The number and relevance of the amendments are so big that I can’t refer to all of them in this post. Instead, I will briefly explain the changes that I believe are most relevant:

One very important change that I must refer right now is that the declaration of actual and effective use to maintain trademark rights in Mexico has been reinstated (see paragraph 11 below).

1. State of being in force: The amendments to the Statute will become in force on August 10, 2018.
2. Rules of the Statute: The implementation of the amendments will demand changes in the Rules of the Statute. As for today (June 17, 2018), the new Rules have not been published.
3. Protection of non-traditional Trademarks: The idea that only a visible sign could be protected as trademark is in the past. The amended Statute now explicitly provides that visible signs (including holographic figures), sounds, scents and trade-dress may be registered as trademark[1].

There is still no information about how applicants will have to describe a non-traditional trademark in the application; such information should be stipulated in the amended Rules of the Statute to be published soon (Update June 3, 2020: On September 3, 2019, the Mexican Patent and Trademark Office published the guidelines about trademark applications for non-traditional trademarks. Click here for more information.)

4. Trade-dress as Trademark. This is a delicate subject for merchants, service providers and manufacturers that rely on trade-dress to identify and distinguish their goods and services from competitors. If trade-dress is now registrable as a trademark[2], it means that Mexico will acknowledge exclusivity rights on trade-dress, but such an exclusivity right will be granted to the first filer; any other individual or entity using confusingly similar trade-dress may become an infringer. Therefore, trade-dress users should hurry to file the trademark application as soon as the amendments enter in force. 
5. New restrictions to register Trademarks. As the amendments allow a wider variety of signs to be registered as a trademark, there are new and, in some cases, clearer causes of refusal of trademark registration. There are several changes, but the ones that particularly called my attention, were the explicit prohibition to register marks filed in bad faith; words that reproduce Appeals of Origin and Geographic Designations; and words identical or confusingly similar to the title of literary or artistic works or the reproduction or imitations of elements of such works.
6. Secondary meaning. A mark that could be originally regarded as descriptive or generic mark may be registered if the applicant shows that it has developed a secondary meaning as a consequence of the use in commerce. Although this is a new provision in the Statute, the possibility of allowing the registration, as a trademark, of a descriptive or generic mark due secondary meaning was already stated in Mexican law through article 15.1 of TRIPS and some bilateral commercial treaties, as the Free Trade Treaty between Chile and Mexico[3]. 
7. Effectiveness of Coexisting Agreements. Amended article 90 of the Statute makes written agreements between trademark owners and applicants, allowing the last overcoming an anticipation, binding for the Mexican Patent and Trademark Office (MPTO), in the case of confusingly similar trademarks. If the trademarks were identical, in any aspect (phonetic, graphic or ideological), the MPTO may reject the consent and refuse the application.

The formal requirements of the agreement will be determined by the soon-to-be-issued Rules of the Statute. 

8. Certification Trademarks. Mexico will allow Certification Trademarks.
9. Description of Goods and Services. Amended article 113, paragraph IV, of the Statute, now demands applicants to state the specific goods or services to be identified with the trademark. It is not clear what the law means with “specific” although it seems that the intention is ending the practice of using the headers of the International Classes as description of products and services in the application.
10. More complex oppositions. Originally, anyone could file an opposition against a trademark application if it was filed on time and the government fee was paid. Now, opposers will have to prove legal standing.

Further, there is now a more detailed regulation about the evidence that may be filed in the opposition proceeding. 

11. Statement of use. Right-holders of trademark registrations issued on August 10, 2018, and thereafter, will have to file a statement of actual and effective use of the trademark in Mexico, and a government fee, within a three-month term counted from the third anniversary of issuance of the trademark registration (See The new statement of use of registered trademarks in Mexico).

Failure to file the statement of use would cause the ipso iure abandonment of the trademark registration.

The statement of use has to be filed only once after the third year of registration, and again simultaneously with each future renewal. 

