One of the topics around Joaquín “Chapo” Guzmán that has deserved a place in the recent news relates to trademarks. The press informed that there were attempts to register different versions of the name and nickname of Joaquín Guzmán Loera as a trademark. The applicants were Alejandrina Gisselle Guzmán Salazar (marks “JOAQUÍN EL CHAPO GUZMÁN” and “EL CHAPO GUZMÁN”), Emma Coronel Aispuro (mark “JOAQUÍN ARCHIVALDO GUZMÁN LOERA EL CHAPO GUZMÁN”) and María Alejandrina Salazar Hernández (marks “EL CHAPITO” y “EL CHAPITO GUZMÁN”).

María Alejandrina Salazar Hernández (María Salazar) was the Drug Lord’s first wife[2], Emma Coronel Aispuro (Emma Coronel) is the current wife of Guzmán[3] and some say that Alejandrina Gisselle Guzmán (Alejandrina Guzmán) is the daughter of Guzmán Loera^[4].

I do not know if any of the applicants were following Guzman’s instructions, but it is important to highlight that no application was filed by Joaquín Guzmán Loera or on his behalf, as some media has incorrectly stated.

On September 24, 2010 Alejandrina Guzmán and María Salzar filed trademark applications for different marks. Alejandrina Salzar applied for the registration of the marks “EL CHAPO”, “JOAQUÍN EL CHAPO GUZMÁN” and “EL CHAPO GUZMÁN” and María Salazar filed for the marks “EL CHAPITO”, “EL CHAPITO GUZMÁN” and “DON CHAPO GUZMÁN”[5]

Alejandrina Guzmán’s trademark applications for “EL CHAPO GUZMÁN” covered products of International Classes 14 (jewelry and watches)[6], 18 (articles made of fur, leather and leather imitation), 25 (clothing, footwear and headgear), 28 (toys and sports articles) and services of International Class 35 (advertising and business direction). The applications for “EL CHAPO” referred to goods and services of International Classes 14, 18, 28 and 35. The applications for “JOAQUÍN EL CHAPO GUZMÁN” were filed in International Classes 14, 18 and 25.

María Salazar filed applications for “EL CHAPITO” and “EL CHAPITO GUZMÁN” in International Classes 14, 18, 25 and 35. She also filed an application for “DON CHAPO GUZMÁN” in International Class 33 to identify alcoholic beverages except beer.

On August 2011, the “Instituto Mexicano de la Propiedad Industrial” or Mexican Patent and Trademark Office (MPTO) issued the final refusal to all trademark applications that María Salazar filed (“EL CHAPITO”, “EL CHAPITO GUZMÁN” and “DON CHAPO GUZMÁN”).

As for the filings of Alejandrina Guzmán, the MPTO approved the four applications for “EL CHAPO” (trademark registrations 1205096, 1205097, 120509 y 1219281) and rejected the applications for “JOAQUÍN EL CHAPO GUZMÁN”.

The decisions regarding the rejections of the trademark applications for “EL CHAPITO GUZMÁN”, “DON CHAPO GUZMÁN”, “JOAQUÍN EL CHAPO GUZMÁN” and “EL CHAPO GUZMÁN” basically state that the aforementioned marks are expressions used to identify an individual that, back then, was wanted by federal authorities in connection with several felonies, thus they were against morale and good uses and non-registrable, as provided by section 4 of the Industrial Property Law[7].

A few years later, on October 2014, Emma Coronel (current wife of Guzmán) filed trademark applications in Classes 9, (electronics, software and computers), 16 (printed materials, stationary), 25 and 41 (education and entertaining) for “JOAQUÍN ARCHIVALDO GUZMÁN LOERA EL CHAPO GUZMÁN”.

On April 2015, the MPTO objected the trademark applications stating, on one hand, that the law prohibits registering the names or aliases of actual people without authorization; on the other hand, the examiner stated that the name of an individual that was being prosecuted could not be registered as a trademark because it was against moral and good uses. Emma Coronel did not answer the office actions and the applications became abandoned.

