Civil actions for indemnification of damages due trademark and patent infringement are unusual if compared with the number of administrative infringement actions. The main statutory provisions regarding payment of damages are articles 221 and 221 Bis of the Industrial Property Law, enacted in 1994.

Section 221 Bis of the Industrial Property Law states that the amount of the indemnification due violation of the rights stipulated in the statute shall be no less than the equivalent of 40% of the retail price of the goods or services sold or rendered in violation of such rights. The claim for damages has to be filed with a court of common jurisdiction.

A landmark decision was the 2004 jurisprudencia or binding precedent 1a./J. 13/2004[1] from the Mexican Supreme Court (MSC). The binding precedent was a consequence of contradictory decisions issued by lower court, namely, if it was necessary to have a final infringement decision issued by the Mexican Patent and Trademark Office (MPTO) as a prerequisite to file a civil action for damages (read our article  Damages claims due patent and trademark infringement).

After the binding precedent 1a./J. 13/2004, the MSC has issued a handful of decisions in about the civil action of indemnification of damages associated to patent and trademark infringement (copyright too), none of them binding. From the decisions of the MSC, I have extracted a few basic guidelines:

a) It is necessary to have a final infringement decision from the MPTO before filing a civil action for indemnification of damages.

b) The court where the civil lawsuit has been filed cannot review the MPTO’s decision about the infringement.

c) The plaintiff has to prove, in the trial, that the infringement caused actual damages.

d) The plaintiff must also prove the cause-effect relation between the infringement and the actual damages.

e) Civil actions for damages that involve trademark or patent rights originated from a contractual dispute (such as a breach of a license agreement), or that are not related to a cause of administrative infringement (i.e. a criminal case), do not require a previous infringement decision from the MPTO.

Issues identified as a), b), c) and d) were stated in the 2004 binding precedent from the MSC. As a consequence, and until very recently, I thought there would be little controversy about them in indemnification cases associated to trademark and patent infringement.

On December 2017, the Judicial Journal of the Federation published a non-binding decision from the MSC, regarding the constitutional validity of article 221 Bis of the Industrial Property Law[2]. Basically, the MSC ruled that the lack of identification of the specific industrial property rights that, if infringed, would allow the claim of payment of damages provided by article 221 Bis of the Industrial Property Law, does not make the statutory provision unconstitutional.

Of course, the precedent of the MSC was very important, and confirmed the standing of the Court on different technical issues (namely the ones identified as a), b), c) and d) above) around the action for indemnification of damages because of patent and trademark infringement. However, making a little research, I found that the underlying civil case (from 2013) was even more interesting because the lower tribunal colegiado or court of appeals disagreed with some critical positions that the MSC has adopted since 2004 in different decisions.

Because of a number of technical reasons, the MSC did not review the merits of the underlying civil case in the decision published in 2017, only the constitutionality of article 221 Bis of the Industrial Property Law.

The underlying civil case was decided by the Octavo Tribunal Colegiado en Materia Civil del Primer Circuito or Eight Panel of the Federal Court of Appeals in Mexico City (Eight Panel)[3] on May 8, 2013. (Update February 27, 2019: The case number was D.C. 153/2013. The public version of the full decision (in Spanish) may be downloaded here).

The Eight Panel ruled that the precedent 1a./J. 13/2004 of the MSC was binding only about having a final infringement decision from the MPTO as a prerequisite for a civil action for indemnification of damages. Other questions stated in the precedent are just “orientations” (unfortunately the Eight Panel did not state a statutory provision, precedent or legal theory supporting the ruling).

Therefore, the Eight Panel decided that, on a damages case based on section 221 Bis of the Industrial Property Law, the plaintiff does not have to prove actual damages or the cause-effect relation between the infringement (previously declared by the MPTO) and the actual damages. The plaintiff only has to prove the amount of the sales at retail price of the infringing product/service, and calculate the equivalent to 40% in order to obtain the amount that, as a minimum, the plaintiff has the right to collect as indemnification from the infringer/defendant.

If other federal panels and state courts follow the Eight Panel’s example, we may see in the next years a revival of successful lawsuits for indemnification of damages due to patent and trademark infringement in Mexico. It will also be interesting to see if the MSC will have something to say about the non-binding “orientations” that the Eight Panel and potentially other courts will start finding in the binding precedents of the MSC.

