How Much Does a Brand Valuation Cost? Prices and Fees 2026 (France & Switzerland)

Introduction: how much does a brand valuation really cost in 2026?

In 2026, a brand valuation costs in practice between EUR 6,000 and 35,000 in France, and between CHF 8,000 and 40,000 in Switzerland, with most of the spread driven less by the size of the company that owns the brand than by the level of defensibility sought for the report. A business owner preparing a sale, a transmission or a contribution of their brand rarely asks the question in the abstract: before signing an engagement letter, they want to know the range the invoice will fall into and what makes it vary. This article answers that directly, with the prices observed on the French-Swiss market in 2026, line item by line item.

A brand, in the sense of industrial property law, is a distinctive sign registered with the French National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) in France or the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property in Switzerland. Its economic value, however, cannot be inferred from that registration and is a separate financial exercise, one that international accounting classifies among intangible assets.

“An intangible asset is an identifiable non-monetary asset without physical substance, controlled by an entity and expected to generate future economic benefits.”, IASB, IAS 38, paragraph 8.

Three factors converge in 2026 to make this pricing question more pressing than before.

First, the French tax administration and the Swiss Federal Tax Administration are scrutinizing intra-group brand royalties more closely, in the wake of the OECD's BEPS project and the DEMPE analysis, which requires better-documented, and therefore more costly, reports.

Second, artificial intelligence is speeding up preparatory work, such as gathering comparables or running sensitivity calculations, without reducing the professional judgment time that remains billed.

Third, the share of a transaction's value carried by intangible assets, brands included, keeps growing, which pushes more acquirers and auditors to require a defensible report rather than an indicative estimate.

The rest of this article details the price range by service level, the factors that make the invoice vary, the billing model, how an engagement unfolds, the options available on the French-Swiss market, Hectelion's pricing, the levers for controlling the budget without losing defensibility, 2026 trends, the mistakes that cost the most, two priced case studies, a word from Hectelion's founder and a FAQ.

The price of a brand valuation at a glance: 2026 ranges by complexity

The table below summarizes the three levels of complexity observed on the French-Swiss market in 2026 for a brand valuation, from an indicative diagnostic to an intra-group transfer pricing file covering a portfolio of brands. These ranges cover the fees of an independent boutique firm such as Hectelion for its intangible asset valuation activity, applied to the transactions the firm handles, generally between EUR/CHF 2 and 500 million of enterprise value. They exclude filing or renewal fees with the INPI or the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property, and intellectual property attorney fees.

Price ranges: Hectelion's 2026 practice observed on the French-Swiss market. These three tiers reflect the actual complexity of the file, not the size of the company that owns the brand: a single brand with simple documentation is handled with a single primary method, a brand paired with several associated intangible assets or intended for a transaction requires a defensible cross-check of methods, and a brand at the core of a portfolio, an M&A deal or a dispute adds a value allocation across several signs or stakeholders. Excludes filing fees, renewal fees and intellectual property attorney fees. Final quote issued after a free scoping call.

Scope the budget for your brand valuation engagement

Before getting into the detail of the price drivers, a direct conversation is usually the most efficient path: book a 30-minute slot with a Hectelion partner to scope your brand's perimeter, the level of defensibility sought, and get a precise, no-obligation quote.

Acontos: get a free online estimate of your business's value

Before getting into the detail, note that Hectelion has built Acontos, an online audit, due diligence and business valuation tool, powered by Anthropic's Claude Sonnet 5 artificial intelligence and calibrated on Hectelion's own methodology. From your accounts, it produces a first estimate of the value of your shares within minutes, free of charge and without retaining any document.

Launch the valuation simulator to get an order of magnitude, then keep reading to understand what drives it.