I do not want to discuss here what are good uses and what is moral or immoral. Some conducts that may be immoral or unbearable for some people are completely justifiable for others. Even in the case of individuals that the State itself may consider as enemies, the conflict may have many different reasons and there can be disagreement about the morality of their actions, even inside the same community. Nevertheless, I think the decisions of the MPTO to reject the trademark applications for the name and pseudonyms of the leader of one of the largest criminal organizations in Mexico were reasonable. The trademark system is no intended to protect the name of a felon that is responsible, directly or indirectly, for the suffering, torture and death of thousands in Mexico, including several actual journalists.

Then, why the MPTO issued to Alejandrina Guzmán trademark registrations for “EL CHAPO” in four different classes of goods and services and at the same time rejected the trademark applications for “EL CHAPITO” filed by María Salazar?

As I stated before, in some regions of Mexico the word “chapo” is used to designate short people, without making any reference to illegal activities. I remember the skillful Mexican midfielder Luis Montes (currently playing for Leon in the Mexican First Division), who is called “Chapo” or “Chapito”, and his nickname has never been linked or construed as an evocation to Joaquin Guzmán Loera.

If “chapo” is a nickname without negative connotations widely used in Mexico, my guess is that the examiner thought he did not have solid grounds to state that “chapo” is a word intrinsically immoral or against good uses, so his only option was approving the registration of “EL CHAPO” filed by Guzmán Salazar.

Further, there are several trademark registrations owned by other people that involve the mark “EL CHAPO” to distinguish different goods and services.

The MPTO issued several registrations for “EL CHAPO DE SINALOA” (translated as “The Chapo from Sinaloa”) in the name of Ernesto Pérez Zagaste. Apparently, Mr. Pérez is a singer of one kind of Mexican folk music called “banda” that uses “EL CHAPO DE SINALOA” as artistic name.

Mr. Pérez claims in his website that he was born at the county of Badiraguato, in the Mexican state of Sinaloa; the Drug Lord Joaquin “Chapo” Guzmán is also from Badiraguato, Sinaloa.

Mr. Ernesto Pérez also owns Mexican trademark registrations numbers 1,116,647 and 1,131,017 for the mark “EL CHAPO”. The MPTO issued the registrations in 2009 to identify Class 09 goods (cds, dvs, software, lenses and computer equipment are classified in Class 09) and Class 41 services.

Another individual, María de los Ángeles Moreno Rodríguez registered the trademark “EL CHAPO” to identify clothing, shoeware and headgear (trademark registration number 948,388) since August 2006. Ms. Rodriguez filed a trademark application (serial 796,602) on July 2006 for the mark “LOS ZETAS” also in Class 25. “Los Zetas” is the name of one of the most violent criminal organizations in Mexico. The examiner objected the application for “LOS ZETAS” on grounds of the statutory prohibition provided in section 4 of the Industrial Property Law, the applicant did not answer and the application became abandoned.

The MPTO did not refuse the applications for “EL CHAPITO” that Ms. Maria Salazar filed, on grounds of defense of morality or good uses. The reason was that “EL CHAPITO” was confusingly similar the earlier filed trademark “EL CHAPO” by Alejandrina Guzmán to cover the same products and services in Classes 14, 18, 28 and 35 and confusingly similar to the senior trademark registration of Ms. Moreno “EL CHAPO” in Class 25.

I do not know why María Salazar filed for “EL CHAPITO” and Alejandrina Guzmán for “EL CHAPO”, but the fact was that Alejandrina Guzman filed first (just for a few minutes, but first), thus her applications anticipated the trademark applications for “EL CHAPITO” and were the cause of the rejections. If the applications for “EL CHAPITO” and “EL CHAPO” would have been filed in the name of the same person, the chances of obtaining the registrations for “EL CHAPITO” would have been better, at least in Classes 14, 18, 28 and 35.