[1] “PROPIEDAD INDUSTRIAL. ES NECESARIA UNA PREVIA DECLARACIÓN POR PARTE DEL INSTITUTO MEXICANO DE LA PROPIEDAD INDUSTRIAL, SOBRE LA EXISTENCIA DE INFRACCIONES EN LA MATERIA PARA LA PROCEDENCIA DE LA ACCIÓN DE INDEMNIZACIÓN POR DAÑOS Y PERJUICIOS”, at Semanario Judicial de la Federación y su Gaceta, Ninth Period, Vol XIX, May 2004, page 365 (Electronic version: https://sjf.scjn.gob.mx/sjfsist/Paginas/DetalleGeneralV2.aspx?Epoca=1e3e10000000000&Apendice=1000000000000&Expresion=1a.%2FJ.%252013%2F2004&Dominio=Rubro,Texto&TA_TJ=2&Orden=1&Clase=DetalleTesisBL&NumTE=1&Epp=20&Desde=-100&Hasta=-100&Index=0&InstanciasSeleccionadas=6,1,2,50,7&ID=181491&Hit=1&IDs=181491&tipoTesis=&Semanario=0&tabla=&Referencia=&Tema=. Date of review: January 14, 2019).

[2] “PROPIEDAD INDUSTRIAL. EL ARTÍCULO 221 BIS DE LA LEY RESPECTIVA NO CONTRAVIENE EL PRINCIPIO DE SEGURIDAD JURÍDICA” at Semanario Judicial de la Federación, Décima Época, Book 49, Vol I, December 2017, page 437 (Electronic version: https://sjf.scjn.gob.mx/sjfsist/Paginas/DetalleGeneralV2.aspx?Epoca=1e3e10000000000&Apendice=1000000000000&Expresion=%25202015750&Dominio=Localizacion&TA_TJ=2&Orden=1&Clase=DetalleTesisBL&NumTE=1&Epp=20&Desde=-100&Hasta=-100&Index=0&InstanciasSeleccionadas=6,1,2,50,7&ID=2015750&Hit=1&IDs=2015750&tipoTesis=&Semanario=0&tabla=&Referencia=&Tema=. Date of review: January 19, 2019).

[3] While all decisions from the different federal courts and panels are of public record and everybody may request a copy (with personal information redacted), not all decisions are published as precedents. It is up to each court and panel deciding if the case is relevant enough to be published in the Judicial Journal of the Federation. The decision of the underlying civil case rendered by the Eight Panel on May, 2013, was not published. (Update February 27, 2019: You may download the public version of the full decision (In Spanish) here)

La entrada Damages claims due infringement of trademarks and patents in Mexico. Who has the final saying? se publicó primero en Reyes Fenig.

On November, 2016, the Weekly Journal of the Federal Judicial Branch published a non-binding decision by one of the panels of the Court of Appeals of the First Circuit, in Mexico City, regarding patent infringement.

Essentially, the court stated that there is patent infringement if the infringer, instead if using the invention according to the literal claims, obtained the same result by equivalent means, without involving an inventive step[1].

This is an important breakthrough in Mexican patent law. In a more general view, this is one of a significant number of relatively recent non-binding precedents from courts of appeals in Mexico City and the Specialized Panel in Intellectual Property of the Federal Court of Administrative Affairs (FCAA) that seek to improve the protection of IP rights in Mexico by means of a more liberal construction of the statutory causes of administrative infringement (punishable by the Mexican Patent and Trademark Office) provided in the Mexican Industrial Property Law.

This tendency of the FCAA and some courts of appeals in Mexico City was somehow announced by a non-binding precedent of 2013. In this precedent, the Eight Court of Appeals in Mexico City stated that the general provision against unfair competition provided by Section 213, paragraph I, of the Industrial Property Law may be considered as a last resource remedy that allows punishing actions that, in spite of harming IP rights, are not literally stated as administrative infringement in the Industrial Property Law.

For example, the Industrial Property Law does not state as a cause of infringement importing goods identified with trademarks identical or confusingly similar to one registered in Mexico to identify the same of similar products to the ones stated in the Mexican trademark registration. In order to cure that void, the FCAA ruled in a non-binding precedent published on August, 2015[2], that such an activity should be punished as unfair competition under the Industrial Property Law and the general provision against unfair competition (Section 213, paragraph I, of the Industrial Property Law[3]).

