Mexico: Litigating for reliable criteria

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: Litigating for reliable criteria

When talking about reserva rights – a legal institution exclusive to the Mexican legal system, which protects a variety of assets, such as titles of publications or broadcasts, among others– there is a problem that stands out: an absence of certainty regarding the criteria used by the authority (the Mexican Copyright Office, or INDAUTOR) when examining applications.

Indeed, INDAUTOR's criteria tend to vary on a case-by-case basis, partially because reserva-related litigation is uncommon. This, in turn, leads to an absence of judicial precedents that could be used as guidelines by the authority.

For comparison, the authority responsible for trade mark rights (the Mexican Industrial Property Institute, or IMPI) usually applies well-established criteria, largely based on judicial precedents, as trade mark-related litigations are the bulk of IP contentious proceedings in Mexico.

As an example, recently a federal court overturned an INDAUTOR ruling which had denied protection for a magazine title. The proposed title comprised the name of a fictional character, but the protection was denied because it was considered that, potentially, the title could be also the "name of a person".

In this case, the court reasoned that while the law prohibits granting reservas for "names of persons used in isolation", such prohibition should be understood in connection with "existing individuals", and was not applicable for titles that could be the name of a person whose existence was not demonstrated.

This ruling hardly seems ground-breaking, since IMPI has applied the same criterion for years, in connection with a similar prohibition for trademark registrations. However, it was the first ruling of its kind regarding reservas.

Cases like this exemplify why reserva-related litigation should be encouraged, since the existence of judicial precedents would allow future titleholders to have certainty over the criteria that will be applied by the authority in each case.

martinez.jpg

Adrián Martínez


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

As global commerce continues to expand through e-commerce platforms and digital marketplaces, protecting brands has become a growing challenge for organisations worldwide. Counterfeiting, intellectual property infringement, and online brand abuse are increasing across industries, making brand protection strategies a critical priority for businesses.
Henrik Holzapfel and Chuck Larsen of McDermott Will & Schulte explain why a Court of Appeal ruling could promote access to justice and present a growth opportunity for litigation finance
A co-partner in charge says the UK prosecution teams are a ‘vital’ part of the firm’s offering, while praising a key injunction win
A team from White & Case has checked in on behalf of Premier Inn Hotels in a UK trademark and passing off case against a cookie brand
Litigation team says pre-trial work and a Section 101 defence helped significantly limit damages payable by ride-sharing firm Lyft in patent case
News of Avanci hiring a senior vice president and the EPO teaming up with a French AI startup were also among the top talking points
Explosm, the independent Texas studio behind the hit webcomic Cyanide & Happiness, partnered with Temu’s IP protection team to combat counterfeiters infringing on its brand
The latest in a dispute over juicing machines, and a shakeup in judicial compositions were also among the top developments
Patent partner Robert Hollingshead explains why the firm remains committed to Japan despite several US firms exiting the Japanese and greater Asia market
Emma Green, partner at Bird & Bird, shares why the Iceland v Iceland dispute could prompt businesses and lawyers to think differently about brand enforcement
Gift this article