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 2025

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

Brian Paul Gearing brings technical depth, litigation expertise, and experience with Japanese business culture to Pillsbury’s IP practice
News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Gift this article