What drives the price of a brand valuation

• The number of brands to be valued weighs directly on the quote: a single brand is handled as a standalone engagement, while a portfolio of several brands, often found in a multi-banner group, requires an allocation of value across each sign, an exercise close to that of a multiple intangible asset to document, and moves the engagement into the highest tier.
• The level of defensibility sought changes the nature of the work: an indicative estimate intended for internal use draws on a single primary method, whereas a defensible report for a transaction, a transmission, a contribution in kind or a dispute requires a cross-check of methods and a more thorough contradictory review.
• The availability and quality of financial data condition the analysis time: revenue already segmented by brand and relevant licensing comparables shorten the engagement, while consolidated data that needs to be broken down lengthens the preparatory work.
• The degree of scrutiny expected from an auditor, a tax administration or an opposing party in the event of a disagreement raises the documentary bar, and therefore the price.
• The French-Swiss cross-border context adds a dimension: an intra-group transfer pricing file covering a brand royalty between a parent company and its subsidiary must account for the DEMPE analysis (development, enhancement, maintenance, protection, exploitation) promoted by the OECD, which makes the report denser.
• The urgency of the transaction timeline plays a non-negligible role: an engagement pegged to an imminent closing mobilizes more resources in parallel and is billed accordingly.

Umbrella brand or product brand: a scope to define before the quote

A scoping confusion specific to brands is worth settling before any quote: is the umbrella brand that covers an entire range being valued, or a product brand that covers only one particular line? An umbrella brand generally carries a significant share of the company's overall awareness and recurring customer base, which justifies a broader attributable revenue in the relief-from-royalty method.

A product brand, conversely, attaches to a narrower identifiable revenue, often limited to a single range or a single geographic market, which reduces the scope of analysis but does not necessarily lighten the price if several product brands coexist within the same portfolio.

A group that operates both an umbrella brand and derivative product brands, a common practice in food and consumer goods, must therefore clarify from the scoping stage which of these brands, or which ones, fall within the engagement's scope, otherwise the initial quote will not reflect the work actually required once the brand architecture is examined in detail.

Fixed fee or time and materials: how a brand valuation engagement is billed

In practice, the vast majority of brand valuation engagements are billed at a fixed fee: after a free scoping call, the firm issues an engagement letter that sets a firm price, based on the agreed scope, namely the number of brands, the level of defensibility and the timeline. This model reassures the client, who knows the final amount before starting, and disciplines the provider, who must correctly calibrate the workload from the outset.

Time-and-materials billing, at an hourly or daily rate, remains marginal and is reserved for particular situations: a portfolio of brands whose scope evolves during the engagement, a dispute whose duration depends on the court calendar, or an intra-group transfer pricing file reopened several times by the tax administration during an audit. In these cases, a projected budget nonetheless frames the time-and-materials arrangement to avoid any drift.

As a rule, a business owner preparing a sale, a transmission or a contribution is better served by the fixed fee, which gives full budget visibility before committing to the engagement.

Process and timeline: from scoping to the brand valuation report

A brand valuation engagement follows a fairly stable process, regardless of the price tier:

1. Signing the engagement letter, following the free scoping call that sets the scope: number of brands, purpose of the report (internal, transactional, tax or litigation) and desired timeline.
2. Sending the documentation: company accounts, revenue attributable to the brand where identifiable, existing licensing agreements if any, and information on the brand, such as its age, its awareness and its registration with the INPI or the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property.
3. A question-and-answer exchange with the client to refine the scope and the licensing comparables selected.
4. Applying the relief-from-royalty method, supplemented if necessary by a consistency test using the excess earnings method, then drafting a draft report.
5. Presenting the draft report and discussing it with the client, and in transactional files, with the other stakeholders.
6. Incorporating corrections and points raised during the discussion.
7. Delivering the final report, accompanied where relevant by an oral debrief to stakeholders.

An indicative valuation wraps up in 2 to 4 weeks, a defensible valuation in 4 to 8 weeks, and a portfolio or intra-group transfer pricing file in 8 to 14 weeks, this longer timeline reflecting the need to allocate value across several brands and to document the DEMPE analysis. The final report then serves as supporting evidence for the negotiation, the sale, the transmission, the dispute or the accounting and tax reporting that prompted the engagement.

Comparing options: who can value a brand, and at what price

Several categories of providers operate in the French-Swiss brand valuation market, each with legitimate use cases.

Big Four firms and large investment banks: they have dedicated intangible asset valuation teams, particularly suited to international groups and large-scale transfer pricing files, with fees generally set for mandates larger than those Hectelion handles.

Independent boutique firms, Hectelion's positioning: they offer combined French-Swiss expertise and economic independence from traditional financial intermediaries, with responsiveness and fees calibrated for transactions of EUR/CHF 2 to 500 million.

