Mexico: Proven commercial use required for trademarks to achieve acquired distinctiveness

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

Mexico: Proven commercial use required for trademarks to achieve acquired distinctiveness

Sponsored by

olivares-400px.jpg

On August 10, 2018 several modifications to the Mexican Industrial Property Law entered into force, resulting in some new IP figures being recognised in Mexico.

One of the new legal concepts included in the Law is 'acquired distinctiveness,' more commonly known as 'secondary meaning', which allows the registration of trademarks that can be considered as not initially distinctive, but owing to their commercial use have acquired distinctiveness.

However, these modifications still need to be complemented with regulation and are yet to be published in the Official Gazette.

In light of this there are no clear guidelines to determine the evidence required to support an application for a trademark filed based on acquired distinctiveness, and so it is not clear how The Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI) will examine these applications when filed.

In order to be able to demonstrate that a trademark has acquired distinctiveness it is necessary to prove that it has been used in the market and that consumers recognise the trademark in relation to the goods and/or services that it distinguishes. This is to ensure that the trademark complies with its main requisite, i.e. that it is sufficiently distinctive to enable its goods/services to be distinguished from others in the market.

Factors that can support the distinctiveness of the trademark in the market include:

  • surveys;

  • the date of first use of the mark in Mexico;

  • the period of time of continued use and advertisement of the trademark in Mexico;

  • the volume of sales of the goods/services identified with the trademark during the last three years.

In any case, until the regulations to the industrial property law are published in the Official Gazette, it will be necessary to meet with examiners to determine whether or not this evidence is sufficient to obtain a favourable resolution from the authorities.

caraza-wilma.jpg

Wilma Caraza


Olivares

Pedro Luis Ogazón No 17

Col San Angel

01000 México DF

Tel: +5255 53 22 30 00

Fax: +5255 53 22 30 01

olivlaw@olivares.com.mx

www.olivares.com.mx


more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Kelly Thompson, chair of South African firm Adams & Adams, discusses self-belief, self-doubt, and the importance of saying yes
The renowned food brands were represented by a host of lawyers, including members of the firms’ IP teams
Partners at Bird & Bird and Taylor Wessing discuss how Saudi Arabia offers unique opportunities for firms dealing in IP and tech
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
Gift this article