Mexican standoff: how the recognition of consent letters is enabling trademark coexistence

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Mexican standoff: how the recognition of consent letters is enabling trademark coexistence

Sponsored by

olivares-400px.jpg
laptop-3196481.jpg

Several pieces of Mexican legislation in recent years have established the validity of consent letters in formalising the coexistence of identical or similar trademarks, explains Sergio Olivares Nieto of OLIVARES

In the field of industrial property, a letter of consent is a document frequently used internationally to overcome potential conflicts between identical or confusingly similar trademarks. Such a document is basically the written consent of a person or an entity whose rights could be affected by a third party's trademark application.

For a long time, consent letters or other documents such as coexistence agreements were not ruled on in Mexican law, and their acceptance was subject to the criteria adopted by the trademark office, which changed frequently with the changes of the administration in turn.

However, as of August 10, 2018, the date on which the amendments to the Federal Industrial Property Law (a previous law) entered into force, these types of documents were expressly recognized in Mexican legislation as a valid means to allow the coexistence of identical or similar trademarks of different holders.

The role of consent letters in Mexico

The Mexican Institute of Industrial Property considers the consent letter as an element that can be filed by applicants to demonstrate that there is an agreement or consent on the part of the affected party. The submission of a consent letter can help to avoid possible oppositions or refusals to an application for registration of a similar trademark and is likewise a remedy that ensures the possibilities of overcoming an objection raised by the examiner.

The acceptance of such documents, in accordance with the penultimate paragraph of Section XXII of Article 173 of the Federal Law on the Protection of Industrial Property that came into effect in 2020, applies by way of exception in the case of similar marks in degree of confusion or identical trademarks for similar products or services. In this sense, the only situation that is not covered by the exception is identical trademarks for identical products or services.

It is worth mentioning that to obtain a letter of consent, it is necessary to approach the owner of the trademark registration to initiate a negotiation, in which the necessary clauses can be added to achieve the objective of the letter of consent; namely, coexistence in the registration of two similar trademarks.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Jinwon Chun discusses the need for vigilance, his love for iced coffee, and preparing for INTA
Karl Barnfather’s new patent practice will focus on protecting and enforcing tech innovations in the electronics, AI, and software industries
Partner Ranjini Acharya explains how her Federal Circuit debut resulted in her convincing the court to rule that machine learning technology was not patent-eligible
Paul Hastings and Smart & Biggar also won multiple awards, while Baker McKenzie picked up a significant prize
Burford Capital study finds that in-house lawyers have become more likely to monetise patents, but that their IP portfolios are still underutilised
Robert Reading and Faidon Zisis at Clarivate unpick some of the data surrounding music-related trademarks
China's latest IP litigation statistics and a high-profile hire by O'Melveny were also among the top talking points this week
David Aylen, who spent more than 20 years at Gowling WLG, has joined United Trademark and Patent Services as of counsel in the UAE
Europe is among the most lucrative legal markets for PE firms to bet on, but clients’ reactions will decide whether external investment drives success
Rulings of note covered pre-June 2023 infringements and jurisdiction over non-UPC states, while winners of Managing IP’s EMEA Awards acted in multiple cases
Gift this article