Generalist accountants: they can produce a first indicative estimate as part of a broader advisory engagement, useful for internal use, but rarely have the methodological depth required by an auditor or an acquirer for a defensible report.

Official registration (INPI, Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property): it legally protects the title and its exclusive use, but produces strictly no quantified value: it is a complementary step, never a substitute for the economic valuation.

The choice between these options depends above all on the level of defensibility sought and the size of the stakes, not on a quality hierarchy between categories.

Why Choose Hectelion for Your Brand Valuation

Eight concrete points set Hectelion apart from other providers:

• A founder who has been on the other side of the table: Aristide Ruot has created and run his own companies, negotiated funding rounds and weathered cash-flow strain; this direct experience of entrepreneurial risk, rather than a purely theoretical reading of the file, explains why so many founders entrust him with their brand valuation.
• A fee that follows the file, not a schedule: the quote reflects the number of brands to be valued, the level of defensibility sought and the actual complexity of the value allocation, never a standard rate set by default on the size of the firm billing it.
• A brand valuation methodology built for this exact subject: relief-from-royalty, sector licensing comparables and, when the file requires it, DEMPE analysis, all led personally by Aristide Ruot, Ph.D.
• One team for the entire brand lifecycle: valuation, due diligence, M&A structuring, fundraising and financial instrument structuring remain handled by the same contacts, from the first conversation through to signing.
• The rigor of a large firm, without its layers: the same rigorous cross-check of methods as a Big Four, delivered by a structure that adds neither weeks of waiting nor superfluous fee lines.
• Two legal frameworks, one team: the French and Swiss legal frameworks are covered natively, with no outsourcing to a local correspondent on the other side of the border.
• No ties to the parties financing the deal: no investment fund or financial intermediary pays Hectelion, which keeps the report free to defend only the interest of the business owner who mandated the engagement.
• A timeline set before the first invoice: the report delivery date is announced at the scoping call, then honored rather than revised during the engagement.

Point of caution: the value adopted loses all probative force if the party calculating it has an interest in the outcome of the transaction. As soon as a firm receives a success fee, holds a stake or acts as a party to the financing, the sale, the transmission or the dispute being valued, its report can no longer be presented without reservation to an auditor, a judge or the tax administration.

International portfolio: valuing a brand registered through the Madrid Protocol

A brand rarely confined to a single territory changes the terms of the quote. The Madrid System, administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization, allows a brand to be registered in more than a hundred countries from a base French or Swiss registration, which multiplies the jurisdictions in which the brand generates economic value without multiplying the number of titles to be valued one by one.

For the valuer, this international filing does not change the method, the relief-from-royalty method remains the reference, but it requires verifying that the revenue attributable to the brand does cover the full set of protected markets, and that the royalty rate adopted remains consistent with the licensing practices observed in each of those markets rather than on the domestic market alone.

A business owner whose brand has been extended through Madrid to several European or international markets benefits from flagging it at the scoping stage: this information directly shapes the choice of licensing comparables and can shift an engagement from a single-brand profile to the portfolio tier in the table above, particularly when the brand is subject to distinct local sub-licenses depending on the territory.

Internally Developed Brand or Acquired Brand: What IAS 38 Changes

A technical point, often overlooked by business owners before their first transaction, deserves clarification: the IAS 38 standard explicitly prohibits recognizing an internally developed brand on the balance sheet. Internally generated brands, mastheads, publishing titles, customer lists and items similar in substance are never recognized as intangible assets, because it is impossible to reliably distinguish the cost of developing them from the cost of developing the business as a whole.

A brand acquired as part of a business combination follows the opposite logic: IFRS 3, through purchase price allocation, instead requires that brand to be recognized at fair value on the acquirer's balance sheet, precisely because an external, objectively verifiable transaction has just set a price.

This accounting asymmetry has a concrete and often underestimated consequence: a brand built internally over fifteen or twenty years, however well recognized in its market, appears nowhere on the balance sheet of the company that created it. Its value remains literally invisible until the day of a sale, a transmission or a contribution, at which point it must be priced from scratch, with no prior book value to build on. This is one more reason, beyond the transaction timeline discussed earlier, to plan this valuation well in advance: a business owner sometimes discovers, mid-negotiation, that a central asset of their company has never existed on the books before that day.

