15 Best Offshore Structures for Holding Global Trademarks

Global brands rarely live in one country. Your customers, partners, and distributors are spread across borders, and your trademarks should be protected and monetized the same way—centrally, cleanly, and with a structure that supports growth. Over the last 15 years, I’ve helped founders, family offices, and scale-ups move their marks into well-run offshore holding entities, then license them back to operating companies worldwide. The difference between a sharp structure and a sloppy one shows up in two places: fewer tax leaks from withholding, and far less friction when you sell, raise, or fight a copycat.

Why hold trademarks offshore?

Central control and enforcement: Having a single owner for global marks simplifies prosecution, licensing, watch services, and enforcement budgets.

Clean exits: Buyers pay more for assets they can diligence quickly. A tidy IP HoldCo without operating liabilities or historic payroll makes deals easier.

Withholding tax efficiency: Royalty flows often suffer withholding taxes. A treaty-favored holding jurisdiction can reduce or eliminate these.

Asset protection: Separated IP is harder for creditors to reach and easier to refinance or securitize.

Scalable licensing: A central licensor (or regional hubs) can run standardized agreements and price lists across multiple markets.

Common trap: Copying online “IP box” headlines for trademarks. After the OECD’s modified nexus rules, most patent box regimes exclude trademarks and brand IP. For trademarks, you’re planning for treaty relief, substance, and operational control—not “IP box” rates.

What matters most when choosing a jurisdiction

Treaty network coverage for royalties: Your licensees’ countries must reduce withholding taxes under treaty. This is the single biggest cash leak to plug.

Corporate tax rate and incentives: Prefer moderate rates with incentives and rulings that treat brand management as an active business.

Economic substance: Post-BEPS, box-ticking is over—expect to show real DEMPE functions (Development, Enhancement, Maintenance, Protection, Exploitation), especially management and brand strategy.

Legal infrastructure: Specialist courts, predictable case law, and fast company administration help when you need to act.

Banking and payments: Receiving royalties from emerging markets and paying enforcement vendors requires banks comfortable with IP businesses.

Reputational profile: If you sell to enterprises or plan a listing, choose a jurisdiction a Big Four or IPO counsel won’t question.

Below are the structures I’ve repeatedly seen work in practice. Choose based on your licensee footprint and where your brand management team can sit.

1) Netherlands BV (trademark licensing hub)

Best for: Global licensing with heavy Europe/Latin America exposure and complex treaty reductions.

Why it works: The Netherlands has a dense treaty network, no regular domestic withholding tax on outbound royalties (but a conditional WHT applies to low-tax/blacklisted payees), sophisticated ruling culture, and advisors who live and breathe DEMPE.

Headline tax points: Corporate income tax 19% up to a threshold and 25.8% above. No local WHT on royalties except conditional WHT to low-tax jurisdictions. Strong treaty reductions from many source countries.

Practical notes: To avoid 25% “non-trading” characterizations, organize the licensor as an active business with staff or a management agreement in the Netherlands handling brand strategy, approvals, and policing.

Common mistake: Parking the BV with no substance while routing royalties from high-WHT countries—this gets challenged, and banks will ask awkward questions.

2) Luxembourg Sàrl (treaty powerhouse with predictability)

Best for: Groups expecting financing, securitization, or exit to large buyers; brand-heavy consumer businesses.

Why it works: Luxembourg pairs legal predictability with a deep advisor ecosystem. No domestic WHT on outbound royalties. Strong track record for financing and IP securitization.

Headline tax points: Effective combined CIT around 24–25% depending on commune. IP boxes exclude trademarks; plan for standard taxation with possible expense deductions and rulings.

Practical notes: Ensure management is in Luxembourg (board meetings, documentation, budgets). Use a local director with brand/marketing experience, not just a trust officer.

Common mistake: Overpromising “IP box for trademarks” (doesn’t apply). Model your after-tax flows assuming standard rates.

3) Ireland Limited/DAC (commercial substance with English law proximity)

Best for: Tech and SaaS brands, especially with US/EU operations and real marketing headcount in Dublin.

Why it works: 12.5% trading rate if you run the licensor as an active trade (brand management, approvals, enforcement). English-language legal system; solid treaty network.

Headline tax points: 12.5% on trading income; 25% on passive. WHT on outbound royalties generally 20% but exempt in many cases for payments to EU/treaty residents or with appropriate structuring.

