On April 28, 2016, the Chamber of Representatives informed that it passed a bill that will amend the Mexican Industrial Property Law and insert an opposition system for trademark applications. The bill was approved by the Senate a few months ago, so all it takes is the publication by the President, which should happen soon. The amendment will be effective 90 calendar days after the publication in the Official Journal of the Federation.

(Update June 7, 2016: The amendments to the Industrial Property Law that introduced the opposition to trademark applications were published in the Official Journal of the Federation on June 1, 2016. The amendments and the opposition system will become effective on August 30, 2016)

The lack of an opposition system did not mean that trademark applications were not examined. The Mexican Patent and Trademark Office (MPTO) conducted the substantive examination ex-officio. If the examiner found obstacles, such as lack if distinctiveness, an identical or confusingly similar earlier registered or applied trademark covering the same or similar goods or services, or a well-known non-registered trademark, he issued an office action and allowed the applicant to answer and argue against the alleged lack of distinctiveness or similarities.

Further, if a third party believed that the approval of the trademark application could harm its rights, it could file an informal opposition. The informal opposition was a more or less short brief, calling the examiner’s attention to the existence of certain rights that could be harmed or infringed if the trademark application was approved. If the informal opposition was filed early in the examination proceeding, it had a good chance of being considered by the examiner and even cause the abandonment or final refusal of the opposed application.

The informal opposition was particularly effective to inform the examiner about the existence of a trademark application with a priority claim that predated the filing date of the examined application. It was not so effective when the ground of the opposition was earlier use in Mexico or abroad of an identical or confusingly similar trademark. If the MPTO approved an application for a trademark that was confusingly similar to another trademark used by a third party in Mexico or abroad to distinguish the same or similar goods or services, such third party could file an invalidation action, provided that it could prove that the use was earlier and continuous.

There has been an actual formal opposition (that has never been called like that) that takes place when a trademark application is subject of a final refusal because of the existence of an earlier registered or applied trademark in Mexico and the applicant files an appeal with the Federal Court of Tax and Administrative Affairs (FCTAA). In those cases, the court would serve a copy of the appeal to the owner of the anticipation, allowing it oppose the appeal by defending the legality of the final refusal, and even filing a final appeal (amparo) if the FCTAA’s decision were against the MPTO (see my earlier post Oppositions to trademark applications in Mexico).

Under the new opposition system, trademark applications will be published within ten business days after the filing date, regardless if formal requirements were meet. Third parties would have a one-month term to file an opposition.

The possible grounds for opposition will be broad, but limited to the substantive causes of non-registrability provided in sections 4 and 90 of the Mexican Industrial Property Law. For example, possible grounds of opposition would be descriptiveness of the trademark, illegal reproduction of the name or pseudonymous of an actual person, or the existence of an earlier identical or confusingly similar trademark registration or application in Mexico to identify the same or similar services.

On the other hand, earlier and continuous use (in Mexico or abroad) of an identical or confusingly similar trademark registration or application in Mexico to identify the same or similar services may not provide grounds for an opposition. Bad faith of the applicant because it was the licensee, representative, distributor or agent of a foreign trademark owner may not be a valid cause of opposition either. In these cases, the only available remedy has been and would be an invalidation action against the Mexican trademark registration.

There will be a government fee for opposing a trademark application. I do not know how much it will cost, but the reason behind the government fee is discouraging frivolous oppositions, thus I would expect it to be around US$150.00.

Oppositions would be published, and the applicant will have one month to answer the opposition and file arguments and evidence to support the application.

The Mexican opposition system intends to be simple and avoid becoming a burdensome time-consuming proceeding, as it happens in some South American countries. The opposition will be more a source of information for the examiner than a contentious proceeding (somehow similar to the ‘Letter of Protest’ in the United States) .

After the MPTO decides issuing the trademark registration or the final refusal of the application, the opposing party will receive a written communication informing about the success of the opposition or the approval of the trademark application. If the opposition were not successful, the opposing part may file an invalidation action.

Would the new opposition system significantly change the state of things in Mexico? I don’t think so.

In my opinion, the new opposition system provides rules and terms to an existing practice, without actually changing it. Trademark applications will continue being examined in the same way they used to. Further, the opposition and the result would not prejudice about third party’s rights or the intrinsic legality of the trademark registration, and the causes of invalidation will be available regardless if there was as opposition.

The lawmakers that supported the bill stated that the adoption of the Madrid Protocol encouraged the creation of the opposition system (I do not see the connection). According to the lawmakers, the opposition will help to reduce the number of invalidation actions, improve the quality of trademark examinations and provide right-holders –especially owners of earlier Mexican trademark registrations and applications- with a very cost-effective tool to protect their rights.

La entrada Mexican Congress approves trademark opposition system. se publicó primero en Reyes Fenig.

The Industrial Property Statute provides that trademark applications may include goods or services of one Class only, and that the goods and services described in the application should be specific. Mexico currently uses the 10th edition of the Nice Classification, and if there were doubts, the MPTO has broad authority to construe the Classification.

Today, examiners review and approve the goods or services listed in a trademark application simultaneously with the formal examination of the application, but always before the substantive examination. The substantive examination of a trademark application can’t start unless the examiner is satisfied with the description of goods or services, namely that the description is clear enough and that it does not list products or activities of more than one Class.

The purpose of the Guidelines is provide certainty to trademark applicant about how the description of goods and services is to be examined and construed. However, no matter what the intentions may be, changing the rules usually originates new questions and concerns.

This article will be focused on a very common practice in Mexico and other countries of copying the header of the International Classes as list of goods and services, and what will be the scope of coverage of trademark applications filed using those headers according to the Guidelines.

According to the Guidelines, the Class Headers now shall be construed in a restrictive way, and if the applicant uses them in the goods or services description, only the products and services expressly stated in the list shall be covered by the application.

