Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

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

Mexico: FCC overturns decisions relating to derogatory trademark

Sponsored by

olivares-400px.jpg

The Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (the IMPI) denied applications for the mark "Pinche Gringo BBQ" and design to Daniel Andrew Defossey and Roberto Luna Aceves, on the grounds of Article 4 of the Industrial Property Law (LPI). It stated that the mark was contrary to public order, morality and good customs. The term "Pinche" is a pejorative word and "Gringo" refers to a person born in the United States, especially one who is English-speaking. However, interestingly, the real meaning of "Pinche" is a person who provides services in the kitchen or an assistant cook.

This decision was challenged before the Federal Court of Administrative Affairs (FCAA) which, by a majority, confirmed the validity of the IMPI's decision. These decisions were appealed by means of a so-called "amparos" filed before the Federal Circuit Courts (FCC) for Administrative Matters, which despite not entering into an analysis of the constitutionality of Article 4 of the LPI, issued decisions favourable to the owners of the trademark.

The FCC resolved that words tend to evolve, and it does not make sense not to consider that what was previously the subject of taboo or prohibition is now considered normal or accepted.

Therefore, it should be borne in mind that currently the word "Pinche" is used very frequently and is generally approved in all areas of Mexican society, especially taking into account the context in which the brand is used (restaurants and food).

In addition, the FCC resolved that the IMPI and the FCAA sought to assert their linguistic preferences as a public order and to censor use of language. However, according to the FCC, the concept of public order cannot reach the extreme of censoring or limiting freedom of expression when it comes to the registration of a trademark.

These decisions are important for the development of intellectual property in Mexico, having called into question the powers that the IMPI should and should not have when it comes to the topic of morality in Mexico. They also address the constitutionality of part of the aforementioned Article 4 of the Industrial Property Law.

elias-luzelena.jpg

Luz Elena Elias


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 ros bottom lb

More from across our site

We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Sukanya Sarkar shares her thoughts on this year’s annual meeting in Singapore, where debates ranged from AI opportunities to improving law firm culture
The court’s ruling is a good reminder that US parties aren’t guaranteed attorney fees just because they win, say sources
With business confidence in a shaky state, Rachel Tong and Lisa Yong of Rouse discuss how in-house IP teams can manage their trademark portfolios through uncertain times
The Court of Appeal had stern words for Med-El’s representatives after they highlighted a deputy judge’s background as a solicitor
Funders and NPEs say asserting patent portfolios can minimise risk at the USPTO’s PTAB, where procedure remains a controversial topic
The US Supreme Court’s ruling wasn’t a surprise and reflects a trend that had already been bubbling away for a while, say tech and pharma counsel
Previous attempts at major transatlantic tie-ups have failed, so lawyers will keep their eyes firmly on Allen & Overy’s grand plans
INTA CEO Etienne Sanz de Acedo shares his plans if he were to win the EUIPO leadership race and says his application does not affect his INTA role
The French finance minister told António Campinos the timing of an EPO event in Lisbon could be seen as interference in the EUIPO leadership race