Practical notes: Structure operations to meet “trading” tests (policies, brand calendars, marketing oversight). Revenue is experienced with DEMPE—substance matters.

Common mistake: Letting the trademark sit idle in an Irish HoldCo with no operations; you’ll land at 25% and face higher scrutiny on treaty benefits.

4) Switzerland AG (Zug/Zurich/Geneva) with ruling support

Best for: Premium brands needing reputation, multilingual staff, and possibly an M&A exit to European strategics.

Why it works: Post-reform, many cantons offer effective CIT in the 12–15% range with the right profile. No WHT on outbound royalties; formidable treaty network.

Headline tax points: Cantonal and federal taxes combine to low-mid teens in key cantons. IP boxes generally exclude trademarks; count on standard taxation with negotiated rulings on functions and margins.

Practical notes: Build a real brand function in Switzerland—brand managers, legal counsel, and enforcement budgets. Swiss banks are comfortable with IP flows from diverse markets.

Common mistake: Using a mail-drop AG. Swiss authorities expect substance or they’ll deny treaty access.

5) Singapore Pte. Ltd. (Asia headquarters with incentives)

Best for: Asia-Pacific licensing (China, ASEAN, India) and global brands needing strong banking.

Why it works: Robust legal system, efficient administration, and targeted incentives. Treaties across Asia can materially reduce royalty WHT.

Headline tax points: 17% headline rate; incentives (Pioneer, Development & Expansion) can reduce effective rates to 5–10% for qualifying activities. Outbound WHT on royalties is 10% by default but often reduced under treaty when Singapore is the payer; inbound is taxed as business income.

Practical notes: Anchor regional brand management in Singapore—agency approvals, creative brief sign-offs, and counterfeiting actions. Budget for local staff and ESR documentation.

Common mistake: Assuming automatic incentives. Incentives require applications and commitments (headcount, spend, activity milestones).

6) United Arab Emirates Free Zone Company (ADGM/DIFC/RAK ICC)

Best for: MENA licensing, no WHT on outbound payments, and access to a broad bank and advisor base.

Why it works: 0% WHT, business-friendly environment, and growing treaty network. Practical for brands selling into the Gulf and wider MENA.

Headline tax points: Standard corporate tax 9%. Free zones offer 0% on qualifying income, but income from ownership/exploitation of IP assets is excluded—royalties usually taxed at 9% even in free zones. No WHT on outbound royalties.

Practical notes: Choose a reputable free zone (ADGM/DIFC for common law courts). Meet ESR—IP activities are high-substance. Use UAE to collect royalties with minimal friction from regional licensees.

Common mistake: Assuming free zone = 0% on royalty income. Budget for 9% unless you can clearly ring-fence qualifying activities.

7) Cyprus Ltd (EU member with pragmatic administration)

Best for: Eastern Europe, Middle East, and parts of Africa where treaty coverage matters and costs must stay moderate.

Why it works: 12.5% CIT, no WHT on outbound royalties for rights used outside Cyprus, straightforward compliance, and deep bench of administrators.

Headline tax points: 12.5% rate; Notional Interest Deduction (NID) can lower effective taxation. Royalty WHT applies only when the IP is used in Cyprus. Treaties reduce inbound WHT from many markets.

Practical notes: Keep board control and some brand function in Cyprus (approval workflows, legal signoff). Consider a secondary office for marketing if key executives won’t relocate.

Common mistake: Neglecting DEMPE—Cyprus expects board-level control and business substance for treaty access.

8) Malta Ltd (refund system for active licensing)

Best for: EU-focused brands that want an EU company but effective rates closer to single digits via shareholder refunds.

Why it works: While Malta’s statutory CIT is 35%, shareholders often receive a 6/7 refund on active foreign-source income, bringing the effective rate near 5–10%. No WHT on outbound royalties.

Headline tax points: 35% CIT with refund mechanism post-distribution. IP box excludes trademarks. Strong legal ecosystem.

Practical notes: The refund system requires cash distributions and careful shareholder structuring. Banking approval may take longer; line up KYC early.

Common mistake: Mis-timing distributions—model cash taxes vs. refunds to avoid liquidity surprises.

9) Hong Kong Ltd (gateway for Greater China)

Best for: Brands earning substantial China royalties or running Asia licensing deals with Chinese manufacturers/distributors.

Why it works: Territorial system and robust banking. The Hong Kong–China treaty can reduce Chinese WHT on royalties (often to 7%).

