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: Permissible evidence before the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property

Sponsored by


It has become common practice for parties of any administrative proceeding to ask the Institute of Industrial Property to require a third party, not related to the proceeding, or even its counterpart, to respond to several questions raised by the offeror of the proof. Such evidence is based on Article 203 of the Industrial Property Law, which states the "requirement to provide information and data" so that the authority can conduct inspection.

However, such a practice may occur in direct violation of IP law and therefore may be a procedural violation by the authority.

Mexican Industrial Property Law (IPL) establishes that in administrative proceedings, all kind of evidence shall be admitted, except testimonial and confessional evidence (Article 192 IPL).

It is established law that testimonial evidence is based on the testimony or declaration of a third party not related to the proceedings, regarding facts related to the proceedings. Confessional evidence is based on the declaration of one of the parties regarding facts related to the proceedings. Moreover, in both cases the declarations are rendered by answering several questions or interrogations that were raised by the offeror of the proof.

In view of the above, it is clear that documentary evidence consisting of the testimony of one of the parties in a proceeding or a third party not related to the proceeding given to the authority, in which it is requested to answer specific questions raised by the offeror of the proof in the form of an interrogation, should necessarily be equated to testimonial evidence or confessional evidence.

Therefore, the offering of a proof in which the offeror is requesting that one of the parties or a third party not related to the proceeding, respond to specific questions that were raised by the offeror and that are linked to facts discussed or related to the proceeding, is not a "requirement to provide information and data", but rather confessional or testimonial evidence, as it contains all the elements of this type of evidence.

In accordance with the foregoing, it is evident that even though this proof is offered under the "requirement to provide information and data" provided by Article 203 of our IPL, it must be considered as testimonial or confessional evidence due to its nature and thus, cannot be admitted by the authority in administrative proceedings.

Alejandra Badillo


Pedro Luis Ogazón No 17

Col San Angel

01000 México DF

Tel: +5255 53 22 30 00

Fax: +5255 53 22 30 01

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

12th annual awards announces winners
Sources say parties in trademark cases could tussle over the meaning of source identifier and whether surveys are fair, following the US Supreme Court ruling
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
In-house sources say the UPC’s determinations on validity, injunctions, and damages could dictate whether companies leave their patents in or out
Business is quiet so far but the UPC has everything it needs to attract patentees, panellists at Managing IP’s IP & Innovation Summit argued yesterday, June 7
Reviewing the list of automatically qualifying degrees every three years is a great idea and should bring more tech-savvy people to the bar
A Foss Patents blog post revealed that Mr Justice Marcus Smith handed down his judgment in Optis v Apple on May 10
Witnesses during a committee hearing criticised proposals to increase some fees by as much as 400%
Sources say they are likely to hire external counsel that can create a lasting first impression but might turn their backs on lawyers who have nothing new to offer
Varuni Paranavitane, of counsel at Finnegan, examines recent decisions by US and UK courts to demonstrate the proof of infringement that was required