Mexico: Proven commercial use required for trademarks to achieve acquired distinctiveness

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Mexico: Proven commercial use required for trademarks to achieve acquired distinctiveness

Sponsored by

olivares-400px.jpg

On August 10, 2018 several modifications to the Mexican Industrial Property Law entered into force, resulting in some new IP figures being recognised in Mexico.

One of the new legal concepts included in the Law is 'acquired distinctiveness,' more commonly known as 'secondary meaning', which allows the registration of trademarks that can be considered as not initially distinctive, but owing to their commercial use have acquired distinctiveness.

However, these modifications still need to be complemented with regulation and are yet to be published in the Official Gazette.

In light of this there are no clear guidelines to determine the evidence required to support an application for a trademark filed based on acquired distinctiveness, and so it is not clear how The Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI) will examine these applications when filed.

In order to be able to demonstrate that a trademark has acquired distinctiveness it is necessary to prove that it has been used in the market and that consumers recognise the trademark in relation to the goods and/or services that it distinguishes. This is to ensure that the trademark complies with its main requisite, i.e. that it is sufficiently distinctive to enable its goods/services to be distinguished from others in the market.

Factors that can support the distinctiveness of the trademark in the market include:

  • surveys;

  • the date of first use of the mark in Mexico;

  • the period of time of continued use and advertisement of the trademark in Mexico;

  • the volume of sales of the goods/services identified with the trademark during the last three years.

In any case, until the regulations to the industrial property law are published in the Official Gazette, it will be necessary to meet with examiners to determine whether or not this evidence is sufficient to obtain a favourable resolution from the authorities.

caraza-wilma.jpg

Wilma Caraza


Olivares

Pedro Luis Ogazón No 17

Col San Angel

01000 México DF

Tel: +5255 53 22 30 00

Fax: +5255 53 22 30 01

olivlaw@olivares.com.mx

www.olivares.com.mx


more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

News of EasyGroup failing in its trademark infringement claim against ‘Easihire’ and Amgen winning a key appeal at the UPC were also among the top talking points
Submit your nominations to this year's WIBL EMEA Awards by February 16 2026
Edward Russavage and Maria Crusey at Wolf Greenfield say that OpenAI MDL could broaden discovery and reshape how clients navigate AI copyright disputes
The UPC has increased some fees by as much as 32%, but firms and their clients had been getting a good deal so far
Meryl Koh, equity director and litigator at Drew & Napier in Singapore, discusses an uptick in cross-border litigation and why collaboration across practice areas is becoming crucial
The firm says new role will be at the forefront of how it delivers value and will help bridge the gap between lawyers, clients and tech
Qantm IP’s CEO and AI programme lead discuss the business’s investment and M&A plans, and reveal their tech ambitions
Controversial plans were scrapped by the Commission earlier this year after the Parliament had previously backed them
Lawyers at Spoor & Fisher provide an overview of how South Africa is navigating copyright and consent requirements to improve access to works for blind and visually impaired people
Gillian Tan explains how she balances TM portfolio management with fast-moving deals, and why ‘CCP’ is a good acronym to live by
Gift this article