More recently, on March 2017, the First Court of Appeals in Mexico City published in a non-binding precedent[4] stating that importing a product using a registered industrial design may be punishable as administrative infringement under the general provision against unfair competition (again, Section 213, paragraph I, of the Industrial Property Law), in spite of the fact that importing goods that use registered industrial designs without authorization is not stated as an infringement in the Industrial Property Law.

Although the above-stated precedents are not binding, they are considered authoritative, so I expect that the Mexican Patent and Trademark Office and the FCAA will show a more favorable and flexible approach to infringement cases in the benefit of IP owners in the following months.

However, the liberal construction of the statutory causes of infringement provided in the Industrial Property Law has not been free of criticism. One important objection relates to a binding precedent from the Supreme Court[5] regarding the basic principles applicable to administrative infringements.

The Supreme Court ruled that some principles ruling criminal law are applicable to administrative infringements cases, namely, the principle about the definition of the offense or “tipicidad”: in order to make an action punishable, such action must be exactly stated as an offense in the statute. An action can’t be punishable using analogy or higher reason.

If the MPTO and the courts must construct the statutory causes of administrative infringement as narrowly as criminal offenses, I wonder if the flexible constructions of the general provision against unfair competition stated in paragraph I of Section 213 of the Industrial Property Law would meet the standard set by the Supreme Court.

[1] “Patente. La interpretación periférica, por identidad o por equivalencia, constituye un método para definir si un tercero ha invadido en perjuicio de su titular los derechos que derivan de esa exclusividad dentro de un procedimiento de infracción” at Gaceta del Semanario Judicial de la Federación, Tenth Period, Number 36, Volume IV, November 2016, page 2412. Electronic version: https://sjf.scjn.gob.mx/sjfsist/Paginas/DetalleGeneralV2.aspx?Epoca=1e3e10000000000&Apendice=1000000000000&Expresion=interpretaci%25C3%25B3n%2520perif%25C3%25A9rica&Dominio=Rubro&TA_TJ=2&Orden=1&Clase=DetalleTesisBL&NumTE=1&Epp=20&Desde=-100&Hasta=-100&Index=0&InstanciasSeleccionadas=6,1,2,50,7&ID=2013115&Hit=1&IDs=2013115&tipoTesis=&Semanario=0&tabla=&Referencia=&Tema=.

[2] “Infracciones en materia de comercio. El abandono de la mercancía en aduana no exime de que se constituya una conducta infractora originada en la motivación psicológica del dolo al momento de realizar la importación” at R.T.F.J.F.A., Seventh Period, Year V, Number 49, August 2015, page 468.

[3] Section 213.- “It is an administrative infringement: I. Taking any action against the good uses and customs in industry, trade and services that imply unfair competition and related with the subject matter regulated by this Act”.

[4] “Diseño industrial. La importación de un bien protegido por un registro relativo sin consentimiento de su titular, constituye un acto contrario a los buenos usos y costumbres en la industria o comercio”, at Gaceta del Semanario Judicial de la Federación, Tenth Period, Number 40, Volume IV, March 2017, page 2695. Electronic version: https://sjf.scjn.gob.mx/sjfsist/Paginas/DetalleGeneralV2.aspx?Epoca=1e3e10000000000&Apendice=1000000000000&Expresion=IMPORTACI%25C3%2593N%2520DE%2520UN%2520BIEN%2520PROTEGIDO%2520POR%2520UN%2520REGISTRO&Dominio=Rubro&TA_TJ=2&Orden=1&Clase=DetalleTesisBL&NumTE=1&Epp=20&Desde=-100&Hasta=-100&Index=0&InstanciasSeleccionadas=6,1,2,50,7&ID=2013984&Hit=1&IDs=2013984&tipoTesis=&Semanario=0&tabla=&Referencia=&Tema=.

[5] “Tipicidad. El principio relativo, normalmente referido a la materia penal, es aplicable a las infracciones y sanciones administrativas” at Semanario Judicial de la Federación y su Gaceta, Ninth Period, Volume XXIV, August 2006, page 1667. Electronic version: https://sjf.scjn.gob.mx/sjfsist/Paginas/ResultadosV2.aspx?Epoca=1e3e10000000000&Apendice=1000000000000&Expresion=174326&Dominio=Rubro&TATJ=2&Orden=1&Clase=TesisBL&bc=Jurisprudencia.Resultados&TesisPrincipal=TesisPrincipal&InstanciasSeleccionadas=6,1,2,50,7&Hits=20.