Hectelion's pricing: transparency on the status of these figures

The price ranges presented in this article correspond to Hectelion's 2026 practice observed on the French-Swiss market, for brand valuation engagements carried out in the context of transactions, transmissions, contributions in kind or intra-group transfer pricing files. They do not constitute a binding professional fee schedule, nor a fixed rate card: each quote is established case by case, following a free scoping call, based on the number of brands, the level of defensibility sought and the timeline.

Hectelion shares these figures out of a commitment to transparency, a principle the firm applies equally to its business valuation engagements and to its intangible asset valuation engagements, convinced that a business owner decides better when they know the order of magnitude before starting the conversation.

How to reduce the cost of your brand valuation without losing defensibility

Several levers make it possible to control the budget of a brand valuation without sacrificing the strength of the final report:

1. Prepare financial data upfront, in particular revenue already segmented by brand where the company holds several, as well as the brand's own documentation (registration, history, existing licensing agreements).
2. Stabilize the scope at the scoping call: number of brands, exact purpose of the report (internal use, transaction, transmission or dispute) and desired timeline, to avoid a mid-engagement rescoping, always more costly than a scope well defined from the outset.
3. Anticipate related needs, such as financial due diligence or an intra-group transfer pricing file, to pool part of the preparatory work into a single engagement rather than multiplying standalone assignments.
4. Mandate a single firm with dual expertise for a French-Swiss file, rather than two separate local providers, to avoid duplicating scoping and documentation-gathering work on either side of the border.
5. Plan the transaction timeline several weeks ahead, which avoids the extra cost of an accelerated engagement, common when the valuation is launched too late relative to the targeted closing.

None of these levers reduces the methodological depth of the report: they concern only the organization, preparation and timeline of the engagement, never the number of methods cross-checked nor the documentary rigor required by an auditor, an acquirer or a tax administration.

2026 trends: what is driving the price of a brand valuation

Three trends shape the brand valuation market in 2026.

The first is tax-driven: the increased scrutiny of intra-group brand royalties, driven by the OECD's BEPS project and the DEMPE analysis, is pushing French-Swiss groups to document their intra-group transfer pricing files more rigorously, which makes the work, and its cost, denser at the portfolio tier.

The second trend relates to artificial intelligence, which speeds up preparatory work: sourcing licensing comparables, sensitivity calculations on the royalty rate, first value simulations. This time saving mainly benefits indicative engagements, while the professional judgment on the royalty rate adopted and the contradictory review of a defensible report remain, by nature, irreducibly human, and continue to weigh on the price.

The third trend is structural: the share of technology and intangible assets, brands included, in total transaction value keeps growing, which is prompting more acquirers to require a separate allocation of the brand's value rather than a blanket treatment within residual goodwill, described in the publication purchase price allocation (PPA): definition and method, through a standardized purchase price allocation.

The 5 mistakes that cost the most in a brand valuation

Mistake 1: Confusing brand registration with brand value

Registering a brand with the INPI in France or the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property in Switzerland legally protects the title and its exclusive use, but produces no quantified value. This is a common and costly confusion: a business owner who presents a registration certificate to an acquirer or an auditor as proof of value exposes the file to immediate rejection, followed by a valuation engagement launched under time pressure, always more expensive than one planned in advance.

Mistake 2: Choosing a single method when the stakes call for a cross-check

An indicative valuation based on a single relief-from-royalty method suits internal use, but an acquirer or their auditor almost always requires a consistency test using a second method, such as excess earnings, for a defensible report. Presenting a single-method report in a transactional context often leads to reopening the engagement mid-negotiation, which doubles part of the fees already incurred.

Mistake 3: Adopting a poorly justified royalty rate

The royalty rate applied to the revenue attributable to the brand must rest on licensing comparables relevant to the sector concerned. A rate chosen by rough analogy, without a documented basis, exposes the report to challenge by the opposing party or the tax administration, which leads to a full revision and additional fees.

Mistake 4: Failing to separate the brand from goodwill or residual goodwill

During a sale, valuing the brand in a single block with the business's goodwill, or letting it blend into residual goodwill, deprives the acquirer of a correct purchase price allocation and complicates the future impairment test. This confusion, common among SMEs, is almost always corrected after the fact, as part of a PPA redone under time pressure, at a cost higher than an allocation done correctly from the start.