Meanwhile, a collateral victim of all the noise around the trademarks of “El Chapo” could be Luis “el Chapo” Montes who, in order to avoid misunderstandings or inconvenient associations, could ask the fans and the press to stop using the nickname “Chapo” or “Chapito” when speaking or writing about him. Would he like to be called Luis “Shorty” Montes?

[1] One of the most important and authoritative dictionaries in the Spanish-speaking world is the one that the Real Academia Española (based in Spain) publishes. The dictionary of the Real Academia defines “chapo” as “substantive male and female, colloquial in Mexico. Person of short height”. The original entry is: chapo, pa 1. m. y f. coloq. Méx. Persona de baja estatura. Real Academia Española [Online edition] http://dle.rae.es/?id=8azLK4e. Date of review: January 14, 2016.

[2] “Las Mujeres del ‘Chapo’ Guzmán” at Zócalo Saltillo, June 24, 2012 [Online edition] http://www.zocalo.com.mx/seccion/articulo/las-mujeres-del-chapo-guzman. Date of review: January 28, 2016.

[3] “Emma Coronel Aispuro es la esposa de Joaquín ‘El Chapo’ Guzmán”, at People en español, January 13, 2016 [Online edition] http://www.peopleenespanol.com/article/emma-coronel-aispuro-es-la-esposa-de-joaquin-el-chapo-guzman. Date of review: January 14, 2016.

[4] “‘El Chapo’ Guzmán trató de registrar su nombre como marca” at Excélsior, January 12, 2016 [Online edition] http://www.excelsior.com.mx/nacional/2016/01/12/1068422. Date of review: January 14, 2016.

[5] It is likely that María Salazar and Alejandrina Guzmán were coordinated. They filed the applications on the same date just a few minutes apart and hired the same attorney.

[6] The goods and services listed in this article are just examples of the products and services described in the applications, not the actual descriptions.

[7] Section 4 of the Industrial Property Law states as follows: Section 4.-  No patent, registration or authorization shall be issued, and no action or right shall be published in the Official Gazette, when their content or form are against public order, morale or good uses or any legal provision.

La entrada The Drug Lord and the Trademark se publicó primero en Reyes Fenig.

On April 3, 2012, the Secretaría de Gobernación or Ministry of the Interior submitted the text of the Madrid Protocol to the Mexican Senate for its review, discussion and approval. This legislature will have the last session in a few days, and the rumor is that the senators want to ratify this international treaty before the sessions period is over (Update May 14, 2012: On April 25, 2012, the Mexican Senate approved the accession of Mexico to Madrid Protocol).

Update July 18, 2012: In a private meeting with members of the Mexican Bar, the General Director of the Mexican Patent and Trademark Office clarified that although the Senate approved the accession of Mexico to the Madrid Protocol, the accession instrument has yet to be deposited with WIPO, and such deposit is not scheduled yet, so Mexico is not a party yet of the Madrid Protocol and we do not know when the treaty will enter into force with respect to Mexico.

Update December 23, 2012: On November 29, 2012 the Mexican government deposited the instrument of accesion at WIPO. Read Mexico joins the Madrid Protocol.

The position of the Mexican Chapter of the AIPPI, and of most of my colleagues, is of dismay. They have claimed for many years that Mexico should not join the Madrid Protocol because it does not benefit Mexican businesses and the treaty has serious technical deficiencies.

I do not know the Madrid Protocol well enough to discuss its technical deficiencies; what I know is that the people in Mexico that claimed that the Madrid Protocol is technical deficient did not produce a single paper demonstrating the alleged technical problems. Of course joining the Madrid Protocol will create problems in Mexico: we will have to adjust the Mexican legislation and procedures, create an opposition system and decide how the national trademark registrations will interact with the international registrations, but I do not see these issues as intrinsic deficiencies of the Madrid Protocol. If the Madrid Protocol was so technical deficient, we did a lousy job proving it.