The Mexican statute allowed full class coverage until the enactment of the 1991 Industrial Property Law. However, in spite that the new law did not allow claiming full-class coverage in trademark applications, as a matter of fact this kind of protection survived in practice by means of using the Headers of the International Classes.

The MPTO and many practitioners construed the Class Headers in a very extensive way. According to this construction, when the goods or services description reproduced the Header of the Class, the trademark application and resulting registration provided coverage for all the products and services included in the Class, including those goods and activities that were not implicitly described in the header through a genre.

An example would be the tacos. Tacos are classified in Class 30. The Class 30 header currently reads as follows: Coffee, tea, cocoa and artificial coffee; rice; tapioca and sago; flour and preparations made from cereals; bread, pastry and confectionery; ices; sugar, honey, treacle; yeast, baking-powder; salt; mustard; vinegar, sauces (condiments); spices; ice.

In my opinion, none of the goods and genres stated in the Class 30 Header include tacos. Nevertheless, an extensive construction of the Header lead the MPTO to consider that tacos were included the Class Header, so a trademark application or registration reproducing the Header of the Class 30 covered tacos. Today, with a restrictive construction according to the Guidelines, the MPTO will have to decide that a trademark application or registration with the Header of the Class 30 as list of goods does not comprise tacos in its coverage.

Therefore, this seems to be the actual death of the full-class coverage in Mexico.

One point of concern is, or should be, if the Guidelines will be applicable retroactively, not only to trademark applications filed before the Guidelines became enforceable, but to construe the coverage of trademark registrations issued before October 4, 2012.

Against the retroactive construction of the Classification as provided the Guidelines regarding trademarks and slogans registered before October 4, 2012, the Guidelines only make reference to trademark applications. The Guildelines explicitly state that their purpose is providing applicant with certainty about the examination of trademark applications, so it is clear that the MPTO’s intention to limit the Guidelines to trademark applications only.

In favor of the retroactive construction of the Classification as provided the Guidelines regarding trademarks and slogans registered before October 4, 2012, the Guidelines do not limit the list of products or services of trademark registrations and applications and do not generate new obligations for trademark owners. Actually, the bottom line question would be if the owner of a trademark registration has a right to a specific construction of the description of goods and services of a trademark application.

In the past, the Supreme Court ruled that the construction of laws and rules do not create new rules and law, thus using the Guidelines to construe the scope of protection provided in trademark applications and registrations filed or registered before October 4, 2012 would not be against the principle of no-retroactivity of the law (On the other hand, the new Amparo Law states that the precedents shall not be applicable in a retroactive way, thus it seems that there could be a right to a specific construction after all.).

Further, it would not be reasonable having two different simultaneous constructions of identical lists of goods or services that reproduce the same Class Header based on the date of registration.

The importance of the possible retroactivity of the Guidelines goes far beyond the academic interest. There are huge practical implications related to this issue: the use of registered trademarks and their consequences in connection to renewals and cancellation actions due lack of use of the registered trademark and invalidation of trademark registrations due false information about the date of first use of the trademark. We may also expect some impact regarding trademark infringement, anticipations and invalidation actions due earlier registration of an identical or similar trademark or because of earlier use.

La entrada What the New Guidelines to Construe the Classification of Goods and Services Mean for Trademark Owners and Applicants se publicó primero en Reyes Fenig.

a. The ad hoc procedure provided in section 98 Bis-1 of the Industrial Property Law, as amended in 2005. This procedure is available only for trademarks already registered in Mexico for the goods or services associated to the reputation of the mark.

b. Through an explicit acknowledgement of the Mexican Patent and Trademark Office (MPTO) when deciding the final rejection of a trademark application on the grounds that the applied trademark is identical or confusingly similar to well-known or famous trademark, in opinion of the examiner.

c. When the MPTO decides an infringement or invalidation action where the invalidation or infringement decision was a consequence that the plaintiff’s trademark registration was acknowledged as well-know or famous in Mexico.

In other earlier posts I explained some of the ups and downs of the current system to protect well-known and famous marks in Mexico, with a special focus on the ad hoc system provided in section 98 Bis 1 of the Industrial Property Law.

The following is a list updated to January 31, 2013 of the trademarks acknowledged as well-known and famous in Mexico through the ad hoc procedure stipulated in section 98 Bis 1 of the Industrial Property Law.

I MUST INSIST THAT THIS IS NOT A LIMITATIVE LIST. There are trademarks that have also been declared as well-known (and probably famous too) in Mexico that do not appear in the list because the acknowledgement was not the result of the ad hoc procedure, but of an invalidation or infringement action, so there was not special publication about this circumstance in the Official Gazette.

Any person interested in reviewing the decisions issued by the MPTO acknowledging a trademark by means of the ad hoc procedure and get detailed information may obtain them from the Official Gazette, Section of Protection of the Intellectual Property, downloadable from the SIGA database of the MPTO.

The first trademark acknowledged as well-known through the ad hoc procedure was “ANDREA”. That acknowledgement will expire on 2013. It will be interesting knowing if the owner of the trademark “ANDREA” will be interested in keeping the acknowledgment by filing a renew or “update”, in which the owner would have to demonstrate that the conditions that allowed the acknowledgement of the trademark as well-known continue.

