Asian programmes end up as a hybrid, and the split is worth deciding before the first filing rather than after a refusal.