Headline tax points: Hong Kong taxes Hong Kong–sourced royalties, often via a deemed profit basis (commonly 30% of the gross royalty deemed taxable, taxed at 16.5%, yielding ~4.95% effective), with higher rates when IP was previously held by a Hong Kong associate. No WHT on outbound royalties from Hong Kong; inbound WHT from China depends on the treaty and “beneficial owner” tests.

Practical notes: Demonstrate beneficial ownership and substance in Hong Kong to access China treaty benefits—board control, office, local management.

Common mistake: Assuming “no tax” because Hong Kong is territorial. Royalty characterization and “use in Hong Kong” rules are nuanced; get a memo before signing.

10) United Kingdom Ltd (treaty access with a blue-chip reputation)

Best for: Enterprise-facing brands, regulated industries, and transactions with conservative counterparties.

Why it works: Best-in-class legal system, deep IP expertise, and a strong treaty network. Predictable for M&A and financing.

Headline tax points: 25% main rate; outbound royalties face 20% WHT unless reduced by treaty or domestic exemptions. The UK has an anti-avoidance regime (Offshore Receipts in respect of Intangible Property, up to 45%) aimed at low-tax structures exploiting UK sales.

Practical notes: If licensing into the UK market, map ORIP risk. Often you combine a UK IP management company with an EEA licensing hub to balance WHT and rate.

Common mistake: Overlooking UK WHT and ORIP when receiving royalties linked to UK sales via an offshore owner.

11) Hungary Kft (EU low-rate outlier)

Best for: Cost-sensitive EU structures needing zero WHT on outbound royalties and a 9% corporate tax rate.

Why it works: Europe’s lowest headline CIT at 9%, no WHT on outbound royalties, and broad treaty coverage.

Headline tax points: 9% CIT. IP regimes changed to align with nexus (trademarks excluded). Local business tax may apply depending on municipality.

Practical notes: Establish operational substance—Hungary expects more than a registered office; put brand oversight or legal support on the ground.

Common mistake: Treating Hungary purely as a conduit. Substance and beneficial ownership assessments are real.

12) Barbados SRL (low-rate, respectable treaty network)

Best for: Americas-focused brands that need treaty coverage for Latin America and Canada with moderate rates.

Why it works: Corporate tax ranges roughly 1–5.5% depending on income bands, pragmatic regulators, and improving treaties (Canada, Mexico, Panama, others).

Headline tax points: Low CIT; no WHT on outbound royalties. Economic substance requirements apply; IP often considered high-risk activity.

Practical notes: Position brand strategy functions or compliance in Barbados. Pair with a regional services company in Canada or the US for marketing execution.

Common mistake: Assuming every LATAM treaty reduces royalty WHT. Brazil and others maintain high WHT regardless; you may need local structures.

13) Mauritius GBC (Africa and India corridor)

Best for: African growth brands and India-adjacent structures where Mauritius’ treaties help, plus a controlled compliance cost base.

Why it works: Solid legal framework, reliable regulators, and a track record with Africa/India investments.

Headline tax points: 15% CIT. Partial exemptions exist for certain foreign-source income categories, but there’s no special IP box for trademarks. Substance tests apply.

Practical notes: Ensure board control in Mauritius; hold real meetings; document brand oversight. Combine with local enforcement partners across Africa.

Common mistake: Assuming royalties qualify for the 80% partial exemption; plan for standard taxation unless you have a tailored ruling.

14) Liechtenstein Foundation or Establishment (asset protection focus)

Best for: Family-owned brands valuing asset protection and long-term stewardship, often with an operating affiliate in Switzerland or Austria.

Why it works: Strong asset protection laws, stable legal system, and the ability to separate ownership (foundation) from operational control (service company).

Headline tax points: Around 12.5% CIT; no special trademark regime. Treaty network is limited; often paired with a Swiss or EU licensing company for treaty benefits.

Practical notes: Use the foundation as the owner of the trademarks and a Swiss/EU OpCo as licensee/sub-licensor. Clear governance rules are essential.

Common mistake: Expecting treaty benefits directly via the foundation; you’ll likely need a separate licensing company.

15) Cayman Islands Company or STAR Trust (pure holding with careful substance)

Best for: Asset protection and financing when licensees agree to pay grossed-up royalties despite WHT leakage, or where royalty source countries have no/low WHT.

Why it works: Zero corporate tax, modern trust law (STAR trust) for holding IP, and efficient administration.