FAMOUS TRADEMARKS (Ad hoc procedure until January 31, 2013)

Trademark: “CINEPOLIS”
Date of decision: November 20, 2009
Decision No.: 25663
Official Gazette issue: December 2009

Trademark: “RED BULL”
Date of decision: February 19, 2010
Decision No.: 3248
Official Gazette issue: April 2010

Trademark: “GANSITO”
Date of decision: March 12, 2010
Decision No.: 5224
Official Gazette issue: March, 2010

Trademark: “MARINELA”
Date of decision: March 12, 2010
Decision No.: 5223
Official Gazette issue: March, 2010

Trademark: “BIMBO”
Date of decision: April 23, 2010
Decision No.: 8830
Official Gazette issue: April, 2010

Trademark: “INTEL”
Date of decision: August 23, 2010
Decision No.: 19407
Official Gazette issue: August, 2010

Trademark: “HARMON HALL” & Design
Date of decision: September 3, 2010
Decision No.: 20422
Official Gazette issue: September, 2010

Trademark: “BMW” & Design
Date of decision: September 14, 2010
Decision No.: 21484
Official Gazette issue: September, 2010

Trademark: “JOSE CUERVO”
Date of decision: September 10, 2010
Decision No.: 21086
Official Gazette issue: September, 2010

Trademark: “MICROSOFT”
Date of decision: November 10, 2010
Decision No.: 26121
Official Gazette issue: November, 2010

Trademark: “FLEXI” & Design
Date of decision: December 7, 2010
Decision No.: 28262
Official Gazette issue: December, 2010

Trademark: “PEPSI”
Date of decision: March 29, 2011
Decision No.: 7154
Official Gazette issue: March, 2011

Trademark: “BARDAHL”
Date of decision: April 15, 2011
Decision No.: 9079
Official Gazette issue: April, 2011

Trademark: “PEMEX”
Date of decision: May 27, 2011
Decision No.: 12540
Official Gazette issue: May, 2011

Trademark: DRAWING (REDBULL bull drawing)
Date of decision: February 28, 2012
Decision No.: 5075
Official Gazette issue: February, 2012

Trademark: “TAKIS”
Date of decision: March 16, 2010
Decision No.: 7297
Official Gazette issue: March, 2012

Trademark: “YAHOO”
Date of decision: May 31, 2012
Decision No.: 14927
Official Gazette issue: May, 2012

Trademark: “COHIBA”
Date of decision: July 20, 2011
Decision No.: 20218
Official Gazette issue: July, 2012

Trademark: “TELEVISA”
Date of decision: August 31, 2012
Decision No.: 26648
Official Gazette issue: August, 2012

Trademark: “SOY TOTALMENTE”
Date of decision: September 28, 2012
Decision No.: 27900
Official Gazette issue: September, 2012

Trademark: “EL PALACIO DE HIERRO” & Design
Date of decision: September 28, 2012
Decision No.: 27901
Official Gazette issue: September, 2012

Trademark: “GANDHI”
Date of decision: October 31, 2012
Decision No.: 31277
Official Gazette issue: October, 2012

Trademark: DRAWING (BATMAN bat drawing)
Date of decision: November 30, 2012
Decision No.: 34417
Official Gazette issue: November, 2012

Trademark: “BATMAN”
Date of decision: November 30, 2012
Decision No.: 34418
Official Gazette issue: November, 2012

Trademark: “SUPERMAN” & Design
Date of decision: December 19, 2012
Decision No.: 37122
Official Gazette issue: December, 2012

Trademark “S” & Design (SUPERMAN S drawing)
Date of decision: 31 de January de 2013
Decision No.: 2665
Official Gazette issue: January 2013

WELL-KNOWN TRADEMARKS (Ad hoc procedure until January 31, 2013)

Trademark: “ANDREA”
Date of decision: November 4, 2008
Decision No.: 22721
Official Gazette issue: May, 2009

Trademark: “PRITT”
Date of decision: June 30, 2010
Decision No.: 14716
Official Gazette issue: June, 2010

Trademark: “BARCEL”
Date of decision: March 22, 2010
Decision No.: 5786
Official Gazette issue: March, 2010

Trademark: “RICOLINO”
Date of decision: April 5, 2010
Decision No.: 6972
Official Gazette issue: April, 2010

Trademark: “RESISTOL”
Date of decision: September 28, 2010
Decision No.: 22372
Official Gazette issue: September, 2010

Trademark: “LAS MOMIAS DE GUANAJUATO”
Date of decision: December, 2010
Decision No.: 28263
Official Gazette issue: December, 2010

Trademark: “HOTELES CITY EXPRESS”
Date of decision: December 21, 2010
Decision No.: 30046
Official Gazette issue: December, 2010

Trademark: “ADO”
Date of decision: May 31, 2011
Decision No.: 12869
Official Gazette issue: May, 2011/

Trademark: “ELEKTRA”
Date of decision: July 29, 2011
Decision No.: 18926
Official Gazette issue: July, 2011

Trademark: “SUPER PRECIO”
Date of decision: November 18, 2011
Decision No.: 29373
Official Gazette issue: November, 2011

Trademark: “PAYASO”
Date of decision: December 16, 2011
Decision No.: 33028
Official Gazette issue: December, 2011

Trademark: “CORONADO”
Date of decision: February 9, 2012
Decision No.: 3277
Official Gazette issue: February, 2012

Trademark: “MELATE”
Date of decision: October 31, 2012
Decision No.: 31280
Official Gazette issue: October, 2012

La entrada 2013 Update. Trademarks Acknowledged as Well-Known and Famous in Mexico se publicó primero en Reyes Fenig.

ACTA is an international treaty. Morocco, Singapore, South Korea, Australia, Japan and the United States of America already signed it, although is not still in force as far as I know. In very general terms, the purpose of ACTA is attacking the illegal trade of pirated/counterfeited products, including their massive distribution online.

There has been a lot of controversy around ACTA, not only in Mexico but in many countries where the adoption has been proposed. A well-known case is the rejection of ACTA by the European Parliament after its approval by the European Commission.

It is not the purpose of this post starting a discussion about the possible benefits and risks of ACTA. However, there were two situations that strongly called my attention about the decision of the Mexican government about signing ACTA. First, I think it was odd that the Mexican President decided to sign ACTA (the President is the ultimate responsible of signing an international treaty) in spite of the explicit opposition of the Senate and the Federal Telecommunications Commission. Second, there are still a lot of informed people that believe that the Internet is “law-free” (or lawless?) environment beyond any State jurisdiction.

