All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. © 2022 Managing IP is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group.

Mexico: A closer look at promoting a nullity action on unfavourable oppositions

Sponsored by olivares-400px.jpg
yang-shuo-16y4shhe9xy-unsplash.jpg

Santiago Pedroza of OLIVARES looks at how the opposition procedure has undergone changes to protect right holders

In 2021, the opposition system in Mexico celebrates five years since coming into force.

In the course of its development, the opposition procedure has undergone changes in the interests of better functioning and better protection of the legal sphere of right holders, as well as to consumers of goods and services.

One amendment to the opposition procedure was through the entry into force of the new Mexican Industrial Property Law in 2020. This consisted of a penalty or impossibility to initiate a nullity action in the event of obtaining an unsuccessful opposition claiming the same arguments and evidence.

In this respect, if an opposition has been promoted and it is unsuccessful or unfavourable, namely, it does not prevent the granting of the trademark registration in question, the possibility of filing a nullity action against such a trademark registration is prevented based on the same arguments and evidence as those filed in the opposition.

In simpler words – and as an example in case – an opposition is filed based on likelihood of confusion and it results unsuccessful, the possibility of filing a nullity action against the resulting trademark registration based on likelihood of confusion would be precluded. Consequently, a potential nullity action would have to be necessarily filed on a different basis (e.g. prior use, bad faith, etc.).

Article 259 of the new Mexican IP Law contains the penalty to file a nullity action based on the same arguments and evidence presented in the opposition:

Article 259: A nullity action shall not be admitted, when the opposition provided in Article 221 of this Law has been filed, provided that the arguments asserted in the nullity action, as well as the evidence, are the same as those filed in the opposition and the Institute has already ruled on them.

This new provision is intended to avoid the filing of idle oppositions, tending to delay and hinder the trademark registration process in Mexico, and consolidates the opposition procedure as a more robust and reliable mechanism in the prevention of the granting of trademark registrations than may affect prior third parties’ rights.

 

Santiago Pedroza

Attorney, OLIVARES

E: santiago.pedroza@olivares.mx

More from across our site

The US Supreme Court rejected an appeal on American Axle, dashing hopes of a judicial fix to patent eligibility uncertainty
The Copyright Office refused to grant protection on the basis that the authorship couldn’t be distinguished from the final work produced by the program
COVID vaccines top Clarivate’s new brands list; Fed Circuit reverses Coca-Cola’s TTAB win; Skechers sues Brooks; USPTO to retire Public PAIR tool; CCB sees cricket complaint
Lawyers should pay attention to APJs’ questions and remember that PTAB proceedings aren’t jury trials, say former PTAB judges
The USPTO cancelled ‘Galavava’ and 'Surfstar Wake' and partly cancelled ‘Heika’ this month
We have published all the 2022 rankings of the leading firms for patent litigation and protection work
In-house and private practice counsel say UK judges have raised the bar for preliminary injunction requests
António Campinos will serve another five years as EPO president – perhaps he’ll calm unrest at the office in that time
LGBTQ IP lawyers say using rainbow colours and posting solidarity messages on social media must be followed by concrete action
Brand owners bemoan counterfeiters’ latest wheeze and say enforcement authorities should get more involved
We use cookies to provide a personalized site experience.
By continuing to use & browse the site you agree to our Privacy Policy.
I agree