Update July 18, 2012: In a private Seminar held in Mexico City on July 5, 2012, one of the highest rank officials of the Mexican Patent and Trademark Office stated that changes in the Mexican legislation and rules were not seen as essential before depositing the accession instrument with WIPO. Actually, it seems that the Mexican Patent and Trademark Office is not sure if there the law should be amended and how.

People, especially lawyers, do not like changes, and the Madrid Protocol will force us to change law and practices.

However, I do believe that Mexico should not access the Madrid Protocol because it does not seem in the best interest of Mexican businesses.

Although we live in a globalized world and Mexico is a very open economy, Mexican businesses “export” a relatively low number of trademarks. That can be explained because about 80% of our exports are bound to the United States. Therefore, if there is interest in protecting a trademark abroad, in most cases such interest is limited to the United States. On the other hand, Mexico’s policy does not actually intend to diversify the destiny if our exports. On the contrary, the idea is making Mexico more attractive for foreign investors as a way to gain access to the US market by developing local suppliers and taking advantage of the rules of origin provided in the North America Free Trade Agreement.

So, if the Madrid Protocol is not that good for Mexican companies, why would Mexico join? I think the actual reason why Mexico decided to take steps to access the Madrid Protocol is that the Mexican government is convinced that it will make our country more attractive to foreign investments. Although that may be true, I believe that stating that joining the Madrid Protocol will equally benefit Mexican and foreign businesses is very naive.

Update August 3, 2012: Periódico El Economista informed that the Mexican Minister of Economy revealed that the approval of the Madrid Protocol was because it was a condition set by the government of the United States to support the accesion of Mexico to the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP.

Update January 2015: Mexico started accepting international designations on February 2013. For a quick view of some practical problems of the Madrid System in Mexico, click here.

La entrada Mexico and the Madrid Protocol 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.

Mexican law was already quite liberal, when compared with most Latin American countries, regarding the formal requirements for power of attorney documents for trademark and patent filing, prosecution and maintenance. Mexican law does not demand notarization, consular legalization or Apostille on such documents. Now, the law is going a little further

The MPTO will no longer request a power of attorney document in most trademark filing cases.

Instead, the MPTO will consider that the agent is authorized to file the trademark application on behalf of the applicant if the agent states under oath that it has such an authority. Of course, the MPTO will continue accepting the power of attorney document if the agent files it, but the examiners will no require it, and the lack of filing of the power of attorney would no longer delay the formal examination of the trademark application, the renewal application or an application to record an assignment or license.

Starting April 1st 2010, the new templates for trademark applications and renewal application will be mandatory; these new templates reflect the amendments to the law concerning the power of attorney.

It is a great thing that the trademark filing procedures in Mexico are becoming less formal. However, many Mexican lawyers and practitioners are worried about the consequences of such amendments in the long term, especially in connection to the validity and enforceability of trademark registrations issued without filing a power of attorney with the MPTO.

As I see it, the documentary evidence of the authority to file a trademark application or renew a registration on behalf of a third party –the applicant- is a different thing from the authority itself. Under the current amended statute, a trademark registration may not be invalidated due the lack of the filing of the power of attorney or due formal flaws in the document. However, a trademark registration or renewal could be invalidated due the absolute lack of authorization (verbal or written) to file the trademark or the renewal application. It may seem a very thin distinction, but technically speaking it is a huge difference.

It also seems that the MPTO will only consider the individual that actually signs the trademark or renewal application as attorney of record. If later, another professional from the same firm has any intervention in the prosecution of the application, the MPTO will not acknowledge him/her as attorney-of-record and will demand a written power of attorney, if it has not been filed, or payment of the government fee for the appointment of a new attorney of record. This will be an extremely delicate situation for firms that allow different professionals to intervene in the prosecution of trademark applications, and from my perspective, such a practice would be absolutely unfair and illegal.

