Mexico: A closer look at promoting a nullity action on unfavourable oppositions

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: A closer look at promoting a nullity action on unfavourable oppositions

Sponsored by

olivares-400px.jpg
yang-shuo-16y4shhe9xy-unsplash.jpg

Santiago Pedroza of OLIVARES looks at how the opposition procedure has undergone changes to protect right holders

In 2021, the opposition system in Mexico celebrates five years since coming into force.

In the course of its development, the opposition procedure has undergone changes in the interests of better functioning and better protection of the legal sphere of right holders, as well as to consumers of goods and services.

One amendment to the opposition procedure was through the entry into force of the new Mexican Industrial Property Law in 2020. This consisted of a penalty or impossibility to initiate a nullity action in the event of obtaining an unsuccessful opposition claiming the same arguments and evidence.

In this respect, if an opposition has been promoted and it is unsuccessful or unfavourable, namely, it does not prevent the granting of the trademark registration in question, the possibility of filing a nullity action against such a trademark registration is prevented based on the same arguments and evidence as those filed in the opposition.

In simpler words – and as an example in case – an opposition is filed based on likelihood of confusion and it results unsuccessful, the possibility of filing a nullity action against the resulting trademark registration based on likelihood of confusion would be precluded. Consequently, a potential nullity action would have to be necessarily filed on a different basis (e.g. prior use, bad faith, etc.).

Article 259 of the new Mexican IP Law contains the penalty to file a nullity action based on the same arguments and evidence presented in the opposition:

Article 259: A nullity action shall not be admitted, when the opposition provided in Article 221 of this Law has been filed, provided that the arguments asserted in the nullity action, as well as the evidence, are the same as those filed in the opposition and the Institute has already ruled on them.

This new provision is intended to avoid the filing of idle oppositions, tending to delay and hinder the trademark registration process in Mexico, and consolidates the opposition procedure as a more robust and reliable mechanism in the prevention of the granting of trademark registrations than may affect prior third parties’ rights.

 

Santiago Pedroza

Attorney, OLIVARES

E: santiago.pedroza@olivares.mx

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The location will be easily accessible for delegates visiting London for the INTA Annual Meeting
In the second instalment of our data-led special reports, Managing IP speaks to the most prolific representatives for REUDs on how they manage their team and filing strategies
Foreign remittance requirements put additional administrative burden on Indian law firms and strain their relationship with foreign associate firms, according to practitioners
IP leaders met in San Francisco this week to discuss patent pools, SEP licensing, and how shifting geopolitics is shaping the future of innovation
View the 2025 Social Impact shortlist celebrating the region's change-makers
News of Elon Musk’s xAI suing OpenAI and the latest statistics from UK’s patent box system were also among the top talking points
The patent pool operator is launching new offerings covering semiconductor technologies amid the rapid adoption of AI and tech
Achim Krebs of HGF and Filip De Corte of Syngenta provide an overview of compensatory term rights for plant protection products around the world
A Full Federal Court ruling on the patent-eligibility of computer-implemented inventions in Australia could pave the way for more filings
In major recent developments, the court ruled in a dispute over washing machines, issued a reimbursement decision, and the Munich Division welcomed a visit from EU officials
Gift this article