1. ACTA was signed in spite of the opposition of the Senate and a relevant Mexican government agency.

The Mexican Senate organized a Plural Study Committee (Grupo Plural de Trabajo) to analyze ACTA. In its conclusions, the Committee expressly requested the Executive Branch not to sign ACTA.

The position of the Senate is extremely important because ACTA needs the Senate’s ratification to be in force in Mexico. On the other hand starting September 1, 2012, a newly-elected Senate will start working. Perhaps the President (who will step down from office next November 30, 2012) thought that the newly-elected Senate will be more favorable to ACTA than the current senators.

The Federal Telecommunications Commission (COFETEL) is the government agency in charge of regulating telecommunications. COFETEL also expressed an adverse opinion to ACTA. COFETEL’S press release 65/2010 states that ACTA “could negatively impact the rate of penetration and general development of the national Internet industry”. The opinion of COFETEL was not binding.

During an interview with the Mexican journalist Carmen Aristegui, the Commissioner of the MPTO stated that the opinion of COFETEL was disregarded on formal grounds, basically because there was no evidence that all the commissioners approved the opinion against ACTA and COFETEL did not confirm its position after a request from the MPTO. Therefore, it is clear that the President (not actually the MPTO) decided to ignore the opinion of the federal regulatory agency in the field of telecommunications, in the in spite of the explicit purpose of ACTA of impacting the digital environment.

Now that the term of President Calderón is about to end, in less than two months the Mexican government took material steps to make Mexico part of two somehow controversial international agreements related with Intellectual Property (the Madrid Protocol and ACTA), although it is unclear when Mexico will effectively join both agreements. We do not know when the Mexican government will deposit the accession document to the Madrid Protocol (it may take months, even years) and ACTA needs the ratification of the Senate.

The approval of the Madrid Protocol and the accession to ACTA were unexpected.

Although the MPTO has been providing information about the Madrid Protocol for at least one year, by September 5, 2011 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had no knowledge of Mexico approving the Madrid Protocol, but in April 2012 the Ministry of the Interior submitted the Madrid Protocol to the Senate for approval, which was swiftly granted.

On the other hand, after the negative opinions of the Mexican Senate and COFETEL, ACTA seem dead and still the federal government signed it without giving any prior notice.

Recently, the Minister of Economy stated that Mexico decided to join the Madrid Protocol because the United Stated conditioned supporting Mexico to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) to the approval of the Madrid Protocol. I would not be surprised that signing ACTA was also a condition set for supporting the accession of Mexico to the TPP.

2. Internet as a “free environment”

In the interview with the Commissioner of the MPTO, the journalist Carmen Aristegui suggested that internet is a “free environment” that should allow the free and unrestricted distribution of ideas content.

The journalist’s position reflect the extended idea about the Internet as a law-lawless environment, as if it were another planet away from the reach of the State.

It is clear that there is a lot of freedom in the Internet, especially freedom to express ideas and opinions; this blog is an example. However, the freedom and rights of any person have limits, and usually the limits are set by the freedom and rights of others.

The above is extremely important in the case of distribution of contents through the Internet, therefore distribution or works. Freedom as a rule in the Internet is not a license to infringe other people’s rights. Freedom of speech should be encouraged, but the freedom to express my own ideas and works is very different from communicating and distributing the ideas and contents of other people when the owner of the rights on such ideas and contents does not agree with their distribution.

The distribution of contents and works in the Internet should be punished when such distribution is against the will of their authors or right-holders, even in the absence of monetary gain. Copying and distributing contents and works of others without authorization or against the explicit prohibition of the right-holders to do so without profit might not be a crime, but it is still against the law. Unfortunately, a lot of people do not understand this and prefer to support a misconception of freedom in the Internet.

Mexico must improve the protection of IP rights, there is no question about it. However, treaties and laws by themselves are not enough to change the reality. Existing laws and regulations in Mexico are fairly good (they could be better), but Mexico has to dramatically improve the enforcement, and in order to do so, courts and administrative authorities need better technical and material capabilities, and also the will. Getting the will to strongly and consistently enforce the existing laws against counterfeiting is difficult when the society continues considering most cases of piracy and product counterfeiting as lesser offenses, if offense at all. Incentives to purchase counterfeited goods are strong, and as long as there is demand for counterfeited products there will be offer, no matter treaties and laws. People need to be educated not only about the importance of protecting and observing IP rights but about the benefits that society and as whole and its members individually obtain from IP. Otherwise, I do not see how to win this fight.

La entrada Mexico signs ACTA se publicó primero en Reyes Fenig.

On the other hand, it seems that there is the generalized idea among law-makers and government officials that amending the statutes to make the penalties therein stipulated more severe is an effective way to discourage illicit activities, thus somehow curing the lack of effective enforcement.

In this sense, on January 12, 2012 the Federal Journal of the Federation (official communication channel of the Federal Government) published several procedural and substantive amendments to the Industrial Property Law.

Some amendments, such as the ones aimed to ease the service of official communications and decisions issued by the Mexican Patent and Trademark Office (MPTO), only concern Mexican practitioners and I am not going to discuss them here.

Other more interesting amendment duplicates the fines associated to trademark, copyright and patent infringement in case of bad-faith infringers, and stipulates a presumption of bad-faith infringement.

If the trademark, copyright or patent owner marked the product with a warning about the existence of an exclusivity right (including but not limited to the © symbol with the date of first publication/disclosure of the work, name and address of the copyright holder; Patentado or equivalent; ®, M.R., Marca Registrada or equivalent) or published a warning about such an exclusivity right in a nationwide newspaper, then the infringer is presumed to be a bad-faith infringer and the amount of fine must be automatically doubled. It is my opinion that such a bad-faith presumption is a iuris et the iure presumption, that is, that the infringer may not file the evidence to prove on the contrary.

