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

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

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

Attorneys explain why there are early signs that the US Supreme Court could rule in favour of ISP Cox in a copyright dispute
A swathe of UPC-related hires suggests firms are taking the forum seriously, as questions over the transitional stage begin
A win for Nintendo in China and King & Spalding hiring a prominent patent litigator were also among the top talking points
Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard, who live-reported on the seminal dispute, unpicks the trials and tribulations of the case and considers its impact
Attorneys predict how Lululemon’s trade dress and design patent suit against Costco could play out
Lawyers at Linklaters analyse some of the key UPC trends so far, and look ahead to life beyond the transition period
David Rodrigues, who previously worked at an IP boutique, said he may become more involved in transactional work at his new firm
Indian smartphone maker Lava must pay $2.3 million as a security deposit for past sales, as its dispute with Dolby over audio coding SEPs plays out
Powell Gilbert’s opening in Düsseldorf, complete with a new partner hire, continues this summer’s trend of UPC-related lateral movement
IP leaders at Brandsmiths and Bird & Bird, who were on opposing sides at the UK Supreme Court in Iconix v Dream Pairs, unpick the landmark case and its ramifications
Gift this article