12. More restrictive renewals. In order to renew a trademark registration, the trademark owner or the agent will have to state that there has been actual and effective use of the trademark. More important, the use of the registered trademark in one Class of goods or services will no longer benefit other registrations for an identical trademark in other Classes for renewal purposes.

Use on just one of the goods or services stated in the registration would be enough to support the renewal for all products and activities listed in the registration.

This rule will apply to all renewals filed on August 10, 2018, and thereafter, not only registrations issued after that date.

13. Additional cause of invalidation and longer term. The amendment added, as cause of invalidation of a trademark registration, the filing in bad faith of the trademark application. It is not clear yet what would be considered “bad faith” in order to make a registration vulnerable to the cause of invalidation.

The term provided in the statute of limitations to file the invalidation action against a trademark registration due earlier and continuous use, in Mexico or abroad, of an identical or confusingly similar trademark, applied to the same or similar goods or services, has been extended from three to five years, counted from the date of publication of the trademark registration in the Mexican Official Gazette.

The new cause of invalidation and extended term will only affect trademark registrations issued on August 10, 2018 and thereafter, regardless the date of application.

14. Notifications. Decisions and office actions issued in connection to a trademark application shall now be electronically notified through the Official Gazette.

Officials of the MPTO have explained that the objective of the amendments to the Statute is modernizing and harmonizing the Mexican industrial protection system, according to the current international trends of trademark law. I wonder is such modernization responds to the actual needs of domestic businesses or if it was an extra-logical imitation. Other amendments, such as requesting a statement of use after the third year of issuance of the trademark registration, seem an excessive burden on trademark owners, with no benefit in return.

[1] Article 89, paragraphs V, VI y VII, of the Industrial Property Law, as published in the Official Journal of the Federation on May 18, 2018.

[2] For registration purposes, trade-dress is defined as “the set of different operative elements, image elements, including size, design, color, form disposition, label, package, ornaments or any other that, in combination, allow the identification of a product or service in the market”. Article 89, paragraph VII, , of the Industrial Property Law, as published in the Official Journal of the Federation on May 18, 2018.

[3] Article 15-15.1 of the Free Trade Treaty between the Republic of Chile and the United Mexican States, published in the Official Journal of the Federation on July 28, 1999.

Diario oficial 18-may-18 (marcas)

La entrada Mexico starts a new era in Trademark Law (the amendments of May, 2018) se publicó primero en Reyes Fenig.

The Mexican Supreme Court recently published three non-binding precedents* concerning the right of third parties to oppose a trademark application when said third parties think that the issuance of the trademark registration may somehow harm their acquired rights.

It is important to keep in mind that in Mexico, unlike other countries and regions, there is no opposition procedure (This changed; Mexico has oppositions now. Please read my update of May 1, 2016, Mexican Congress approves trademark opposition system). The Instituto Mexicano de la Propiedad Industrial or Mexican Patent and Trademark Office (MPTO) does not publish trademark applications (Update April 5, 2017. With the approval of the opposition proceeding in 2016, trademark applications are now published within a ten days term after the filing of the application). If the MPTO issues a trademark registration and a third party believes it harms its rights, it has the possibility of filing a trademark invalidation action with the MPTO to remove the trademark from the registry (Update Aprl 5, 2017. This has not changed and the right to file the invalidation action is not affected by the filing or lack of filign of the opposition).

Although trademark applications are not published (Update April 5, 2017. With the approval of the opposition proceeding in 2016, trademark applications are now published within a ten days term after the filing of the application), a trademark search in the database of the MPTO may reveal the existence of unpublished pending trademark applications. If a person thinks that the approval of a pending application may somehow negatively impact her/his interests, he/she may file a written “opposition” by filing a document stating the reasons why the application should be rejected (similar to an informative leter) (Update April 5, 2017. “Informal” oppositions are now supposed to be dismissed by the exmainers; the only oppositions that examiners may review are the ones filed within the one-month term provided for oppositions, counted from the day after the trademark application was published).