There is more information about the trademark and patent marking in our ealier post.

Although it is good to have more severe penalties for IP infringers, I believe that it would be better if the authorities work harder to effectively enforce the provisions we already have. For example, the MPTO may take almost one month to issue a preliminary measures order (similar to an injunction) in a patent or trademark infringement case, reflecting a lack of sense of urgency (to say the least) completely inconsistent with the purposes of the preliminary measures.

Rather than amending laws and regulations, we need a change of attitude about what it means to be the administrative authority in charge of enforcing IP rights.

La entrada An amendment in the Industrial Property Statute increases fines for bad-faith infringers in Mexico se publicó primero en Reyes Fenig.

Before the amendment, if an applicant wanted to claim priority, it had to state the application serial number of the claimed priority in the Mexican application and file a certified copy of the priority application with the Mexican Patent and Trademark Office (MPTO) within a three month term counted from the filing of the trademark application in Mexico in order to have the priority claim acknowledged.

Now, the applicant only has to state the priority application serial number in the Mexican application – and enter the government fee for the acknowledgement of a priority- to secure the priority right.

If the Mexican trademark application lists more products than the ones stated in the priority, the priority would be acknowledged only for the coincidental goods. If an applicant claims a non-existent priority and the MPTO issues a registration with such  a false claim, the trademark registration may be declared invalid.

The new simplified rule for priority trademark applications only benefits applications filed after June 11, 2011. This new rule should significantly reduce the cost of filing trademark applications with priority claim, given that the trademark agent will have one less deadline to worry about.

Regrettably, while the procedure for Mexican trademark applications is evolving to require fewer formalities, the patent application procedure has virtually remained the same since 1994.

For example, it is no longer necessary to file a power of attorney with the MPTO when filing a trademark application, but such formality has been maintained for patent applications. Now, the applicant does not have to file a certified copy of the priority application in the case of trademarks, but the formality persists for patents.

Further, the amended Rules expressly state that if the applicant files the priority document without translation, the applicant has a two months term to file the Spanish translations and the MPTO has not have to issue an office action requesting the translation; otherwise, the priority claim would not be acknowledged. However, the precedents from the Federal Court of Tax and Administrative Affairs state that it is illegal for the MPTO to refuse acknowledging a priority claim because the applicant did not file the Spanish translation of the document within the two months term, if the MPTO did not issue an office action requesting the translation ^1. .

The MPTO has not explained the reasons why the procedural rules and provisions regarding patents are not following the less formalistic trend of the trademark-related procedures. I do not see a technical reason, and I may only speculate that the people in charge of patents and the people in charge of trademarks believe that, rather than a Mexican Patent and Trademark Office, there is a Mexican Patent Office and a Mexican Trademark Office.

¹ Precedent “Patent. The Auhtority has the obligation to request the translation that was not filed with the patent application” – Page 463, Revista del Tribunal Federal de Justicia Fiscal y Administrativa or Journal of the Federal Court of Tax and Administrative Affairs, Sixth Era, Volume 26, February 2010 (VI-TASR-EPI-222).

La entrada Mexico simplifies the acknowledgement of priority claims in trademark matters se publicó primero en Reyes Fenig.

The amendments corrected a few inconsistencies between the Rules and the Industrial Property Statute (the Statute), adjusted a few regulations to follow some repeated rulings of the Federal Court of Tax and Administrative Affairs and simplified the acknowledgement of priority claims in trademark matters.

CHANGES TO THE RULES OF WORD MARKS

I think that the most important amendment to the Rules refers to word marks.

In Mexico, only graphic symbols are acknowledged as trademarks, thus only graphics may be registered to obtain exclusivity rights on them. Depending on the claims stated in the application and the characteristics of the mark, there are four kinds of registered trademarks: nominativas or word-marks, innominadas or design-only marks, mixtas or word+design marks and tridimensionales or three-dimensional marks.

Word-marks consist of literal elements only, such as a word, a phrase or a combination of numbers and/or letters. One issue that neither the Statute nor the Rules clarified was if symbols, such as &, @ and +, and written signs that do not exist in Spanish, such as the ‘ (apostrophe), could be registered as part of a word-mark.

The amendment to the Rules of June 10 seeks to clarify, in a restrictive and confusing way, what can be included in a word mark.

The amended last paragraph of section 56 of the Rules, now states that “word marks and slogans may only include letters or words taken from the roman alphabet, western Arabic numbers and those written signs that would help the correct understanding of the mark”.

What surprised me more of the amendment, was the used of the expression “Roman alphabet”. In Mexico the official language is Spanish, and Spanish speakers use the Spanish -not the Roman- alphabet.

I believe that the new section 56 of the Rules now clearly exclude symbols such as &, #, @, mathematical symbols (+, /, >, <) and currency symbols ($, €), among others, from being included in trademark applications for word-marks.

Further, the amended section 56 of the Rules makes it very clear that word marks may not be expressed in characters taken from non-Latin alphabets, such as Greek, Hebrew, Chinese, Arabic, Cyrillic, etc.

The reform does not prohibit the registration of trademarks that include mathematical symbols or letters from non-Latin alphabets. However, such trademarks may not be registered as word marks, given that the Rules now implicitly consider such characters as a sort of drawing. Therefore, trademarks with non-Latin Characters or other symbols as the ones explained above have to be filed as design-only marks (innominadas) or word+design (mixtas) marks.

This is a quite relevant change. If a trademark is registered as a word-mark, the trademark owner may use it in any font, size and color, and such use would be regarded as use of the registered trademark for maintenance purposes. If a trademark is filed as word+design or design-only, the registrant must attach a print of the trademark to the application; if the registration is issued, the trademark owner must use the trademark as registered, so the use may be acknowledged as valid use of the registered trademark for maintenance purposes, including renewal.