Therefore, although no longer essential for the approval of the trademark application, I strongly recommend executing a written power of attorney and filing it with the MPTO at some point during the prosecution of the trademark application, or even after the issuance of the trademark registration or renewal, in order to secure evidence of the existence of the authority to do such filings.

Although less publicized, the amendments to the filing guidelines of the MPTO will introduce some changes in the practice of trademark filing and prosecution in Mexico. The most obvious change is that now there are mandatory templates for the most relevant filings with the MPTO; before the amendment, there were templates only for trademark and patent applications and for trademark renewal applications. Agents and lawyers prepared their petitions for all the other filings, in the way they better thought it suited the law and their needs. I would assume that the use of templates should help the MPTO to expedite the recordation of assignments, licenses and changes of name.

However, the MPTO is not only changing the guidelines; it is also changing some of its own practices, and not for good. An important change in the MPTO’s practice is that it will no longer allow applicants to request the issuance of certified copies of documents previously filed with the MPTO, at the same time that the applicant is fulfilling a certain requirement associated to a record or application different from the ones the documents were filed.

For example, let’s assume that there are two separate trademark applications for the same mark but in different classes, claiming the same priority from a multiple-class foreign application. In the past, one certified copy of the foreign trademark application was enough to have the priority rights acknowledged in both Mexican trademark applications. When requesting the MPTO to acknowledge the priority rights in one application, the applicant filed the original certified copy; in the other application, when requesting the acknowledgement of the priority, the applicant could ask the MPTO to issue a certified copy of the priority document just filed in the first application, in order to evidence the existence of the priority right.

Now, with the change in the practice of the MPTO, if there were two separate trademark applications for the same mark but in different classes claiming the same priority from a multiple-class foreign application, the applicant’s agent will have to obtain as many certified copies of the priority document as she/he may need, before requesting the acknowledgement of the priority rights, and file each request of acknowledgement of priority rights with its own priority document.

A similar situation will take place with the recordation of assignments, licenses, franchises, mergers, changes of name and securities, when they involve more than one trademark registration/application. Basically, the change of the MPTO’s practice will be reflected in an increase of the out-of-pocket expenses and in many cases it will jeopardize the timely filing of documents when there is a non-extendable deadline.

It is odd to see how, on one hand, the filing and prosecution of trademark applications are becoming less formal, and at the same time, the MPTO changes its practice to make the filing and prosecution of trademarks less expedite. It does not make any sense, and I believe it will be just a matter of time before some applicants start appealing the MPTO’s refusals to issue certified copies or to allow the intervention of more than one professional in the prosecution of a trademark application.

La entrada Amendments to the Mexican Industrial Property Statute make the trademark filings less formal, but also raise some concerns 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.

On April 6, 2009, the Instituto Mexicano de la Propiedad Industrial or Mexican Patent and Trademark Office (MPTO) received the trademark application serial number one million.

The applied trademarks is “NOVO DENT” and the applicant is Jorge Sharon Cohen Cherbowski (Mexican citizen). The trademark covers teeth whitening services.

Although the Instituto Mexicano de la Propiedad Industrial started working under its current structure and legal frame in 1994, the truth is that the MPTO has actually received more then one million trademark applications throughout its history.

For some reason I am not familiar with, the MPTO reseted the application numbers at some point in the 80’s; I am not sure if similar resets took place before. Further, the application serial numbers for trademarks do not take into account the applications for avisos comerciales or commercial slogans and for nombres comerciales or trade names, which receive separate application numbers.

In any case, the growing number of trademark applications handled each year by the MPTO poses a great challenge.

The MPTO has made significant efforts to improve its technologic capabilities and services. Although some adjustments are still required and there is no electronic filing, the new on-line services for the review of electronic files and documents deserve a special acknowledgement.

Of course, the MPTO is still far from being what practitioners expect from it. There are still many technical and regulation deficiencies, and examiners are often criticized for the decisions and positions they assume. In defense of the Mexican examiners, I still have to meet a trademark practitioner that is happy with the examiners of his/her own national office.

