Mexico: Public order, morals and good customs prevent trade mark

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: Public order, morals and good customs prevent trade mark

Sponsored by

olivares-400px.jpg

Early this year, the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property issued decisions denying registration for the trade mark PINCHE GRINGO BBQ & Design in classes 43 (restaurants) and 30 (sauces). The grounds of denial were a supposed violation of Article 4 of Mexican IP Law, which states that no patents, registrations or authorisations are to be granted for any legal figures or institutions regulated by this law, when the contents of an application are contrary to public order, morals and good customs.

The reasoning for these decisions is that supposedly the term PINCHE is pejorative adjective that means vile and / or despicable and GRINGO refers to a person born in the United States, especially English-speaking.

However, the real meaning of PINCHE is a person who provides services in the kitchen or an assistant cook and GRINGO refers to a person born in the United States, English-speaking. Therefore, the meaning of the trade mark is an assistant cook of American nationality or English-speaking.

The administrative authority not only chose to give a meaning to the word PINCHE which is not its actual meaning but merely a colloquial or slang meaning, but also exceeded its powers in attempting to establish codes of conduct, ethics or morals. It is the responsibility of other authorities to determine if any name used in a restaurant could be offensive or in violation of public order, such as the Federal Consumer Protection Office or other entities empowered to do so. The Institute is exclusively responsible for granting registrations for distinctive signs.

Furthermore, Article 4 of the Mexican IP Law should be declared unconstitutional as it empowers said Institute to decide upon registration for trademarks based on moral issues, when it does not fall within its field of competence.

The term PINCHE has already been registered in our country along with the term FRANCÉS (French), without any objections and having the exact same meaning.

These cases are currently being litigated before the Federal Court for Administrative Affairs. We trust that our courts will not allow decisions where the administrative authority exceeds its powers in violation of applicants' right to protect their intellectual property.

elias.jpg

Luz Elena Elías


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

Shem Otanga discusses the importance of curiosity and passion, and why he would have loved to have been a professional recording artist
Practitioners say the Bombay High Court shouldn’t have refused well-known trademark recognition for TikTok simply because the app is banned in India
In-house counsel explain why firms should provide risk management advice that helps them achieve their goals
Attorneys at four firms explain the AI trends they expect in the future, including a potential shift in who plaintiffs sue for copyright infringement
The dispute at the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court pits Dryrobe against D-Robe and will include a ‘genericide’ element
Novo Nordisk losing patent rights covering Ozempic in Canada and a US Supreme Court decision favouring Ed Sheeran were also among the top talking points
The court will hand down its ruling in Iconix v Dream Pairs on Tuesday, June 24, in a case that concerns post-sale confusion
Developments included a stay in a row concerning the UPC’s jurisdiction and a timeline for the rollout of the long-awaited new CMS
Jorg Thomaier, who has been head of IP at the German pharma company since 2010, will leave later this year and hand the reins to the company’s head of patents
Companies must conduct thorough IP due diligence – even if it may not be mandatory
Gift this article