Headline tax points: Zero local tax, but almost no treaty relief. Economic Substance rules classify IP holding as high-risk—expect to prove significant on-island decision-making or use outsourced service providers carefully.

Practical notes: Cayman is rarely the income-collecting licensor for trademarks; it’s better as the ultimate owner with a treaty-favored sub-licensor (Netherlands/Singapore/etc.) collecting royalties.

Common mistake: Placing the licensor in Cayman and expecting WHT to vanish. Withholding is driven by the payer’s country and treaties you don’t have.

How the licensing models actually work

Think of structure first, then flows.

Single IP HoldCo, direct licensing: One company owns the marks and licenses directly to operating companies worldwide. Clean, but treaty management is heavier and some countries prefer local registrants for enforcement.

IP HoldCo with regional sub-licensors: The owner licenses to hubs (e.g., Netherlands for EMEA, Singapore for APAC), which then sub-license locally. Better treaty outcomes and operational control near the market.

Trust/Foundation owner + corporate licensor: A trust or foundation owns the marks for asset protection. A treaty-favored operating company manages licensing and receives royalties.

Securitization SPV: For mature brands with predictable royalties, an SPV issues notes secured by licensing income. The licensor collects royalties and downstreams them under covenants.

Example setup that works well for consumer brands:

Owner: Liechtenstein foundation (or Luxembourg holding).

EMEA Licensor: Netherlands BV runs brand approvals for Europe/Africa; employs brand managers and legal counsel.

APAC Licensor: Singapore Pte. Ltd. manages Asian approvals and enforcement.

OpCos: Local distributors license from the regional licensors, not the ultimate owner.

Royalty rates and what tax authorities expect

Trademark royalty rates vary widely:

Typical ranges: 1–10% of net sales, with 5–7% common for consumer brands. Luxury brand licenses can exceed 10% when coupled with strict brand control and marketing support.

Benchmarking: Use databases (RoyaltyStat, ktMINE) and comparable license agreements. Authorities will ask for comparables supporting your rate.

DEMPE alignment: If the licensor does real brand work—global campaigns, approvals, enforcement—higher margins are defensible. If the licensee does heavy local brand building, expect pressure for a lower rate and higher local profits.

Practical tip: Lock in an advance pricing agreement (APA) if you have significant flows into scrutiny-heavy countries (India, Italy, Spain). It’s slow but worth the certainty.

Withholding taxes: where cash disappears

You reduce royalty WHT via treaties and beneficial ownership. Typical headline WHT rates without treaty relief:

Brazil: 15% WHT on royalties plus a 10% CIDE levy for technology services; complex deductibility rules.

Mexico: 25% gross WHT (reduced to 5–10% under treaties).

Indonesia: 15% WHT (treaty reductions common).

India: 10% on royalties under domestic law, often reduced by treaty to 10% anyway.

Many EU countries: 0–10% if treaty-qualified, with documentation.

Key tactic: Map your top five royalty source countries, list their domestic WHT on royalties, then run treaty reductions for your short-listed jurisdictions. Eliminate structures that don’t win on your top sources.

Substance and DEMPE: the heart of defensibility

Post-BEPS, “letterbox” licensors are audit magnets. Build real functions:

Development: Not usually trademarks, but include brand guidelines and packaging design oversight.

Enhancement and Maintenance: Global campaign direction, agency selection, and marketing budget approvals.

Protection: Prosecution strategy, oppositions, takedowns, customs recordals, and litigation decisions.

Exploitation: Pricing matrices, approval of new channels (marketplaces, D2C), and QA approvals.

Minimum viable substance for a licensor:

Senior decision-maker in the jurisdiction (brand or legal director).

Documented approval workflows and brand calendars.

Annual budget and enforcement plan signed off locally.

Contracts negotiated and signed in the licensor’s country.

Real spend: agencies, legal filings, watch services, investigators.

Step-by-step: moving your trademarks into an offshore licensor

1) Audit your IP and contracts

List all registrations, pending applications, and who currently owns them.

Identify distributor contracts with assignment/licensing limits or consent needs.

2) Select jurisdiction and structure

Score each candidate against your top royalty source countries, banking needs, and staffing plan.

Model post-WHT cash flow and local CIT. Don’t forget compliance costs.

3) Incorporate and build substance

Appoint directors with relevant experience.

Lease a genuine office or serviced suite; set up payroll for core roles.

Open bank accounts early—IP businesses face enhanced KYC.

