JURISDICTION REPORT: MEXICO
STRICT CRITERIA FROM THE MEXICAN EXAMINERS
Victor M. Adames Becerril, Coca & Becerril, S.C.
Te examiners of the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (MIIP) have recently adopted certain criteria that result in the issuance of unnecessary official actions that hinder the prosecution of some trademark applications and increase registration fees for trademark owners.
Insertion of goods and services exactly as mentioned in the Nice Classification
Te examiners have established as a criterion the refusal of goods or services that do not appear exactly as they are stated in the list of the Ninth Edition of the International Classification of Goods and Services.
Tis criterion is being applied unnecessarily strictly, since the International Classification of Goods and Services is only a guide to help trademark owners determine the correct classification of the goods and/or services of interest.
For example, if an applicant wishes to cover ‘visors’ in class 25 or ‘key cases’ in class 18, the examiners are likely to issue an official action requesting the amendment of the goods of interest to ‘visors (hat-making)’ or ‘key cases (leatherwear)’, respectively.
Tese kinds of office actions are completely absurd and only delay the prosecution of the trademark application.
Te Mexican examiners lack the capacity to analyse and understand that the International Classification of Goods and Services is just a guide to determine the classes whereby a specific product or service belongs. Terefore, it is important to have constant communication with the examiners in order to try to avoid these kinds of rejections.
Rejection to cover retail services
Another criterion that has been adopted by the Mexican examiners is that the reference to retail or commercialisation services of several products is not accepted anymore in class 35.
For many years, these kinds of services were accepted in class 35 (just as in many other countries). Nevertheless, the examiners recently decided to reject them.
Incredibly, when a trademark applicant wishes to cover said services, the examiners issue an official action whereby they request an indication that the retail services are being made or offered by the applicant as a commercial intermediary. Commercial intermediary refers to the person or company that indeed commercialises certain goods or services, but does not produce them. Commercialisation services refer to products made only by third parties.
www.worldipreview.com
Te main problem arises when an applicant wishes to cover the retail services for his own goods. To date, the position of the examiners is that it is unlikely and unnecessary to protect the retail or commercialisation services for companies that produce their own goods, since in accordance with their criteria, the proper way to be protected is by registering their mark to distinguish or cover each of the goods to be commercialised in the classes of products (from 1 to 34).
Under this premise, it is not possible for trademark owners to protect the specialised services offered by the persons who work in their stores in order to sell their own products.
Tis criterion is absurd, since what the applicants are trying to protect are specific services, and not goods.
Te issuance of these official actions is increasing; however, the Mexican Association of Intellectual Property, through its various committees, is working closely with the MIIP in order to try to resolve this kind of situation.
It is necessary that our authorities have better communication with the
Mexican IP law firms in order to try to avoid these problems for the benefit of the trademark owners.
Victor M. Adames is the chief of trademarks at Becerril, Coca & Becerril, S.C. He can be contacted at:
vadames@bcb.com.mx
World Intellectual Property Review May/June 2011 61
“ THE EXAMINERS HAVE ESTABLISHED AS A CRITERION THE REFUSAL OF GOODS OR SERVICES THAT DO NOT APPEAR EXACTLY AS THEY ARE STATED IN THE LIST OF THE NINTH EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF GOODS AND SERVICES.”
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84