La entrada A court opens the door to the Doctrine of Equivalents in Mexico se publicó primero en Reyes Fenig.

As a rule, a trademark registration is not enforceable against a third party that started using, in Mexico and in bona fide, a trademark identical or confusingly similar to the registered one, to identify the same or similar products or services, if such use started before the filing date in Mexico. Claiming a date of first use in the application creates an exception to the rule.

Further, as a rule, Mexican registered trademarks may be invalidated on grounds of earlier and continuous use, in Mexico or abroad, of an identical or confusingly similar trademark to identify the same or similar goods or services, provided that such use started before the filing date in Mexico and has been continuous[1]. Claiming a date of first use in the application creates an exception to the rule.

The claim of the date of first use in the trademark application does not have consequences before the issuance of the trademark registration. Mexico does not demand use of the trademark to issue the registration and claiming a date of first use would not expedite the examination of the application.

After the issuance of the Mexican trademark registration, if the registrant claimed a date of first use in the application, the resulting registration would be enforceable against a third party using an identical or confusingly similar trademark in Mexico identifying the same or similar goods or services, even if such use started before the filing date in Mexico. Only if the use began before the date of first use stated in the application, then the trademark registration would not be enforceable against said third party.

As I said before, the rule is that a Mexican trademark registration may be invalidated due earlier and continuous use in Mexico or abroad if the use started before the filing date in Mexico. However, as an exception, if the registrant claimed a date of first use in Mexico in the application, then the plaintiff in the invalidation action would have to prove that it started the continuous use in Mexico or abroad before the date of first use stated in the application, instead of the filing date in our country.

Stating a date of first use has an important downside. The Mexican Industrial Property Statute stipulates that a trademark registration may be invalidated if it was issued using false information stated in the application. Although I am not aware of any statistics available, most of the invalidation actions I have filed on grounds of false information in the application, were related to the date of first use stated in the trademark application. The Mexican Patent and Trademark Office and the courts had consistently decided that the plaintiff did not have the burden of proof to demonstrate that the date of first use stated in the application was false; it was the trademark owner who had to demonstrate the truthfulness or accuracy of the date of first use. Considering that affidavits of use have almost no value as evidence in Mexico, proving that the applicant did not lie when stating a date of first use could be very difficult, especially in cases when the date of first use was several years old.

According to the statute of limitations, the vulnerability of a registered trademark against an invalidation action due false information stated in the application has to be filed within a five-year term after the publication of the trademark registration in the Official Gazette.

As you may imagine, stating a date of first use in a trademark application could become a dangerous trap and a potential risk of invalidation.

Some judges did some isolated efforts to moderate the rigor of the cause of invalidation provided in the statute. For example, there was an old isolated precedent from 1990 that provided that the invalidation on grounds of false information stated in the application, namely the date of first use, should only be declared if the plaintiff proves that the trademark owner obtained an unfair advantage from such a date of first use claim or that the first use claim could cause an unfair competition situation. However, other judges not only did not follow the precedent, but most of them affirmed the opposite position.

Things changed recently. On July 2016, a panel of judges issued a binding precedent about the invalidation action on grounds of false information stated in the application[2]. The precedent basically states that, in a cancellation action claiming that the date of first use stated in the trademark application was false, the burden of proof to demonstrate that the date of first use on a trademark application was false is on the plaintiff.

The precedent will dramatically reduce the chances of getting a trademark registration invalidated due a false or inaccurate date of first use; it seems extremely difficult to prove that someone was not using a trademark in the date it stated I the application. Therefore, the plaintiff has to prove that it was materially or legally impossible for the trademark owner to start using the trademark in the date stated in the application. Other than the above, the plaintiff may file evidence suggesting that a date of first sue is false, but not an actual direct proof.

The precedent was not free of controversy, because of the technicalities it implied. A significant number of judges in the panel disagreed, and one of them even prepared a very interesting minority report.