Mistake 5: Launching the valuation too late in the timeline

Waiting until the final weeks before a closing, a transmission or a fiscal year-end to launch the brand valuation forces an accelerated engagement, mobilizing more resources in parallel and billed accordingly. This same too-tight-timeline logic then resurfaces in the annual impairment test of the brand once it is on the acquirer's balance sheet, a recurring exercise best anticipated from the initial engagement.

Case 1: brand sale in France, a EUR 24,000 engagement

Case built for illustrative purposes, based on observed market practice.

Company B SAS, a food and beverage business in Nouvelle-Aquitaine generating EUR 15 million in revenue, was acquired by an international group. Its brand, registered with the INPI for 22 years and enjoying established regional awareness, had to be valued separately from the business's goodwill, both for negotiating the sale price and for the acquirer's future purchase price allocation, as part of the financial due diligence it was conducting.

Hectelion applied the relief-from-royalty method, with a royalty rate of 3% of the revenue attributable to the brand, discounted over 10 years at a weighted average cost of capital of 9%, supplemented by a consistency test using the excess earnings method.

The quote came to EUR 24,000, corresponding to the defensible tier, the cross-check of methods having been required by the acquirer and its auditor before validating the final price. The engagement ran over 6 weeks, from scoping to report delivery, presented jointly to both parties at a debrief meeting.

Case 2: Swiss brand portfolio protected through the Madrid Protocol, a CHF 45,000 engagement

Case built for illustrative purposes, based on observed market practice.

Company C SA, a Swiss consumer goods group based in the canton of Zurich, operates a long-standing umbrella brand alongside two derivative product brands, each registered in Switzerland and then extended to the European Union and the United Kingdom through the Madrid system. As part of an intra-group restructuring, the group is transferring ownership of the three brands to a newly created intangible asset holding entity, which requires documenting a defensible intra-group licensing royalty before the Swiss Federal Tax Administration and, for the European portion, before local tax administrations.

Hectelion applied the relief-from-royalty method for each of the three brands, with an allocation of the umbrella value across 60% of consolidated revenue and the balance split between the two product brands according to their respective revenue, supplemented by a DEMPE analysis documenting the split of development and protection functions between the group's entities.

The quote came to CHF 45,000, positioned in the portfolio tier due to the three brands to be valued and the coordination between the Swiss, European and UK jurisdictions. The engagement ran over twelve weeks, including a contradictory review with the group's tax counsel before finalizing the intra-group license agreement.

A word from our founder

“A brand that has existed for 22 years carries real value, but that value cannot be read off the registration certificate. It has to be demonstrated, with figures, using a method the acquirer and their auditor can check for themselves.”

“The price of a brand valuation is never the real issue for a business owner selling their company: the real issue is not letting a brand built over two decades dissolve into a business's goodwill valued as a single block.”

“At Hectelion, we prefer to announce a firm price after a free diagnostic rather than bill by the hour for an engagement whose scope keeps moving. It is more demanding for us, but it is what allows a business owner to decide with full knowledge of the facts.”

Aristide Ruot, Ph.D.
Founder | CEO, Hectelion SA

FAQ: the 10 essential questions on the price of a brand valuation

Introduction: what to know before the questions

This FAQ covers the points most frequently raised by business owners and finance departments when scoping the budget for a brand valuation, in both France and Switzerland.

Q1: How much does a brand valuation cost?

In 2026, a brand valuation costs between EUR 6,000 and 35,000 in France and between CHF 8,000 and 40,000 in Switzerland for a single brand, depending on the level of defensibility sought. A portfolio of several brands or an intra-group transfer pricing file starts from EUR 35,000 or CHF 40,000, with no fixed ceiling.

Q2: What is the difference between an indicative valuation and a defensible valuation?

An indicative valuation rests on a single primary method and serves internal use or pre-negotiation, in 2 to 4 weeks. A defensible valuation cross-checks several methods and produces a report intended for a transaction, a transmission, a contribution in kind or a dispute, in 4 to 8 weeks.

Q3: Does registering my brand with the INPI or the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property give it its value?

No. Registration legally protects the title and its exclusive use, it produces no quantified value. Only a dedicated financial valuation, such as the relief-from-royalty method, can put a figure on a brand.

