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

AI
Leaders at four firms share their hiring approach, including whether AI knowledge is a must-have for new staff
McKool Smith and Licks Attorneys are acting in the dispute, which alleges infringement of patents covering video-related technologies
Legacy firm Allen & Overy agreed a high-profile tie-up with US firm Shearman & Sterling in May last year
News of Verizon settling its lawsuit with Headwater Research and a copyright setback for AI firm Perplexity at a New York court were also among the top talking points
IPH, which owns several IP businesses in the APAC and Canada, reported a 16.5% increase in revenue and 13% jump in profit after tax
With Ireland’s government re-engaging with the idea of a UPC referendum, it provides a chance to improve the system further
US-based company says appointment of Jorge Ordonez shows its momentum as a private-equity-backed platform expanding in the IP services market
The firm hired an IP litigation team during the reporting period and has entered the Managing IP rankings for trademark work
Masaki Mikami of Marks IP explains how he helped prove acquired distinctiveness to secure protection for 'Pocky' in Japan
Daralyn Durie discusses the ‘amazing’ opportunity of working on an AI case, the value of celebrating women, and how to build the next wave of talent
Gift this article