I did not understand the distinction in the amended section 56 of the Rules about “written signs that would help the correct understanding of the mark”. What is the point of the distinction? If there are written signs that would help the correct understanding of the mark, then there could be written signs that would not help the correct understanding of the mark, or worst, that help the incorrect understanding of the mark?

My opinion is that there are no written signs included in the mark that help the correct understanding of the trademark. Written signs included in the mark are not intended to helping understanding the mark; they are part of the mark, thus all orthographic signs should be allowed to be included in word-marks. I am sure that among the written signs that will not have a problem to be part of word-marks are the punctuation marks, the exclamation (¡ !) and interrogation points (¿ ?), the diaeresis and the accent, although doubts and objections about the dash and the apostrophe are likely.

Other unclear, and somehow odd, issue involves trademarks that evolved from the Latin alphabet but do not actually belong to it, i.e. “Æ”, “Ç”, “Ø”, etc. Given that a word mark may only include characters from the Roman alphabet, the first reaction could be that a trademark that includes such letters may not be registered as a word-mark.

However, there are letters in Spanish that evolved from the Roman alphabet, but do not actually belong to it, such as “J”, “W” and most notably the “Ñ”. There is no question that the “Ñ” belongs to the Spanish alphabet, but undoubtedly is was not a part of the Roman alphabet; further, the classic Latin alphabet did not include the “J” and “W”.

Certainly, it would be ridiculous stating that, as a consequence of the amendment of section 56 of the Rules, words that include the “Ñ”, “W” or “J” may not be registered as word-marks any long. Then, the new section 56 of the Rules should be understood in the sense that all words including letters that evolved from the Latin alphabet should be allowed to be part of word-marks, naturally including the “Ñ”, “W” and “J”, but also “ß”, “Å”, “Ŝ”, “Ų” and all other letters that do not exist in Spanish but in other languages that that evolved from Roman characters too.

I am not sure if the Mexican Patent and Trademark Office will use a narrow concept of “Roman Alphabet” (excluding the registration as word-marks of trademarks that use the “Ñ”, “J” or “W”) or liberal (including each and all letters that developed from Roman, regardless if they belong to the Spanish alphabet or not), but it would not the first time that a rule or statutory provision is constructed in a way different of what the Government or the Congress meant. As example, there is the case of the extension of life of pipe-line patents (see The extension of Life of Patents in Mexico)and the inclusion of formulation patents in the linkage system situated in section 67 Bis of the Rules (see The Mexican Supreme Court expands the linkage system to prevent patent infringement). It would be odd and regretful, but I would not be surprised if in the future, Wikipedia becomes the authorized source to know what trademarks may be registered as word-marks in Mexico and which ones do not.

The Mexican government would have avoided problems if, instead of using the phrase “Roman alphabet”, they would have used the expression “Spanish alphabet”.

Another topic that makes me uneasy is the reason behind the restrictive amendment to section 56 of the Rules. Why the Executive Branch decided to restrict the possibility of obtaining word-mark registrations to those trademarks using Latin characters only? In a global economy, especially in such an open economy as the Mexican, it does not make much sense to close the possibilities of giving full protection to trademarks originated in other nations just because they are written different.

Further, why denying registration as word-mark of trademarks that use non-orthographic characters (the +, @ and &, for example)? I do not see a technical reason for narrowing the kind of characters that a word-mark may include, especially in the case of symbols that are widely used in Mexico.

I also think that the Administration lost a good opportunity to clarify if it is valid disclaiming words, phrases or letters from word-mark trademark applications. It also waste the opportunity of explaining whether the registration of a design-only or word+design trademark filed in black and white or grays gives the trademark owner the right to use the registered design in any color or color combination, in spite of having being registered in white and black or grays.

In general, I am in favor of any amendment to the Rules or the Statute that provides more certainty about the procedures and substantive rights, even if I do not like the amendment itself. Therefore, the upside of the amendment of section 56 of the Rules is that now it is clear that trademarks including or consisting of non-orthographic symbols and signs, and marks written in non-Latin characters cannot be registered as word-marks in Mexico. Now we have to clarify, and probably the courts will do it, how narrow or liberal is going to be the concept of “Roman Alphabet” that Mexican lawyers will have to use in trademark law to determine if a trademark may be registered as word-mark.

Finally, an issue that should concern Mexican practitioners is the potential conflict between the new Mexican Rules and the Paris Convention, in connection with priority-based trademark applications for word-marks that include letters or signs that may not be registered in Mexico, under the amended Rules, as word-marks.

La entrada Amendments to the Rules Governing Registration of Word-Marks in Mexico se publicó primero en Reyes Fenig.

In my opinion, the ad-hoc procedure is too burdensome for trademark owners, causing a very small number of applications for the ad-hoc acknowledgement of trademarks as well-known or famous in Mexico. I also stated that the limited benefits of the ad-hoc acknowledgement of a trademark as well-known and the high could also discourage applicants from applying for such acknowledgment.

Although I still maintain my opinions about the ad-hoc procedure, after I wrote the post, the Mexican Patent and Trademark Office have issued a small number of ad-hoc acknowledgments of well-known and famous trademarks.

