A recent amendment will make costly annulments a thing of the past. Gilberto Sanchez of SPECyF explains

An amendment to the Industrial Property Law was published in the Official Gazette on 1 June that essentially established a trademark opposition system in Mexico.

Before, the trademark registration procedure was comprised of: an examination of the form, including a review of the formalities and/or classification in the registry application; and a contents examination, specifically a review of the registration capacity of the distinctive signs (Articles 4, 89 and 90 of the Industrial Property Law).

Once the form examination was completed and approved, the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI) would review the registration capacity of the proposed sign and grant or refuse the trademark registration.

Finally, the trademark registration would be published in the the Industrial Property Gazette.

However, following the 1 June amendment, holders of trademark registrations and the public in general may announce their opposition to any trademark registration that is in process.

With the implementation of the opposition system in Mexico, the procedure will change beyond what was described above.

Once a trademark application form has been submitted, the IMPI will publish the application in the Industrial Property Gazette within 10 working days, so that third parties are aware and any can demonstrate their opposition to the registration of the proposed sign ahead of its examination.

The term to submit any opposition is one month from the publication of the trademark application in the Industrial Property Gazette.

It should be noted that the IMPI may or may not take into account the opposition of third parties and these shall not be considered as such, neither as parties nor as interested parties, and the procedure of the trademark registration will not be suspended.

Furthermore, any opposition proceeding filed will not prejudge on the result of the contents examination made later by the IMPI.

Once the period of one month to submit any opposition has elapsed, the IMPI, within the following 10 working days, will publish any opposition requests in the Industrial Property Gazette.

The trademark applicant, subject to opposition, may pronounce and state what its right corresponds to, in connection with the causes, impediments or previous uses cited in the opposition, within one month.

The opposition and disclosures of the applicant may be considered by the IMPI during the application contents examination.

Finally, the IMPI shall communicate to the application opponent, in writing, the information of the title or certificate issued, or the resolution denying the registration, as the case may be.

If the opposition or disclosures of the applicant are filed by an agent or attorney, it shall suffice for the attorney to state under oath that he or she has the power to file the opposition or disclosures.

In summary, the opposition system will allow any holder of trademarks and the public in general to clarify before the IMPI that any sign submitted to trademark registration may affect their interests or the interests of the public in general.

With this amendment, it is possible to prevent trademark registrations that later may be the subject of annulment. Therefore, costly suits that can last up to five years may be avoided.

Country profiles
The latest country profiles from IPPro The Internet
While Indian fair use is not explicit, provisions exist for the fair dealing of copyright. Rohit Singh and Tina Canneth of Abu-Ghazeleh Intellectual Property delve deeper
An interpretation of the current events exception in Radosavljević is creative, say BDK Advokati's Bogdan Ivanišević and Marko Popović
IPPro Patents

Visit our sister site
for all the latest IP patents news and analysis
Yu-Li Tsai of Deep & Far examines how damages are calculated in patent infringement litigation
A recent amendment will make costly annulments a thing of the past. Gilberto Sanchez of SPECyF explains
New legislation in Turkey promises a swathe of trademark changes. Dr Cahit Suluk of Cahit Suluk Intellectual Property Law Firm explains
A trademark decision clarified ‘against the public order’ as an absolute ground for refusal. Sár and Partners – Danubia Patent & Law Office reports
Bogdan Ivanišević and Marko Popović of BDK Advokati review the recent squabble about copyright protection for ‘routinely created photos’
Alston & Bird recently expanded with a new office focusing on counselling Chinese companies on US intellectual property law. Yitai Hu explains what patent owners face when working across borders
The latest features from IPPro The Internet
The US Supreme Court’s ruling in Star Athletica v Varsity Brands provides a path to copyrightability for pictorial or graphical elements of clothing designs and useful articles. Laura Ganoza and Julie McGinnis of Foley & Lardner explain
As Brexit negotiations begin, it is still unclear where trademarks fit in. But, with two years to get a good deal, the UK government needs to consider all aspects
Join Our Newsletter

Sign up today and never
miss the latest news or an issue again

Subscribe now
Rights holders that want to protect their valuable intellectual property have to be willing to change
Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are not being used to their full potential, according to IPzen’s Julia Cytrynbaum
India's copyright societies are subject to interim measures that boost transparency. DPS Parmar and Aniruddh Singh of LexOrbis report
Courts are wrestling with the legal definition of users of social networks. Nathalie Dreyfus examines how they have done so far
The BRICS IP Forum and the IP Summit allowed intellectual property professionals to reflect on a topsy-turvy 2016, and hope for a simpler 2017
Experts discuss what brands can do to protect their trademarks online during the Cyber Monday sales, with fakes widely available
The latest interviews from IPPro The Internet