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: 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 site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The IPO must change its approach and communicate with IP owners about its attempts at clearing up the trademark register
Counsel are looking at enforceability, business needs and cost savings when filing for patents overseas
James Perkins, member at Cole Schotz in Texas, reveals how smaller tech companies can protect themselves when dealing with larger players
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The EUIPO management board must provide the Council of the EU with a performance assessment before it can remove the executive director
The European Commission confirmed that plans for a unitary SPC will be published in April alongside reforms to the SEP system
The court held that SEP implementers could be injuncted or directed to pay royalties before trial if they are deemed to be unwilling licensees
Patentees should feel cautious optimism over the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal’s decision in G2/21, say European patent attorneys
Significant changes to the standard of law are unlikely, say sources, who note that some justices seemed sceptical that the parties disagreed on the legal standard
Sources say the High Court of Australia’s ruling that reputation is immaterial in trademark infringement cases could stop famous brands from muscling out smaller players