Mexico: Disadvantages of the Madrid Protocol

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Cookies Settings

Mexico: Disadvantages of the Madrid Protocol

The prosecution of trade mark applications under the Madrid Protocol is increasingly common among foreign clients. However, as far as it concerns to Mexico, there are some disadvantages for Madrid users:

1) Once a trade mark application is filed directly before the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (under the national system), it is assigned to an examiner, who will conduct a formal examination and then an official search report. If no official actions are received, the estimated time of achieving registration is about five months, otherwise, it could vary from 12 to 18 months.

On the other side, if the application is filed and prosecuted through WIPO, it is necessary to wait between eight and 18 months until the International Office turns the application to the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property for its examination. Thereafter, it may take from 14 to 18 months for the Mexican Trade Mark Office to examine the application and either grant registration or issue a provisional refusal.

As readers will realise, assuming that no provisional refusals are issued in the trade mark applications filed through WIPO, the applicant may obtain its registration in at least 14 months. While under the same scenario but through the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property, the applicant may obtain its registration in five months.

2) In trade mark registrations prosecuted under the Madrid system, there is not an appointed attorney of record nor an address for service in Mexico. Therefore, if a third party contests the validity of those registrations (based on nullity or cancellation actions), these communications/actions could not be served to an attorney in Mexico; thus, in the absence of a national attorney, any communication/action would have to be served by means of a notice in a newspaper which normally is hard to detect.

Regarding the certificates of registration, in trade mark applications prosecuted under the Madrid system, the original documents are kept in the files of the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property.

3) In our country, each trade mark application can only cover goods or services comprised in one class as we follow the so-called principle of specialty of trade marks and there are no multi-class applications.

Therefore, if an international registration designating Mexico is filed for multiple classes, the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property splits the International Registrations into individual national applications, one for each designated class, and each designated class will be handled under a separate national application number and faces independent examinations, paying government fees separately.

While the Madrid Protocol has certain advantages, it is advisable to analyse each case to determine which system is best for the applicant's needs.

Garcia_Mariana

Mariana García


OlivaresPedro Luis Ogazón No 17Col San Angel01000 México DFTel: +5255 53 22 30 00Fax: +5255 53 22 30 01olivlaw@olivares.com.mxwww.olivares.com.mx

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Eight years after its launch, members of the Australian patent firm’s Singapore office explain its growth strategy over the past year
Lawyers at Bowmans Kenya discuss the digital blind spots posed by the transition from physical ledgers to cloud databases and digital co-development models
The Powell Gilbert co-founder discusses the confidence required to launch a firm, building an enduring patent litigation practice and why developing the next generation has changed her measure of success
Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
David Rodrigues and Evan Lazerowitz – attorneys at Robinson & Cole – offer practical guidance on the steps a business might consider to preserve and maximise IP value before entering financial distress or insolvency
Daniel Law CEO Alicia Daniel-Shores may have stepped into a family business, but she has spent two decades building her own vision around technology and litigation
Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
Gift this article