Mexico: Confusion analysis between trade marks

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: Confusion analysis between trade marks

It has been approximately a decade since the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI) adopted very strict criteria when assessing the likelihood of confusion between trade marks. As a result of this strict approach IMPI's trade mark examiners had some criteria that were troublesome, especially when marks including designs or associated to a concept were compared to each other.

These troublesome criteria were to consider designs as secondary elements usually deemed insufficient to grant distinctiveness to the marks. As a result the examiners tended to focus their confusion analysis on the phonetic elements of the mark.

Unfortunately, these criteria were able to stand for a long time, because IMPI's resolutions were reviewed by the IP Specialised Court of the Federal Court of Administrative Matters (TFJA), which for a long time supported IMPI's criteria by confirming their resolutions as correctly issued.

However, in late 2015 early 2016 new magistrates were appointed to the IP Specialised Court of the TFJA and as a result the criteria of this Court have also changed.

Consequently, during the course of 2016 we received various resolutions in which the Court reversed IMPI's decisions by pointing out that when analysing and comparing marks it is necessary to consider the marks as a whole, determine which of the elements of the mark is the most relevant element and take this element as the axis for the eventual analysis of confusion.

As a result, the Court has stated that if in a certain case the design or the conceptual element of the marks are the most relevant element, which in the result allows for the marks to be considered as different when compared as a whole, then registration for the junior mark should be granted.

Of course we consider that this change of criteria from the Court is a step in the right direction and expect IMPI to adjust their criteria accordingly during the course of 2017, resulting in the issuance of fewer refusals by IMPI, especially in connection with marks including designs or associated with a clear concept.

Sofia Arroyo


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

The firm is shaping its AI strategy around partnerships with Harvey and Legora alongside internally developed tools from its legal technology company, ELTEMATE
A dispute Down Under shows why trademark lawyers cannot afford to wait on the sidelines when a rival brand gathers momentum
The Third Circuit’s decision in Thomson Reuters v ROSS marks the first appellate-level decision addressing AI and fair use, prompting copyright counsel to consider arguments around potential licensing markets
Injunctions for HandsFree Labs and Align Technology come as the Court of Appeal warns that busy teams must have the staffing and resources to meet UPC deadlines
The chief technology officer remit, which has been created as the firm is building its litigation team, will include expanding the use of AI in patent and legal work and automating manual processes
Former Hoyng Rokh Moneiger partner Laura Alonso, who brought her team to ECIJA in March, discusses plans to expand further and why ECIJA’s ‘IP DNA’ is helping broaden her work
Amita Haylock discusses building an integrated Asia practice as clients increasingly demand that firms combine IP, technology and data expertise
François Pochart, Grégoire Desrousseaux and Lionel Martin, long-standing figures in the firm’s patent litigation team, are set to help launch a Paris-based litigation offering
The Unitary Patent has passed 100,000 registrations, but new data raises the question of whether 30% uptake is a ceiling or a staging post for further growth, say Michael Nielsen and Darren Smyth of EIP and Andrew Samm at Patently
The new generation of in-house IP leaders want commercial judgment, accessibility and flexibility, with AI raising expectations around both fees and delivery
Gift this article