Given the lack of a statutory opposition procedure, it is up to the MPTO’s examiner to take the opponent’s objections in consideration. If the opponent’s arguments do not convince the examiner, and the MPTO issues the trademark registration, then the opposer may file the invalidation action.

There was the case of an “opponent” that successfully filed an appeal because the MPTO did not pay attention to his arguments against the approval of a pending trademark application**. Such case opened the possibility for the courts to provide the right (not stated in the statute) of opposing a trademark application and intervening in the application procedure as a party.

However, the precedents from the Mexican Supreme Court, even if they are not binding yet, have enough authority to virtually end the discussion about if a third party may have intervention as a party in the trademark application procedure with the MPTO. Among other issues, the Supreme Court decided that third parties are not entitled to oppose the issuance of a trademark application (they may still file briefs though), and that such lack of right to oppose trademark applications is not against due process, given that such “opponent” is entitled to file an invalidation action against the trademark registration when granted, if it harms an acquired right of the “opponent”.

From my point of view, the most interesting side of the precedents of the Supreme Court would be their possible impact in the current practice of the Tribunal Federal de Justicia Fiscal y Administrativa or Federal Court of Tax and Administrative Affairs (FCTAA). The appeals against the rejections of trademark applications by the MPTO due the existence of earlier applied or registered trademark applications/registrations owned by third parties (among other causes) are filed with the FCTAA.

The appeal against the rejection of a trademark application would be decided in Mexico City. The FCTAA in Mexico City is divided in eleven “Metropolitan” Salas or Chambers, of three judges each, and there is also a Highest Panel of eleven judges (Update December 2010: On January 2009 all new IP cases and some older ones have been concentated in the new Chamber specialized in IP Law of the FCTAA).

The opinion of most of the Metropolitan Panels of the FCTAA -and of the Specialized Chamber in IP cases- is that the owners of the registered/applied trademarks that were cited as anticipations in the administrative application procedure with the MPTO, and that caused the rejection of the appellant’s trademark application, have legal standing to intervene as a third interested party in the appeal against the rejection of the trademark application. Such intervention allows the third interested party even to file the final appeal (amparo) against the FCTAA’s decision if unfavorable.

I have always been against the above-described FCTAA’s practice. Under the current statute, the owner of the trademark registrations/applications cited as anticipation was not, and did not have the right to be, a party of the application procedure that ended with the rejection of the trademark application. If the FCTAA decides to invalidate the MPTO’s rejection and orders it to issue the trademark registration, such decision would not limit any of the rights of the prior trademark holder. If such trademark holder thinks that the issuance of the trademark registration harms its trademark rights, it may file a cancellation action against the trademark registration on whatever available grounds.

Now, the rulings of the Supreme Court somehow support my opinion, by confirming that third parties have no right to oppose the pending trademark applications, because the eventual approval of the application would not invalidate or limit any of their existing rights. If the issuance of the trademark harms the rights of such third parties, there is a procedure available to defend them. Following these same ideas, it is not justifiable either that the FCTAA summons the owners of the trademarks cited as anticipation as third interested parties in the appeal against the rejection of a trademark application, because the eventual invalidation of the rejection would not limit or invalidate the earlier trademark rights of said third parties; if the issuance of a trademark registration as a consequence of the FCTAA’s decision harms a third party, there is an invalidation action procedure available to cancel the registration and defend the earlier trademark rights.

* Ninth Era; Second Chamber; Weekly Judicial Journal of the Federation; XXVII, February 2008; Page 730; Ninth Era; Second Chamber; Weekly Judicial Journal of the Federation; XXVII, February 2008; Page 731; Ninth Era; Second Chamber; Weekly Judicial Journal of the Federation; XXVII, February 2008; Page 732.

** Ninth Era, Federal Courts of Appeals; Weekly Judicial Journal of the Federation; XXV, January 2007; Page 2265.

La entrada Oppositions to trademark applications in Mexico se publicó primero en Reyes Fenig.