In any case, claiming a date of first use now seems much safer for trademark applicants and owners than it was just a few months ago. The precedent could be fair for trademark owners, but it may also lead to illegitimate claims with dangerous consequences (read my post The relevance of the date of first use in Mexican trademark applications)

One question that remains to be solved is if this precedent may be applied to invalidation cases that started before the publication of the precedent. The Amparo Statute provides that binding precedents from the federal courts of appeals or the Supreme Court may not be retroactive. I think the provision prevents the federal courts of appeals and the Federal Court of Administrative Affairs from using the precedent to decide appeals filed after July 1, 2016. However, I believe the Mexican Patent and Trademark Office may start ruling cases using this new binding precedent, no matter when they were filed.

[1] It is not required to prove that the plaintiff’s trademark is well-known in Mexico; earlier and continuous use of the mark in any country is enough. The statue of limitations provides that such an invalidation action has to be filed within the third anniversary of publication of the issuance of the Mexican  trademark registration in the Official Gazette.

[2] “NULIDAD DE REGISTRO MARCARIO. CUANDO SE ALEGA LA FALSEDAD DE LA FECHA DEL PRIMER USO DE LA MARCA, CORRESPONDE AL ACTOR LA CARGA DE ACREDITAR LOS HECHOS CONSTITUTIVOS DE SU ACCIÓN”, at Semanario Judicial de la Federación, Volume II, No. 32, July 2016, page 1445. benefit-from-new-binding-ruling-precedent.

La entrada New binding ruling benefits owners of trademarks registered in Mexico that claimed date of first use. se publicó primero en Reyes Fenig.

There seems to be an increasing number of cases related to three-dimensional trademark applications, resulting in new precedents related to these marks. In 2009, the Fourth and Ninth Courts of Appeals in Mexico City published a couple of precedents** regarding the requirements that three-dimensional trademarks must fulfill to be registrable in Mexico. Further, the Specialized Chamber in IP Matters of the Federal Court of Tax and Administrative Affairs published a precedent*** regarding the scope of rights provided by the registration of three-dimensional marks.

There have been a lot of discussions about the requirements to register three-dimensional trademarks, not only in Mexico but in many other countries and regions. On one side, companies and business are trying to differentiate themselves from competitors not only by developing new packages and containers and registering them as trademarks, but also by attempting to protect the shape of their products by registering them as a trademark. On the other side, there is a clear tendency of many Trademark Offices -including the Instituto Mexicano de la Propiedad Industrial or Mexican Patent and Trademark Office (MPTO)- to reject the registration as a trademark of the three dimensional shape of an object when the shape has a functional character.

This post will be mainly about the possibility of registering the three-dimensional shape of a product as a trademark in Mexico.

In the first place, there is no doubt that Mexican law allows the registration, as a trademark, of the shape of a product. Section 89, paragraph II of the Industrial Property Statute stipulates that three-dimensional trademarks may be registered in Mexico; and section 53 of the Rules of the Industrial Property Statute explicitly provides that the shape or presentation of a product may be registered as a trademark, among other three-dimensional marks such as packages and containers.

Notwithstanding the above, not all three-dimensional marks can be registered. Section 90, paragraph III of the Industrial Property Statute prohibits the registration of “three-dimensional shapes that are of public domain or that have become of common use, and that do not have originality to make them easily distinguishable, as well as the usual and common shape of the products and the one imposed by its nature or industrial function”.

Therefore, the shape of a product is registrable as a trademark, if: (i) such shape is original enough to allow it to make it easily distinguishable, (ii) it is not of public domain; (iii) it has not become of common use; (iv) it is not the usual and common shape of the product to be identified by the mark and; (v) it is not imposed by the nature or industrial function of the product.

With some many “if’s”, obtaining the registration of the three-dimensional shape of a product can be extremely difficult in Mexico. In the case of the shape of a product, no matter how original it may be, I cant’ imagine a design completely voided of functional characteristics, and the presence of a functional characteristic may be a cause of rejection of the trademark application.

Of course I am not saying that it is impossible to secure IP rights for the shape of a product. Industrial design registrations are often used to secure exclusivity rights for the shape of products. The issue I want to raise is directed to the trademark aspect of three-dimensional form of a product, and if it is actually possible to register it as a trademark while avoiding all the restrictions that the statute provides.

For example, in the field of industrial designs, it is possible to register the three-dimensional design of a light bulb, provided that the design is new and substantially ornamental. I highlight the expression ‘substantially’ because under Mexican law three-dimensional industrial designs have always to be referred to a specific industrial product. Therefore there has to be a minimum or tolerable degree of functionality in the design; otherwise, there would be no industrial product at all to apply the design to. In any case, it is clear that the exclusivity rights that the design registration provides do not include the functional or technical characteristics of the product or design.

