New Mexican trademark landscape as partial non-use cancellation actions considered
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

New Mexican trademark landscape as partial non-use cancellation actions considered

Sponsored by


Three years after a new industrial property law took effect, the time has come for an important action to become available regarding contested trademark registrations. Emmanuel Chávez of OLIVARES heralds a ‘positive’ development

The Mexican Federal Law for the Protection of Industrial Property (the New IP Law) entered into force on November 5 2020, in response to the entering into force of the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement.

The New IP Law introduced partial non-use cancellation actions, which may only be initiated against registrations that were applied for, and granted, under the New IP Law.

To initiate these actions, it is necessary that a term of three years has passed since the date of registration. Thus, as it has been three years since the entering into force of the New IP Law, the first partial non-use cancellation actions are to be initiated and decided soon.

Commentary on Mexico’s new system on trademark use

These new actions will have a positive impact on the legal system in Mexico, eliminating trademarks covering the ‘heading class’, or general headings, but allowing new trademarks for organisations in specific sectors that are interested in using their trademark effectively, which will provide incentives for further creativity.

It will be interesting to see how the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI) will analyse the evidence to determine if a trademark has been used for a product or service.

It will take some time to establish a criterion for these kinds of actions, since there will be decisions from IMPI, the Federal Court for Administrative Affairs, Federal Circuit Courts, and even the Supreme Court of Justice.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Keith Bergelt, CEO of the Open Invention Network, explains why AI technologies were not part of an update to its cross-licensing project
Kirkland & Ellis partners explain how they secured the dismissal of a patent case in which the other side had lied under oath
Managing IP understands the association had been considering other options, including Madrid or Vienna, after concerns were raised over Dubai’s positions on various rights
Chris Marando tells Managing IP that he's excited to work on PTAB matters at Perkins Coie, which recently hired another lawyer from his former firm
To mark Pride month, Darren Smyth, cochair of IP Out, says the legal profession must not forget that some members still face exclusion and hostility
Lawyers say the opening of the Milan central division this month is likely to boost activity in Italy, which has been modest so far
Sharon Urias tells us why she still has to explain the difference between copyright and trademarks
In the latest episode, Managing IP is joined by Gwilym Roberts and Lee Davies from the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys to discuss the UPC, IP ministers, diversity and more
Lawyers at Tomkins and Bomhard IP explain how they finally secured victory over McDonald’s in long-running ‘Big Mac’ trademark dispute
Technical excellence is paramount for clients looking to hire new advisers, according to a survey of nearly 29,000 corporate counsel
Gift this article