The most usual way to oppose a trademark or patent infringement case in Mexico is filing an administrative infringement action with the Mexican Patent and Trademark Office (MPTO). If the administrative infringement action is successful, the MPTO will impose the infringer a fine, destroy infringing goods that may have been sized and issue a permanent order to stop the infringing activities. The MPTO has no authority to award damages or attorney\u2019s fees.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
A landmark decision was the 2004 jurisprudencia<\/em> or binding precedent 1a.\/J. 13\/2004[1]<\/a> 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\u00a0\u00a0Damages claims due patent and trademark infringement<\/a>).<\/p>\n 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:<\/p>\n a)<\/strong> It is necessary to have a final infringement decision from the MPTO before filing a civil action for indemnification of damages.<\/p>\n b)<\/strong> The court where the civil lawsuit has been filed cannot review the MPTO\u2019s decision about the infringement.<\/p>\n c)<\/strong> The plaintiff has to prove, in the trial, that the infringement caused actual damages.<\/p>\n d)<\/strong> The plaintiff must also prove the cause-effect relation between the infringement and the actual damages.<\/p>\n e)<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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]<\/a>. 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.<\/p>\n 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 <\/em>or court of appeals disagreed with some critical positions that the MSC has adopted since 2004 in different decisions.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n The underlying civil case was decided by the Octavo Tribunal Colegiado en Materia Civil del Primer Circuito <\/em>or Eight Panel of the Federal Court of Appeals in Mexico City (Eight Panel)[3]<\/a> 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\u00a0here<\/a>)<\/span>.<\/p>\n 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 \u201corientations\u201d (unfortunately the Eight Panel did not state a statutory provision, precedent or legal theory supporting the ruling).<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n If other federal panels and state courts follow the Eight Panel\u2019s 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 \u201corientations\u201d that the Eight Panel and potentially other courts will start finding in the binding precedents of the MSC.<\/p>\n [1]<\/a> \u201cPROPIEDAD INDUSTRIAL. ES NECESARIA UNA PREVIA DECLARACI\u00d3N POR PARTE DEL INSTITUTO MEXICANO DE LA PROPIEDAD INDUSTRIAL, SOBRE LA EXISTENCIA DE INFRACCIONES EN LA MATERIA PARA LA PROCEDENCIA DE LA ACCI\u00d3N DE INDEMNIZACI\u00d3N POR DA\u00d1OS Y PERJUICIOS\u201d, at Semanario Judicial de la Federaci\u00f3n y su Gaceta<\/em>, 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<\/a>=. Date of review: January 14, 2019).<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> \u201cPROPIEDAD INDUSTRIAL. EL ART\u00cdCULO 221 BIS DE LA LEY RESPECTIVA NO CONTRAVIENE EL PRINCIPIO DE SEGURIDAD JUR\u00cdDICA\u201d at Semanario Judicial de la Federaci\u00f3n<\/em>, D\u00e9cima \u00c9poca, 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<\/a>=. Date of review: January 19, 2019).<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> 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<\/a><\/span>)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A Mexican lower court disagrees with the Supreme Court about the requirements to succesfully file a civil action for damages due patent and trademark infringement.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":2028,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[296,297],"tags":[37,316,321,329,330,332,377,378,380,399,414,177,440,241,242],"class_list":["post-1648","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-patent-law","category-trademark-law","tag-arturo-d-reyes","tag-binding-precedent","tag-circuit-courts","tag-courts","tag-courts-of-appeals","tag-damages","tag-industrial-property","tag-industrial-property-law","tag-infringement","tag-law","tag-mexican-supreme-court","tag-mexico","tag-precedents","tag-reyes-fenig","tag-reyes-lomelin"],"yoast_head":"\n