The following trademarks have been acknowledged as famous in Mexico, through the ad-hoc procedure:

Trademark: “ANDREA”
Date of decision: November 4, 2008
Application serial No. 2197/2007
Owner: Fábricas de Calzado Andrea, S.A de C.V.
Status. Famous

Trademark: “CINEPOLIS”
Date of decision: November 20, 2008
Application serial No. 1256/2008
Owner: Cinemas de la República, S.A. de C.V.
Status: Famous

Trademark: “INTEL”
Date of decision: July 31, 2009
Application serial No. 1577/2008
Owner: Intel Corporation
Status: Famous

Trademark: “RED BULL”
Date of decision: February 19, 2010
Application serial No. 2284/2008
Owner: Red Bull GmbH
Status: Famous

Trademark: “MARINELA”
Date of decision: March 12, 2010
Application serial No. 103/2009
Owner: Grupo Bimbo, S.A.B. de C.V.
Status. Famous

Trademark: “GANSITO”
Date of decision: March 12, 2010
Application serial No. 101/2009
Owner: Grupo Bimbo, S.A.B. de C.V.
Status: Famous

Trademark: “BIMBO”
Date of decision: April 23, 2010
Application serial No. 100/2009
Owner: Grupo Bimbo, S.A.B. de C.V.
Status: Famous

The following trademarks have been acknowledged as well-known in Mexico, through the ad-hoc procedure:

Trademark: “BARCEL”
Date of decision: March 22, 2010
Application serial No. 102/2009
Owner: Grupo Bimbo, S.A.B. de C.V.
Status: Well-known

Trademark: “RICOLINO”
Date of decision: April 5, 2010
Application serial No. 104/2009
Owner: Grupo Bimbo, S.A.B. de C.V.
Status: Well-known

Trademark: “PRITT”
Date of decision: June 30, 2010
Application serial No. 638/2009
Owner: Henkel AG & Co. KGAA
Status: Well-known

Of course, the above lists do not show all the trademarks that have been, or could be, regarded as well-known or famous in Mexico. It is limited to those registered trademarks that have been considered, as of August 5, 2010, as well-known or famous in Mexico through the ad-hoc procedure provided by section 98 bis-1 of the Mexican Industrial Property Law. Other trademarks have been acknowledged as well-known (and famous I assume, although I am not aware of such case) as a consequence of an invalidation or infringement actions, or just because the examiner believed they were famous or well-known when objecting or rejecting a trademark application form a third party, even if there was no previous procedure deciding that that mark was well-known or famous in Mexico.

Update March 2013: An updated list of trademarks acknowledged as well-known or famous, through the ad-hoc procedure, until January 2013 is available here.

La entrada Registered trademarks acknowledged as well-known or famous in Mexico through the ad-hoc procedure se publicó primero en Reyes Fenig.

Before the 2010 amendments, many activities associated to the infringement of IP rights in Mexico were already punished with extreme severity. For example, the willful production, distribution and importation of goods bearing counterfeited trademarks in commercial scale are delitos graves or felonies, thus the defendant is not allowed to be free on bail during the trial. In the same sense, the willful non-authorized reproduction of works protected by copyright in commercial scale is a felony too.

However, in all cases, in order to start an investigation, the holder of the copyright or registered trademark copyright had to file a querella or formal complaint. A characteristic of the crimes that require querella is that the right holder may stop the investigation or the trial by withdrawing the charges (perdón in Spanish).

The querella requirement could obstacle an investigation; for example, when officials of the Customs Agency or the General Attorney Office found and seized a shipment of counterfeited goods or illegal copies of works, without a querella, there was no justification to maintain the seizure of goods or authority to continue the investigation. Further, the formalities that have to fulfill a power of attorney required to file a querella can be very difficult to accomplish for foreign entities. As a result, a federal judge could dismiss a trial because the power of attorney of the representative of the right holder was missing some formal requirement.

As I said before, in the case of crimes that need a formal complaint, the copyright or trademark owner could terminate the investigation or even the trial with a perdón or withdrawal of charges. This possibility allowed the trademark or copyright holder to negotiate a settlement with the defendant, although this sort of negotiations often discouraged, even upset, the officials of the General Attorney Office.

Now, with the June 2010 amendment, many -not all- IP related crimes (most of them associated to copyright) will be investigated ex-officio.

In the copyright field, for example, willfully producing, reproducing, importing, transporting, distributing, selling (in a store) or leasing copies of copyright protected works, with commercial purposes and without authorization, is not only a felony but also will be investigated ex-officio. On the other hand, willfully selling unauthorized copies of copyright-protected works in the streets, with commercial purpose, is a crime that now will be investigated ex-officio, although it is not a felony.

In the trademark field, the June 2010 amendment did not change most of the crimes associated with trademark counterfeiting provided in the statute. Most cases of trademark counterfeiting remain being felonies, but they still need the formal complaint or querella filed by the trademark owner in order to be investigated.

Nevertheless, as a consequence of the June 2010 amendment, willfully offering in sale goods bearing counterfeited trademarks, in the streets with commercial purposes, is now a crime that may be investigated ex-officio although, paradoxically, it is not a felony.

The Federal Congress also amended some provisions regarding the preliminary measures that a trademark, patent or copyright holder may request from the Mexican Patent and Trademark Office (MPTO) to stop infringing activities, namely the requirements that the defendant must fulfill to lift such measures.

The most usual way to oppose infringement of IP rights –including most copyright infringement cases- is the administrative infringement action, filed with the MPTO. The MPTO has authority to issue preliminary measures. The preliminary measures may include the seizure of infringing products and an order to the infringer to stop the production of infringing products and recall the merchandise already in hands of distributors.

In order to obtain the preliminary measures, among other requirements, the defendant must file a bond. The purpose of the bond is to guarantee the payment of the actual damages that the preliminary damages may cause to the defendant in case the MPTO decides there was no infringement.

The defendant is allowed to lift the preliminary measures and continue it business as usual, by filing another bond. The purpose of the bond is to guarantee the payment of the damages that the defendant’s activities may cause to the plaintiff.

In practice, the MPTO has not enough data, if any at all, about the amount of the possible damages that the preliminary measures may cause to the alleged infringer, thus the MPTO sets the amount of the bond at it own discretion. Sometimes, the plaintiff files the bond with the MPTO before it accepts to issue them; if it is high, there is a good chance that the MPTO will accept it, although technically it is an arguable practice.

