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

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

Sponsored by

olivares-400px.jpg
law-law-8429916.jpg

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

In-house counsel explain how they develop or maintain 'IP-aware' cultures at their companies and how private practice lawyers can help
Josh Budwin, principal at the firm, said the case was one of the most complex technology disputes he's ever worked on
For the latest article in our regular series covering UPC developments, we summarise five rulings and highlight what’s expected later this month
John Keville, partner at Sheppard Mullin, explains how he secured a patent subject matter eligibility victory for his client against GoPro
An IP partner at Womble Bond Dickinson explains how its combination with Lewis Roca will create a fully-rounded litigation and prosecution service
Ronen Speyer of Evalueserve explains why in a competitive business landscape, IP has become a key driver in gaining a competitive advantage
Michael Sharp, who moved to Canadian firm Field Law from Aurora Cannabis in June, said he is enjoying cross-practice collaboration at his new firm
Yasemin Kenaroğlu tells us about setting up ‘IP School’, Turkish coffee, and why IP is like an iceberg
Irena Royzman, who joined Orrick earlier this year, explains how she's collaborated with her new colleagues to address IP policy concerns
Partners at Fenwick explain why they had to be aggressive when helping Lashify win a patent infringement trial
Gift this article