Legal standing in trademark non-use cancellation actions in Mexico

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Legal standing in trademark non-use cancellation actions in Mexico

Sponsored by

olivares-400px.jpg
mexican-flag-3001452.png

Jaime Rodríguez of Olivares explains the implications of the revocation by the Mexican Federal Court of Administrative Affairs of the criteria commonly used to allow complainants to credit their legal standing on trademark non-use cancellation proceedings

In recent years, the Mexican Patent and Trademark Office (IMPI) has allowed complainants to credit their legal standing on trademark non-use cancellation proceedings through the existence of a trademark application without the need to initially demonstrate that the application’s registration was blocked in view of the prior existence of third parties’ confusingly similar registered marks. This was provided that the official action citing the conflicting registration as a pertinent barrier was submitted as subsequent evidence in the proceedings.

Accordingly, it became common practice to file non-use cancellation actions and submit as evidence a certified copy of the trademark application. This served as a basis to attack the registration not being used accompanied with the results of an availability search showing the existence of the registration subject to the proceedings.

Nonetheless, such criteria adopted by IMPI were revoked by the Federal Court of Administrative Affairs and by federal circuit courts, which sustained that legal standing must be credited initially along with the complaint. Furthermore, it would not be possible to do it at a later stage by submitting the evidence attesting that IMPI rejected the registration of the complainant’s trademark application on the ground of likelihood of confusion because of the existence of the defendant’s registration.

The court’s reasonings behind the revocation of such criteria were mainly based on legal certainty arguments stating that legal standing can only be borne when a formal objection is raised by IMPI communicating to the applicant the existence of a citation based on the likelihood of confusion.

Therefore, IMPI is starting to analyse and resolve non-use cancellation actions following the court’s legal reasonings stating that legal standing must be credited initially along with the complaint, and complainants cannot credit such standing subsequently.

Consequently, it is advisable that titleholders file non-use cancellation actions only after being served with the official actions communicating the existence of pertinent barriers blocking the registration.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Stephen Yang joins us for our ‘Five minutes with’ series to explain why his role requires him to wear many hats
The complaint follows a declaratory ruling issued by the England and Wales High Court last month that said Samsung is entitled to an interim licence
Tobias Hahn explains how the firm's multi-jurisdictional setup enabled it to secure an injunction on behalf of Fujifilm relating to defendant Kodak’s non-UPC activity
Reckitt Benckiser is to divest its Essential Home business, which includes more than 70 brands, to private equity firm Advent International
Litigator Neel Chatterjee, who has joined the firm as a co-leader of the IP team, reveals tech ambitions and expansion plans
A settlement between Philips and Transsion and a loss for AstraZeneca in the UK were also among the top talking points
Working with Harvey and Microsoft, the firm has been at the forefront of developing AI tools for its lawyers, and is now exploring new projects and business models
The Emotional Perception AI case, which centres on the patentability of an artificial neural network, will be heard next week
Developments included a court order related to InterDigital’s anti-anti-suit injunction against Disney, and clarification on recoverable costs
Partners at Foley Hoag examine how recent CJEU jurisprudence may serve as a catalyst for recalibrating US judicial reluctance to entertain foreign patent claims
Gift this article