La entrada Trademark application serial number 1,000,000 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.

Trademark applicants must be careful when filing trademark applications. Otherwise, the resulting trademark registration may be either too restrictive, too vague or in the worst-case scenario, completely useless to provide an effective trademark protection.

The following are a few tips for trademark applicants in Mexico:

What trademark should apply for?

a) First, the applicant must register those trademarks that are already being used in Mexico.

b) Second, the applicant should register those trademarks that are not yet being used in Mexico, but it plans to start using them in the short or medium terms. It is not necessary to prove use of the trademarks to obtain the registration and the trademark owner would have three years to start using them in Mexico before they become vulnerable to cancellation due non-use.

(Update May 19, 2018: An important amendment to procedural and substantive trademark-related provisions was enacted on May 18, 2018. For Mexican registrations issued on August 10, 2018, it would be compulsory to file a declaration of use within a three-month term after the third anniversary of the trademark registraton. Failure to file the statement of use would result in the automatic cancellation of the registration. For more information, read our post).

c) Third, the applicant may register trademarks that are not being used and there are no plans to use them, but it wants to block them for use or registration by third parties. If after the third anniversary of the registration the trademark owner maintains the interest in blocking the trademark, it may get around the vulnerability to cancellation due non-use by re-filing the application and obtaining a new registration.

What version of the trademark should be registered?

Most trademark applicants will have two or three options to register the trademark: (i) in standard block characters; (ii) characters with a design; (iii) a design without alphanumeric characters.

Mexican law provides that registered trademarks should be used as registered, or with minimum changes, provided that they do not affect the distinctiveness of the trademark.

With a few exceptions, the stylization of trademarks tends to change with time. Although a word+design trademark registration would give proprietary rights on the mark and the design, the trademark owner has to use the trademark as registered or with non-material changes. A significant variation in the used stylization or design may cause the registration to eventually become vulnerable to a cancellation action due lack of valid use of the registered trademark.

Sometimes trademark owners find that because the evolution of the designs, the existing registrations are not any longer useful, and they have to file new trademark applications in order to guarantee an adequate protection, although giving up the filing date of the “obsolete” registrations; in a first-to-file system, giving up a filing date has some undesirable consequences in connection to the vulnerability of the trademark registration against different causes of cancellation, such as earlier use in the particular case of Mexico.

On the other hand, if the trademark is registered in standard block characters, the use of the mark in any letter style, size or color would be considered as valid use of the registered trademark for maintenance purposes. Therefore, the proprietary rights on the trademark will remain unaffected by the changes of the stylization of the mark.

Concerning design trademarks, most trademark practitioners agree that a design registration in black and white would provide a broader and more flexible protection than if claiming colors. The general opinion is that a design registered in black and white allows the registrant to use the mark in any color combination, although it is important to remark that said opinion is not expressly supported by the statute or some judicial precedent.

Therefore, in an ideal scenario, the applicant should file applications for both the stylized and the standard character trademark. If the trademark involves a logo in colors, filing the applications with and without color claim would also be advisable.

Unfortunately, budget limitations often prevent trademark owners from ideal scenarios, and force them to make choices. Although each case is different and require a specific analysis, in most cases I would recommend filing the application for the mark in standard block letters. However, if the logo and/or stylization is highly distinctive and there is a high commitment to use the trademark without changes in the colors and fonts, the application should be filed for a word+design trademark claiming the colors. An intermediate solution would be filing the application for the word+design trademark in black and white.

Who should file the trademark application?

There are many reasons and situations that may impact the decision about who should be the trademark owner, such as corporate policies and tax advantages.

If we limit the perspective to the Mexican trademark law, there are two issues that demand special attention as for who should be the applicant:

a) Claim of use. Mexican law allows trademark applicants to claim the use in Mexico earlier than the filing date in our country. If the trademark registration is issued, the use claim would give the trademark owner some additional advantages in case of a dispute with third parties if compared to a registrant that did not claim earlier use.

