Putting the substantiation of counterfeiting offences in Mexico under the microscope
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

Putting the substantiation of counterfeiting offences in Mexico under the microscope

Sponsored by

Fake it until you make it symbol. Turned a cube and changed words 'fake it' to 'make it'. Beautiful orange background. Business, and fake it till you make it concept. Copy space.

Alejandro Salas of OLIVARES questions whether requiring the submission of original objects for comparison is hindering the proper enforcement of trademark rights and represents an ‘improper interpretation’ of the criminal statute

The counterfeiting of trademarks for the purpose of commercial speculation stands as one of the most lucrative illegal activities in Mexico. The practice is delineated under Article 402, Section I of the Federal Law for the Protection of Industrial Property as the utilisation of an identical mark or one so closely resembling it that it cannot be distinguished in its essential aspects from a previously registered mark or one protected by law.

This unlawful conduct, unlike other offences outlined in said law, falls outside the purview of the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property, with the responsibility for sanctioning such wrongdoing resting upon the Attorney General’s Office, given its classification as a special offence.

For the proper compilation of the investigation dossier, the federal public prosecutor must consider three inherent elements of the offence:

  • Commercial speculation;

  • Absence of authorisation from the holder or licensee; and

  • False representation of a product or service.

The final paragraph of the law facilitates the validation of the offence by stipulating that mere use of the mark in an identical or indistinguishable manner to how the mark is represented in the trademark registration, or the respective declaration of notoriety or fame, suffices.

The public prosecutor coordinates the investigation with the police and experts. Criminal regulations allow for expert assessments when specialised knowledge is required, thus requiring experts to hold a degree in the field they participate in or possess relevant expertise in their respective domains.

Presently, for the substantiation of the offence of trademark counterfeiting, the involvement of intellectual property experts is indispensable, as it is within their expertise to ascertain the inauthenticity of the objects submitted for examination. However, in practice, at the request of the intellectual property expert, the public prosecutor often requests the presentation of an original object for comparison, notwithstanding the lack of legal basis for such a request.

This practice may result in investigations being concluded without the initiation of criminal proceedings due to an alleged lack of evidence, despite the unauthorised use of the trademark and an absence of authorisation already constituting essential elements of the offence.

In this regard, in the author’s opinion, there exists an improper interpretation of the criminal statute, as one essential element – namely, the absence of authorisation – is satisfied through the filing of the corresponding complaint by the affected rights holder or their representatives, while commercial speculation falls under the purview of the public prosecutor.

However, counterfeiting, as the third essential element of the unlawful conduct, falls under the responsibility of the intellectual property expert, who, through their intervention, must determine the existence or absence of the use of a trademark on the examined object.

Therefore, not only does the requirement to exhibit an original object for comparison lack legal foundation and should not be demanded, but it is also unnecessary and serves as an impediment to the proper enforcement of trademark rights through criminal proceedings.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Counsel reveal how a proposal to create separate briefings for discretionary denials at the USPTO could affect their PTAB strategies
The UK Supreme Court rejected the firm’s appeal against an earlier ruling because it did not raise an arguable point of law
Loes van den Winkel, attorney at Arnold & Siedsma, explains why clients' enthusiasm is contagious and why her job does not mean managing fashion models
Allen & Gledhill partner Jia Yi Toh shares her experience of representing the winning team in the first-ever case filed under Singapore’s new fast-track IP dispute resolution system
In-house lawyers reveal how they balance cost, quality, and other criteria to get the most from their relationships with external counsel
Dario Pietrantonio of Robic discusses growth opportunities for the firm and shares insights from his journey to managing director
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Law firms that pay close attention to their client relationships are more likely to win repeat work, according to a survey of nearly 29,000 in-house counsel
The EMEA research period is open until May 31
Practitioners analyse a survey on how law firms prove value to their clients and reflect on why the concept can be hard to pin down
Gift this article