TRADEMARKS IN MEXICO
In Mexico a trademark application is filed with the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI). Applications must be filed on paper and are then examined, within a couple of months of the filing date, by one person who conducts a first examination on formalities. If, and when, this first examination is satisfied, a substantive examination is made to determine whether the trademark is registrable from a distinctive standpoint, or if there are prior trademark applications or registrations that would constitute antecedents and obstacles to the registration.
If the examiner finds no obstacles or antecedents he can grant registration within five or six months of the filing date. Te certificate of registration is issued by the same examiner and immediately sent and delivered to the titleholder or its representative.
In Mexico, trademark applications are not published and there is no opposition; publication takes place in the Official Gazette (physical but also available on the Internet) a couple of months aſter the certificate is issued. Until then it is possible to file a cancellation action against the registration, if it was granted in error or, inadvertently, against the law or if a third party claims better rights for prior and uninterrupted use, even abroad.
Mexico is part of the Paris Convention but not of the Madrid System. Our trademark practice is regulated by written and not common law. In addition, we don’t use a multi-class system, so applications for the same trademark in more than one class of goods or services follow their own and separate procedures.
From application until registration, powers of attorney and priority documents are no longer required, so trademark prosecution in Mexico sounds rather simple. No documents and legalisations are needed, no third parties are involved in the application process and the Certificate of Registration is issued within six months of the filing date. Why is it, then, sometimes very difficult to register a trademark in this country for no justified reason?
Te specification of goods or services in a trademark application is tricky. Mexican trademark examiners feel more comfortable with applications filed to protect either part, or the entire class headings, of the Nice Classification (ie, advertising; business management; business administration; or office functions), or specific goods or services, but as indicated in the list of IMPI’s adopted classification (ie, business organisation consultancy). Anything different or not enlisted (ie, “auditing” instead of “verification of accounts” as indicated in IMPI’s classification) could generate office actions that would greatly
extend the length of formal examination.
Applicants need to adapt their specifications of goods or services in trademark applications to IMPI’s own classification and to the examiner’s caprice. Even if “auditing” has the same meaning as “verification of accounts”, the first just won’t do it. Te examiner will request the change of terms even knowing these activities are the same, with warnings of abandonment aſter two or three answers to the office action.
Another situation that complicates trademark applications in Mexico is that a very high percentage of registered trademarks protect all class headings of the Nice Classification. A word registered as a trademark that protects, for instance, machines and machine tools and is used on a specific machine tool only, would ban registration for a similar word applied for registration and used specifically on, say, offshore oil platforms. Te same situation occurs with registrations that protect the whole of Class 35 headings or retail sales services, that ban registration of any similar trademark for any product even if, in practice, uses differ completely.
Following the same example, even if the mark that protects machine and machine tools is used on one machine tool only, the use on that specific product would protect the rest of the goods of the same class, as well as other classes of goods or services that the same trademark is registered for. When a trademark that is registered and renewed for goods and services of many different classes (even for class headings) is used on one single product, that use is enough to keep all registrations in force (adding that, in Mexico, there is no partial non-use cancellation).
Trademarks are examined in Mexico very thoroughly. Tat is not a bad thing, but sometimes
46 World Intellectual Property Review Annual 2012
www.worldipreview.com
Te main current concern over trademark prosecution in Mexico is that consents are not allowed. Tey can be filed in support of an answer to a citation of antecedents, but not taken into consideration in examination. According to IMPI, consents are not allowed in order to protect consumers from error and confusion.
In October 2011 the consents issue arrived at the Mexican Supreme Court, which issued a criterion according to which an identical, or confusingly similar, trademark will obtain or keep registration only if it belongs to the same titleholder, even with a consent from a third party, subsidiary, sister or holding company.
Te main problem with this criterion is that it stops any chance of subsidiaries or sister companies being recognised as the same economic group, and so obtaining their own registrations for similar trademarks, causing the situation in which only
IMPI examiners’ practice and criteria are excessive. Examiners object and deny registration to anything—for example, registration for the word ‘Twing’ was objected to because of an existing prior registration for ‘Gemelo’ (Spanish for twin). Te mark ‘Sea Comfort’ was considered to be descriptive for mattresses; any evocative word may be considered to be descriptive, sometimes leading to many years of appeals before a perfectly distinctive trademark obtains registration.
Trademarks that share a same or similar word, even if different and not applied on the same goods or services, are automatically objected to and, in almost all cases, denied, again obliging applicants to take a simple trademark application that could have obtained registration with the least criterion and disposition from the authority to years of appeals.
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 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180