Q4: What method is used to value a brand?

The primary method is relief-from-royalty, which estimates the brand's value from the royalties that would have had to be paid to license it from a third party. The excess earnings method serves as a secondary consistency test when the stakes justify it.

Q5: How long does a brand valuation engagement take?

From 2 to 4 weeks for an indicative valuation, 4 to 8 weeks for a defensible valuation, and 8 to 14 weeks for a brand portfolio or an intra-group transfer pricing file.

Q6: Does the price depend on the brand's industry?

Indirectly. The industry mainly affects the availability of relevant licensing comparables for setting the royalty rate: the scarcer or more heterogeneous the comparables, the longer the documentary analysis, which weighs on the price more than the industry itself.

Q7: Should the brand be valued separately from goodwill in a sale?

Yes, as soon as the brand has an identifiable and separable value, particularly for negotiating the price and for the acquirer's future purchase price allocation. Valuing it as a single block with the business's goodwill deprives both parties of a clear negotiating basis.

Q8: Who pays for the brand valuation in a transaction?

In practice, each party can commission its own valuation, but a joint report presented to both the seller and the acquirer, as in the case described above, reduces the number of engagements and therefore the total cost borne by both parties.

Q9: Can the fees for a brand valuation be negotiated?

The scope is more negotiable than the rate itself: grouping several brands into a single engagement, clarifying the report's purpose from the outset, and giving the firm a reasonable timeline are the levers that genuinely reduce the bill, more effective than simply negotiating the daily rate.

Q10: When should a brand valuation be launched in a sale or transmission project?

Ideally several months before the targeted closing, as soon as the sale or transmission project is underway. A late start forces an accelerated, more expensive engagement, and leaves less time to properly document the royalty rate adopted.

Estimate the value of your business with Acontos, Hectelion's online simulator

To take this further with a concrete figure, Hectelion provides Acontos, its online audit, due diligence and business valuation tool. Powered by Anthropic's Claude Sonnet 5 artificial intelligence and calibrated on Hectelion's own methodology, it reads your accounts, normalizes EBITDA, applies real sector multiples and rebuilds a net-debt bridge to estimate the value of your shares within minutes.

Launch the valuation simulator for free: the tool is confidential, retains no document and does not replace a formal valuation, but it gives a reliable first order of magnitude before discussing it with our team.

Conclusion: a price that reflects the defensibility sought, not the size of the company

The price of a brand valuation in 2026 depends above all on the level of defensibility sought and the number of brands to be valued, far more than on the size of the company that owns them: between EUR 6,000 and 35,000, or between CHF 8,000 and 40,000, for a single brand, and from EUR 35,000 or CHF 40,000 for a portfolio or an intra-group transfer pricing file.

A business owner preparing a sale, a transmission or a contribution benefits from scoping this budget early, clearly separating the brand from goodwill, and choosing a firm able to document a royalty rate defensible before an auditor or a tax administration.

This same methodological rigor is then found in the related engagements of purchase price allocation and the overall business valuation report, of which the brand is often only one component.

Article summary

A brand valuation costs between EUR 6,000 and 35,000 in France, between CHF 8,000 and 40,000 in Switzerland for a single brand, and from EUR 35,000 or CHF 40,000 for a portfolio of brands or an intra-group transfer pricing file, based on Hectelion's 2026 practice.

The determining factor remains the level of defensibility sought: a single-method indicative estimate costs less and wraps up faster than a multi-method defensible report intended for a transaction, a transmission or a dispute. Registering a brand with the INPI or the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property legally protects the title, it provides no quantified value, a confusion that ranks among the costliest mistakes observed in the market.

The relief-from-royalty method remains the reference, supplemented by a consistency test using the excess earnings method when the stakes justify it, as illustrated by the priced cases above. To go further on brand valuation methods, the publication brand valuation: approaches, methods and evaluations details the full methodological framework.

Sources

• EXPERTsuisse, professional standards for audit and valuation in Switzerland
• IFRS Foundation, IAS 38 Intangible Assets
• INPI, key steps of a brand registration
• IVSC, International Valuation Standards
• OECD, BEPS project and DEMPE analysis
• WIPO, Madrid System for the international registration of marks

Author

Aristide Ruot, Ph.D.
Founder | CEO, Hectelion SA