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

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
Tilleke & Gibbins topped the leaderboard with four awards across the region, while Anand & Anand and Kim & Chang emerged as outstanding domestic firms
News of a new addition to Via LA’s Qi wireless charging patent pool, and potential fee increases at the UKIPO were also among the top talking points
Gift this article