The top two issues in designating Mexico under the Hague system

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

The top two issues in designating Mexico under the Hague system

Sponsored by

olivares-400px.jpg
flag resized-815077.jpg

Jorge Juárez of Olivares explains the requirements for applicants aiming to protect industrial designs in designating Mexico and highlights the importance of compliance with the unity of design requirement

Since Mexico joined the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Designs in 2020, applicants have been able to designate Mexico to seek protection of their industrial designs. 

This article summarises two important issues that must be considered when designating Mexico.

Recognition of the priority

When an international application claims a priority, Mexican law provides that the certified copy of the priority must be submitted before the Mexican Patent Office (IMPI) within three months after the publication of the registration in the International Designs Bulletin.

The priority must be translated, unless it is in Spanish, and the corresponding payment for the priority claim must also be submitted within three months. 

Even though IMPI participates in the WIPO Digital Access Service and has access to the platform to obtain certified copies of priorities, applicants still need to submit the translation and payment within said term. Otherwise, IMPI will not recognise the priority in Mexico.

Unity of design requirement

Under Mexican law, designs that can be identified with the same denomination, share the same new characteristics, and produce the same general impression are considered as having unity of design. 

The Hague system indicates it is possible to include up to 100 designs belonging to the same Locarno classification in a single application. 

However, when an international application does not comply with the unity of design requirement, IMPI will issue a notification of refusal requiring the division of the application to elect a single design or designs having unity, whereas non-elected designs can be protected by means of divisional applications which must be submitted directly before IMPI.

Summary

The above considerations should be kept in mind when using the Hague system to ensure that designs are properly protected in Mexico.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Sheppard has added quantum and robotics expertise to its AI industry team to help clients navigate questions around inventorship and IP infringement
The 2026 Americas ceremony recognised outstanding firms and practitioners, along with highlighting impact cases of the year
A development concerning Stephen Thaler’s AI copyright application in India and an integration between IPH group firms were also among the top talking points
As concerns around the little-known litigation tool increase, practitioners say they are educating their clients on how it can be most effective
Kilburn & Strode and Mewburn Ellis are just two firms that have invested heavily in office space – a sign that the legal industry is serious about in-person working
In major recent developments, Dyson snagged another win against Hong Kong-based competitor Dreame and a new AI-powered UPC platform was launched
Mohit and Sidhant Goel decided not to pursue an interim injunction application so that their client, Communications Components Antenna, could benefit from a fast-track trial
Anita Cade, head of Ashurst’s IP and media team in Australia, discusses why law firms that can pull together capability across different practice areas and jurisdictions stand to gain
INTA’s CEO says London-based firms have registered fewer delegates compared to past meetings in San Diego and Atlanta, and questions the 'ethics' of trying to participate without registering
Lobbies and interest groups are among the interveners in a major dispute over whether courts can set patent pool rates
Gift this article