However, in the field of trademarks, the shape of a light bulb, no matter how original and distinctive it might be, has to be determined in some degree by its nature and function. A complete absence of functionally in the product’s shape would result in a useless product or in no product at all.

Therefore, the consequence of claiming that the shape of a product has to be absolutely voided of functional characteristics in order to be registrable as a three-dimensional trademark (in my opinion, this has been the MPTO’s position in the last years) would be that, in practice, it is not feasible to obtain trademark protection for the three-dimensional design of a product itself, no matter what the statute or its rules provide whatsoever.

I believe that the current position of Mexican authorities about the registration as trademark of the shape of products is too dogmatic, even against the law.

In an effort to avoid the rejection of applications for the three-dimensional marks on grounds of functionality or lack of distinctiveness, some applicants added literal and figurative elements to the three-dimensional mark subject of the application. These three-dimensional trademark cases with additional bi-dimensional elements included containers (the precedents from the Fourth and Ninth Courts of Appeal in Mexico City make specific reference to the shape of containers) and shapes of products.

The main argument behind adding intrinsically distinctive literal and figurative features to the three dimensional trademark was that the trademark must be analyzed as a ‘whole’, without splitting its bi-dimensional and three-dimensional elements (“The whole is other than the sum of its parts”). The applicants claimed that, if as a result of the examination of the trademark as a ‘whole’, it was reasonable to conclude that the shape of the product or container plus the literal and figurative bi-dimensional elements, allows an average consumer to distinguish the product from other of the same kind, then the trademark is registrable, and the exclusivity rights would comprise the three-dimensional design and the literal and figurative elements.

Eventually, different courts of appeals issued contradictory decisions. The contradictions caused the intervention of the Supreme Court and the publication of a binding precedent in April 2010.

Basically, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no obstacle for the filing of a trademark application for a three-dimensional mark that also includes literal or figurative elements. However, the decision also provides that the examination of the registrability of such a trademark must be conducted in two stages. In the first stage, the examiner must consider the three-dimensional aspect of the mark only, excluding the bi-dimensional features. If the conclusion of the examiner is that the three-dimensional trademark is registrable, then he/she may start the second stage of the examination and consider the literal and/or figurative aspects of the trademark.

The decision expressly states that if the three-dimensional feature of the mark is not intrinsically registrable, then the trademark application must be rejected, without need of considering the bi-dimensional elements that the trademark may include.

The decision of the Supreme Court only provides guidelines about the examination of three-dimensional trademarks. It does not provide any restriction about the intrinsic registrability of the shape of a product as a trademark.

Personally, I am against to the two-stage examination of three-dimensional trademarks provided in the Supreme Court’s decision. However, it is a binding precedent that confirms the way the MPTO has examined three-dimensional trademarks in the last years. Therefore, it is most likely that the somehow hostile approach to this kind on non-traditional trademarks (especially to the ones that protect the shape of products) will continue in Mexico.
* Judicial Journal of the Federation, Ninth Era, XXXI, April 2010, page 430.

** Judicial Journal of the Federation, Ninth Era, XXIX, January 2009, page 2769; and Judicial Journal of the Federation, Ninth Era, XXIX, March de 2009, page 2811.

*** Journal of the Federal Court of Tax and Administrative Affairs, Sixth Era, Year II., No. 24, December 2009, page 259.

La entrada The Mexican Supreme Court provides guidelines about examination of three-dimensional trademarks 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.

Nevertheless, Mexico acknowledges certain rights and defenses for the users of non-registered trademarks; Mexico also allows applicants to claim a date of commencement of use in Mexico, in order to obtain some benefits after the issuance of the trademark registration. In any case, these rights and defenses should not be construed as common-law rights (there is no common-law in Mexico) or exceptions to the first-to-file principle: the first applicant has priority to get the trademark registration, no matter who claimed the earliest date of first use or if the earliest applicant expressly stated that it has not started using the trademark at all.

In the same sense, only the registered owner of the Mexican trademark registration would have exclusivity rights on the trademark, regardless if a third party started using the same trademark before, even if the Instituto Mexicano de la Propiedad Industrial or Mexican Patent and Trademark Office (MPTO) has acknowledged such earlier use.

