Mexico: Confusion analysis between trade marks
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The court criticised Oppo’s attempts to delay proceedings and imposed a penalty, adding that the Chinese company may need to pay more if the trial isn’t concluded this year
Miguel Hernandez explains how he secured victory for baby care company Naterra in his first oral argument before the Federal Circuit
The UPC judges are wrong – restricting access to court documents, and making parties appoint a lawyer only to have a chance of seeing them, is madness
The group, which includes the Volkswagen, Seat and Audi brands, is now licensed to use SEPs owned by more than 60 patent owners
Managing IP’s Max Walters appeared on the latest episode of ‘Two IPs in a pod’, a regular podcast hosted by the UK patent attorney body, to discuss AI, awards and more
Sources at law firms say they have spent more than three years waiting for IP regulations and explain how the delay is affecting their business
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Managing IP will host a ceremony in London on April 11 to reveal the winners of the EMEA Awards 2024
Lawyers reveal what trends they have noticed in the Western District of Texas and the advice they have been giving clients as a result
Concerns over the EU’s proposed SEP Regulation are based on little empirical support, say Benno Buehler and Kilian Mueller of Charles River Associates
Gift this article