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

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

A decision on a licensing rate payable by Warner Bros and Paramount, and a survey outlining UK businesses’ lack of IP preparation ahead of launching abroad, were among other major talking points
A fresh wave of deals highlights why investors favour IP firms and why independent outfits may soon have to rethink their strategy
King & Spalding has now hired 15 partners from Winston Taylor and legacy firm Winston & Strawn in offices spanning Texas, San Francisco, and Chicago
Firm says its work with a biotech client could signal a sea change in how - and when - law firms enter the drug development process
Evan Lazerowitz, attorney in Robinson + Cole’s bankruptcy and reorganisation group, offers key takeaways for IP interested parties in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings
While the UK sees heavy IP rankings movement, Germany’s new tiered UPC table signals a shift from early adoption to market maturity
In an exclusive interview, Bernard Ledeboer reveals how a Consolid-backed group of firms wants to expand across Europe, invest in AI and centralise operations to compete at the top tier
Not all private equity firms are the same, so leaders at four externally backed IP firms came together to discuss the frameworks they followed and how they ensured a cultural fit
Top-tier German and Spanish firms are among the advisers on a Europe-wide copyright and licensing tussle concerning the design of the track circuit in Madrid
Partners Alex Wilson and Andreas Kramer say bigger law firm rivals don’t necessarily gain by having a wider jurisdictional reach
Gift this article