Mexico: Public order, morals and good customs prevent trade mark

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: Public order, morals and good customs prevent trade mark

Sponsored by

olivares-400px.jpg

Early this year, the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property issued decisions denying registration for the trade mark PINCHE GRINGO BBQ & Design in classes 43 (restaurants) and 30 (sauces). The grounds of denial were a supposed violation of Article 4 of Mexican IP Law, which states that no patents, registrations or authorisations are to be granted for any legal figures or institutions regulated by this law, when the contents of an application are contrary to public order, morals and good customs.

The reasoning for these decisions is that supposedly the term PINCHE is pejorative adjective that means vile and / or despicable and GRINGO refers to a person born in the United States, especially English-speaking.

However, the real meaning of PINCHE is a person who provides services in the kitchen or an assistant cook and GRINGO refers to a person born in the United States, English-speaking. Therefore, the meaning of the trade mark is an assistant cook of American nationality or English-speaking.

The administrative authority not only chose to give a meaning to the word PINCHE which is not its actual meaning but merely a colloquial or slang meaning, but also exceeded its powers in attempting to establish codes of conduct, ethics or morals. It is the responsibility of other authorities to determine if any name used in a restaurant could be offensive or in violation of public order, such as the Federal Consumer Protection Office or other entities empowered to do so. The Institute is exclusively responsible for granting registrations for distinctive signs.

Furthermore, Article 4 of the Mexican IP Law should be declared unconstitutional as it empowers said Institute to decide upon registration for trademarks based on moral issues, when it does not fall within its field of competence.

The term PINCHE has already been registered in our country along with the term FRANCÉS (French), without any objections and having the exact same meaning.

These cases are currently being litigated before the Federal Court for Administrative Affairs. We trust that our courts will not allow decisions where the administrative authority exceeds its powers in violation of applicants' right to protect their intellectual property.

elias.jpg

Luz Elena Elías


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

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
Indian smartphone maker Lava must pay $2.3 million as a security deposit for past sales, as its dispute with Dolby over audio coding SEPs plays out
Powell Gilbert’s opening in Düsseldorf, complete with a new partner hire, continues this summer’s trend of UPC-related lateral movement
IP leaders at Brandsmiths and Bird & Bird, who were on opposing sides at the UK Supreme Court in Iconix v Dream Pairs, unpick the landmark case and its ramifications
Gift this article