Notwithstanding the above, the claim of the date of first use of the trademark in the application, may actually extend the scope of rights resulting from the registration, but may also create a significant vulnerability of the trademark registration against an invalidation action.

I. ACTIONS AND DEFENSES FOR THE EARLIER USERS OF NON-REGISTERED TRADEMARKS IN MEXICO

The first user of a non-registered trademark in Mexico is not acknowledged as the proprietor of the mark, thus it may not file trademark infringement actions against other users of the same mark for the same goods or services.

Nevertheless, in theory, the first user of the trademark could file unfair competitions actions against other users of the mark, but it has to prove an intention to deceive the consumers, or that the trademark is well-known; in practice, it is difficult to prevail if there is not a registered or well-known trademark involved in the unfair competition claim.

Notwithstanding the above, Mexican law provides a defense and an action to the first users of non-registered trademarks to oppose the holder of a trademark registration.

A. Defense against a trademark registration

The Mexican statute provides that a trademark registration is not enforceable against a third party that have used in good faith and in Mexico, an identical or confusingly similar trademark to the registered one for the same or similar goods/services, if such use in Mexico has been continuous and started before the filing date of the trademark application or before the date of first used stated in said application.

B. Action against a trademark registration

The user of a trademark may file an invalidation action against an identical or confusingly similar registered trademark, covering the same or similar goods or services, provided that said use is continuous, started before the filing date of the application or the date of first use stated in the application, if any.

The Mexican statute of limitations stipulates that the invalidation action has to be filed within a three years term after the publication of the registration in the Industrial Property Gazette.

This action is unique because it is not necessary to prove earlier use in Mexico. Earlier and continuous use in any country in the world would be enough to invalidate the Mexican trademark registration. It is not necessary to prove that the used trademark is well-known or famous in Mexico (there is another action for those cases), and there is no reciprocity requirement in case the use took place abroad.

II. BENEFITS FROM CLAIMING FIRST USE IN A MEXICAN TRADEMARK APPLICATION

Claiming a date of first use in a trademark application may provide important advantages compared with a trademark registration with no prior use claim, although the applicant may benefit from those advantages only after the issuance of the registration.

The first use claim does not expedite or delay the prosecution of the trademark application. It is not required to file a specimen of the product/or service and the MPTO would not demand evidence confirming the date of commencement of use.

The claim –or lack of claim- about the date of first use and the statement stating that the trademark has not been used in Mexico may not be amended.

1. Defense of the trademark registration against earlier users

If a third party wants to challenge the validity of a trademark registration due earlier and continuous use in Mexico or any other country (as explained in I.B above) of an identical or confusingly similar mark covering the same or similar products or services, and the challenged registration has a claim of first use, then the plaintiff has to prove that it started using the trademark before said date of commencement of use (and not before the filing date in Mexico as it happens with a “regular” trademark registration).

2. Enforceability against earlier incorporated legal entities that use the trademark without authorization in their corporate name

The general rule is that the owner of a trademark registration may file an infringement action against a company that uses, as part of the corporate name, the registered trademark without authorization of the trademark owner, provided that:

(i) The infringing company’s activities are related to the goods or services covered by the infringed trademark, and

(ii) The filing date of the infringed trademark registration is earlier than the date of incorporation of the infringing company.

The above is the general rule. However, if there was a claim of first use in the trademark application, the trademark owner may file the infringement action against companies that started using the mark in their corporate names before the filing date of the application in Mexico, but after the date of commencement of use stated in the application.

One matter that has not been clarified in connection with this cause of infringement (actually, with all causes of patent, trademark and copyright infringement) is associated to the statute of limitations. The special statutes are silent about this issue, but the more general Federal Law of Administrative Procedures (complementary to the special Industrial Property and Copyright statutes) states a 5 years term.

The existence of a statute of limitations in connection to the infringement of IP rights has so many important implications (such as when the term stated in the statute of limitations starts; in our case,  when the infringing corporation ws incorporated, when the infringing corporation ceases activities or when the infringing corporation is is dissolved) that discussing them requires another post.

3. Enforceability against earlier non-authorized users of the registered trademark

The general rule provides that a Mexican trademark registration is not enforceable against a third party that started using in Mexico, in good faith, and before the filing date of the Mexican trademark application, a mark identical or confusingly similar to the registered one to identify the same or similar goods or services.