4) Assign trademarks

Execute assignment agreements from current owner to the licensor.

Record assignments with WIPO (Madrid) and national offices. Delays here cause pain; prioritize core markets.

5) Draft intercompany licensing

Use arm’s-length terms, clear territory/product scopes, quality control clauses, and audit rights.

Set royalty base (net sales definition) and rate with benchmarking support.

6) Register licenses if useful

Some countries require or reward license registration for enforceability or tax deduction (e.g., Brazil, parts of LATAM/Asia).

7) Set up compliance infrastructure

Transfer pricing documentation and, where material, consider an APA.

Economic substance filings, local accounts, and statutory audits.

8) Train the business

Teach operating teams the approval workflow and brand calendar.

Set escalation paths for infringements and counterfeit actions.

9) Monitor and optimize

Quarterly check WHT leakages.

Adjust structures as treaties or local laws change.

Timing: A well-managed migration takes 12–20 weeks from incorporation to first royalty receipt, longer if you must record assignments in multiple jurisdictions with backlogs.

Costs to budget

Incorporation and first-year administration: 7,500–35,000 USD depending on jurisdiction.

Legal transfers and registrations: 1,500–3,500 USD per jurisdiction per assignment, more if translations or legalizations are needed.

Transfer pricing and benchmarking: 10,000–50,000 USD, more for APAs.

Substance (staff, office, advisors): 120,000–500,000 USD annually for a serious licensor.

Enforcement budget: start at 25,000–100,000 USD per year for monitoring and basic actions.

Common mistakes I still see

Chasing “IP boxes” for trademarks. Most compliant regimes exclude trademarks; plan for standard rates and treaty routing.

Zero-substance shells. You will lose treaty benefits and potentially face denial of deductions at source.

Ignoring local license registration rules. In some countries, unregistered licenses aren’t enforceable against infringers or aren’t deductible for tax.

Poor royalty definitions. Sloppy “net sales” definitions lead to disputes and audit adjustments.

Forgetting US/UK anti-avoidance. US ORIP-like rules and UK ORIP can tax offshore receipts linked to local sales. Map exposure early.

Banking last. Without a willing bank, your licensor is a shell with invoices no one can pay.

Quick picks by scenario

Heavy Europe + Latin America sales: Netherlands BV or Luxembourg Sàrl.

Asia-first brand with China exposure: Singapore Pte. Ltd. or Hong Kong Ltd (with genuine substance to pass Chinese beneficial ownership tests).

Middle East distribution and Africa rollout: UAE Free Zone company (accept 9% on royalties) or Cyprus Ltd.

Cost-focused EU hold with low rate: Hungary Kft with real operations.

Asset protection with institutional credibility: Liechtenstein foundation + Swiss licensor.

Americas with moderate tax and good optics: Barbados SRL or Ireland Ltd if you can staff Dublin.

Practical example: a consumer electronics scale-up

The company sells in 40+ countries, with 60% of revenue in EMEA, 25% APAC, 15% Americas.

Structure chosen: Netherlands BV as EMEA licensor; Singapore Pte. Ltd. for APAC; parent in Luxembourg holding equity.

Steps taken:

Assigned marks from the US parent to Luxembourg, then down to NL and SG via exclusive licenses.

Hired an EMEA brand director in Amsterdam and APAC brand manager in Singapore; engaged watch services and anti-counterfeit counsel regionally.

Benchmarked royalty at 5.5% of net sales; APAs filed in India and Italy.

Result after 18 months:

Average WHT on royalties reduced from 9.8% to 3.2%.

Faster takedowns due to centralized budget and playbooks.

Clean diligence in Series D, with buyer counsel praising the clarity of IP ownership and license flows.

Final takeaways

Start with the source of royalties. The right licensor jurisdiction is the one that wins your biggest WHT battles and can host real brand management.

Trademarks aren’t patents. Forget the marketing around “IP boxes” and focus on treaties, substance, and control.

Build DEMPE where the licensor sits. Staff, budgets, and sign-offs matter more than ever.

Keep it flexible. Use regional sub-licensors to match treaty benefits with market realities.

Document everything. Assignments recorded, licenses benchmarked, approvals logged—these are your audit survival kit.

Pick one of the 15 structures that aligns with your footprint and appetite for substance, then execute with discipline. A well-constructed trademark holding and licensing platform doesn’t just save tax; it makes your brand stronger, your operations simpler, and your company more valuable.