If after the enforcement of the preliminary measures, the MPTO believes that the amount of the bond is too low, it has authority to request the plaintiff to increase the bond, within a three or five days term. Failure of the plaintiff to increase the bond would result in the lift of the preliminary measures.

Once that the preliminary measures have been enforced, the alleged infringer has the right to lift them, y filing another bond. The purpose of this bond is guaranteeing the payment of the damages that the alleged infringing activities may cause to the plaintiff. The practice of the MPTO was to set the amount of the defendant’s bond in twice the amount of the bond filed by the plaintiff.

Now, the amended statute stipulates that the bond that the defendant may file shall be 40% higher than the bond filed by the plaintiff. Nevertheless, the MPTO keeps authority to request the increase of the amount of the bonds filed by the plaintiff or defendant, in case it considers that their amounts are not high enough to guarantee the payment of the damages.

Finally, it is now an administrative infringement that the patent holder, or the recorded licensee (if the recorded license does not provide against the filing of infringement actions against third parties), files an infringement action against a third party, if there was an earlier final decision ruling that there was no patent infringement involving the same cause of infringement.

From my perspective, this new cause of infringement is odd, and I can only understand it as a way of refraining innovative pharmaceutical companies from harassing generics manufacturers with constant infringement actions repeating the same causes of infringement, assuming of course that the efforts of the patent holders to enforce their patent rights can be generally qualified as ‘harassment’.

The amendments to the Federal Criminal Code suggest that there is an intention to increase the fight against piracy, although it also shows lack of a coherent strategy, given the different treatment to crimes associated to trademarks and those related to copyright, and the inconsistencies in each field.

Only time will tell if the will to combat piracy is real, or only a measure to cool down Mexico’s trade partners, mainly the United States, who kept Mexico is the Watch List of the 2010 Special 301 Report.

La entrada Amendments to the Mexican statutes toughens (and softens) fight against piracy and IP infringement se publicó primero en Reyes Fenig.

The purpose of this post is offer a basic explanation about precedents in Mexico and their effectiveness in IP-related cases.

When I say “precedent”, I am referring to a published decision issued either by one of the salas or chambers of the Tribunal Federal de Justicia Fiscal y Administrativa or Federal Court of Tax and Administrative Affairs (FCTAA), a tribunal colegiado de circuito court of appeals or the Supreme Court. It does not mean that there are no precedents from the MPTO. The MPTO is the first instance in most patent and trademark infringement or invalidation cases, so of course there are precedents, but they are not reported or collected. Mexican lawyers learn about the precedents of the MPTO from our own experience and interchange of ideas with other lawyers and sometimes with the MPTO’s officials. Although the MPTO does not have to follow its own precedents, it always has to state the statutory provisions applicable in each case and explain the reasons of all the decisions it issues.

About the decisions of the courts, it is necessary to distinguish different situations.

First. All the decisions from the federal courts (Mexico is a federal republic, so there are also state courts; the availability of decisions from state courts vary from state to state) become public shortly after they are issued, although the information about the involved parties may not be available in most cases. This situation makes it difficult locating certain decisions if you do not have information about the case number and the court that issued the decision you are looking for.

Second. The decisions of the juzgados de distrito or federal district courts and tribunals unitarios de circuito or higher federal courts are not reported or collected, thus there are almost no references to district courts or higher federal courts as source of precedents.

Third. When a court of appeals, a chamber of the FCTAA or the Supreme Court considers that the legal issues involved in a case are particularly relevant, it may decide to prepare an abstract about the ruling (we call it tesis) and publish it in a collection of precedents issued every month: the Semanario Judicial de la Federación or Weekly Judicial Journal of the Federation (it is no longer weekly, but it kept the name) in the case of the courts of appeals and the Supreme Court, and the Revista del Tribunal Federal de Justicia Fiscal y Administrativa or Journal of the Federal Court of Tax and Administrative Affairs in the case of the chambers of the FCTAA. These published rulings constitute the precedents.

The abstract of the ruling includes the identification of the issuing court and the case number, so it is relatively easy to obtain a copy of the actual decision and get a deeper knowledge about the reasoning behind the precedent.

In a broad sense, the collection of published precedents is called jurisprudencia; in a more restrictive and technical sense, only the binding precedents are jurisprudencia. Jurisprudencia is often translated into English as ‘jurisprudence’, although the concept is much narrower under Mexican law.

Fourth. In general terms, a precedent becomes binding or jurisprudencia when the ruling has been confirmed in five consecutive decisions –in the case of courts of appeals and the Supreme Court-. A decision may also become binding when different courts of appeals, or the two specialized chambers of the Supreme Court, render contradictory rulings about the same legal issue and the Supreme Court decides which ruling must prevail.

In the case of the FCTAA, it is divided in different chambers of three judges each. There is one chamber specialized in intellectual property matters that decides most appeals against the decisions of the MPTO and the Mexican Copyright Office. The specialized chamber of the FCTAA may publish precedents, but only the precedents of the Highest Chamber of the FCTAA may become binding, if and when a ruling has been confirmed by three or five consecutive decisions, or when it decides the prevailing ruling in the case of contradictory decisions between different chambers of the FCTAA.

Fifth. A precedent may become binding for lower courts, but not for higher or equal-ranked courts. The binding precedents from the Supreme Court and the courts of appeals are binding for all the chambers of the FCTAA.

The MPTO is not a court (even if it acts like one in infringement and invalidation cases) but an administrative entity. Therefore, the MPTO has no actual obligation to follow the binding precedents issued by the courts, although it usually tries to adjust its decisions to such binding rulings.

Further, it is very usual in the Mexican practice –the MPTO, courts and lawyers included- to rely on the authority of some non-binding precedents to justify decisions, opinions and claims.

La entrada A general view about precedents in Mexico se publicó primero en Reyes Fenig.