However, a Mexican trademark registration would be enforceable against a third party that started using before the filing date of the Mexican registered trademark, the same or a confusingly similar mark in Mexico (even in good faith) applied to the same or similar goods and services, if there is a date of first use stated in the trademark application, and such date of first use predates the date the third party began using the mark.

III. RISKS ASSOCIATED TO THE FIRST USE CLAIM IN THE TRADEMARK APPLICATION

This is not a perfect world, and the benefits that may provide the claim about the date of first use of a trademark in the trademark application are not exempt of certain risk, namely the vulnerability of the trademark registration with the first-use claim against an invalidation action due false information stated in the application.

The statute provides as cause of invalidation of a trademark registration, stating false information in the trademark application. Such false information may refer to any of the data fields of the application, such as the applicant’s name, address, nationality, and of course, the date of first use.

The statute of limitations provides that an invalidation action against a trademark registration due false information in the trademark application may be filed within a five years term, counted from the date of publication of the registration in the Industrial Property Gazette.

When a third party files an invalidation action against a trademark registration, claiming that the date of first use stated in the trademark application was false, the burden of proof is on the trademark owner, who has to prove that the date of commencement of use in Mexico was correct.

Mexican law and courts are very formalistic, thus proving the accuracy of a date of first use can become an extremely difficult task.

A non-binding precedent from the Tribunal Federal de Justicia Fiscal y Administrativa or Federal Court of Tax and Administrative Affairs (FCTAA), states that if the date of first use was inaccurate by just a few days, and the evidence shows that the trademark owner it started using the trademark long before the plaintiff, the trademark registration should not be invalidated*. I think that the FCTAA’s position is absolutely fair, but it is not fully consistent with the statutem and the precedent has yet to be confirmed to be binding.

(Update September 30, 2016. A binding ruling from a panel of appeal judges in the Mexico City Circuit ruled that the plaintiff has to prove that the date of first use was false or innacurate. This ruling significantly reduces the risk of having a registered tradematk invalidated because there was a date of first use. Read my post “New binding ruling benefits owners of trademarks registered in Mexico that claimed date of first use”.)

In order to prevent the vulnerability to an invalidation action due false information stated in the application, the general advice is that the date of commencement of use should have some documentary backup, namely invoices issued to customers located in the Mexican territory.

If the applicant is not certain that the trademark has been used in Mexico, or does not have any document to prove it, the usual recommendation is not stating a date of first use in Mexico, either by explicitly stating that the mark has not been used in our country, or by leaving the data field in the application blank.

Use by persons different from the trademark applicant, such as sister and parent companies and shareholders, as a general rule, may not be claimed in the benefit of the trademark applicant.

Some tips about the claim of first use:

(1) If the applicant has used the trademark on goods or services different from the ones stated in the trademark application, the applicant should not claim a date of commencement of use.

(2) In my opinion, if the applicant has used the trademark on one or a few of the goods or services listed in the trademark application, but not all of them, the applicant may claim a date of first use and such date would benefit all the products or activities listed in the trademark application.

It is important to say that this is my opinion; the statute is silent regarding this issue, and there are no published precedents supporting or rejecting my position.

(3) In my opinion, stating that the trademark has not been used, or leaving the field blank (there would be a statutory presumption that the trademark has not been used), in spite of the fact that the trademark has actually been used in Mexico, would not be a false statement that would make the registration vulnerable to an invalidation action due false information.

From my perspective, stating that the trademark has not been used or failing to make a statement at all, in spite that the applicant has used the mark, would be a valid and legitimate waiver of the right to claim the date of first use, given that no third party would be harmed in any way by such non-use statement.

Of course, my colleagues may disagree with my opinions, especially in the absence of explicit provisions in the statutes or judicial precedents. Hopefully, the courts will decide who is right in a not so distant future.

* See Journal of the Federal Court of Tax and Administrative Affairs, Era VI, Year I, No. 11, November 2008, page 587. This decision somehow confirms an old isolated non-binding ruling from a Federal Court of Appeals of 1990 (Weekly Judicial Journal of the Federation, Eight Era, Volume VI, Second Part-1, July-December 1990, page 198).

La entrada The relevance of the date of first use in Mexican trademark applications 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.