Notwithstanding the above, claiming use may be tricky. The applicant is not allowed to claim in its benefit the earlier use in Mexico performed by a parent or sister company or a subsidiary. Although the use claim gives some advantages to the registrant, it also may allow third parties to challenge the validity of the trademark registration claiming that the date of commencement of use stated in the application is false. The burden of proof on such cases would be on the trademark owner, who would have to demonstrate that the stated date of first use is true.

(Update May 19, 2018: A binding decision from the Federal Courts of Appeals ruled that the burden of proof to prove that a date of first use stated in a Mexican Trademark Applicaton is false is on the plantiff. This ruling makes claiming a date of first use in Mexico much safer. For more information, please read our post).

b) Licensing. Lack of use of a registered trademark by the trademark owner for three consecutive years (after the registration) on at least one of the goods/services described in the registration would make the trademark vulnerable to cancellation due lack of use.

Although license agreements are fully valid and enforceable between the parties without any special formality, the use of the mark by a licensee would inure in the benefit of the trademark owner only if a written license is recorded with the MPTO; sister companies and subsidiaries would be considered licensees too for these purposes. There have been several decisions from the MPTO and the Federal Court of Tax and Administrative Affairs (FCTAA) that flexibly such a formalistic statutory requirement, there are no binding decisions yet.

Therefore, if the application is filed by an individual or entity that would use the trademark through a licensee or franchisee, it should take into account that it will have to eventually record a written license with the MPTO.

In which International Class should apply?

Mexico does not allow multiple-class applications. The applicant must file one application per International Class, according to the Ninth Edition of the Nice Classification.

This is an issue trademark applicants must be very careful about. If the examiner considers that the application includes goods/services of more than one International Class, she/he will demand the applicant to delete some of the goods/services from the application. If the applicant is interested in securing trademark rights on the deleted products or services, they would have to be included in a new application that would not have any sort of preference or priority arising from the original trademark application.

There are three considerations that may help to decide in which class(es) the trademark application should be filed in:

a) First, the trademark application must be filed for those goods or services where the trademark is already being used.

b) Second, the trademark application should be filed for those goods or services where the trademarks is not yet in use but there are plans to use it in the short of middle term.

c) Third, the trademark application may be filed for goods or services where there are no plans to use it, but the applicant wants to block third parties from using or registering the trademark in such services or products. As we stated before, the trademark registration would become vulnerable to cancellation due lack of use only after the third year after the registration of the mark. If it is a strategic mark, the registrant may re-file the application after the third year and obtain a new registration.

Although Mexican law does not allow “full-class coverage”, the current practice of the MPTO allows applicants to use the header of the international classes in the description, obtaining a virtually full-class coverage. (Update May 19, 2018: The overhaul of the Mexican tradenark system enacted on May 18, 2018, provides that the header of the Class may no longer be used as description of goods and services. Such a restriction will become effective on August 10, 2018. For more information, read our post). So far, such broad protection is not limited to the products or services generically stated in the class headers, but also include products or services than may hardly be considered as implicitly included in the class header, such as “retail services” in the case of the class 35. (Update May 25, 2013: The New Guildelines of the Construction of the Classification, in force since October 4, 2012, provide a restreictive construction of the Classification, thus goods or services do not explicitly stated in the application or identified by genre of the lits of products or services stated in the application or registration are no longer considered covered by the application or registration. Read the post).

If the applicant seeks the broadest possible protection, it may combine a specific description with the class header (The header of the Class may not be used. See above update of May 19, 2018); the use of the mark in only one of the stated services or products would be enough to maintain he registration.

Of course, the broadest the products/services description is, the higher the chances of entering into conflicts with third parties.

La entrada A few tips about registering trademarks in Mexico se publicó primero en Reyes Fenig.