TRADEMARKS “ONE BENEFIT OF MOVING TO A SINGLE ACTION WOULD BE THAT THE


PARTIES INVOLVED WOULD HAVE CERTAINTY AS TO WHICH OF THEM HAD PRIOR USE OF THE TRADEMARK.”


trademark registration and grants to the plaintiff its corresponding trademark registration.


Tis results in a delay in the study of the arguments and evidence that the defendant has in connection with its use of the trademark as the IMPI obliges the parties to be involved in two litigation actions, the first initiated by the party that alleges to have a use prior to that of the holder of the trademark registration, and the second initiated by the one that was the defendant in the original proceedings once its registration is cancelled, arguing it has a better right as he/she used the trademark before the one argued and proved by the other party, which was the original plaintiff.


With this in mind, it is extremely important that the Mexican IP law changes to allow the IMPI to assess prior use not only in respect of the date of first use or of the filing date of the challenged trademark, but also in the light of any evidence from the defendant that demonstrates a better use than the one argued by the plaintiff.


If the law were changed in this way, the IMPI would be able to modify its position and criteria in connection with this type of case. It could study, in particular, all the arguments and evidence offered by the plaintiff and by the defendant in a cancellation action grounded in prior use, ensuring that the parties are not involved in two


68


prolonged litigation actions and instead obtain just one decision determining which of them had prior use of the trademark in conflict.


In this author’s opinion, one benefit of moving to a single action would be that the parties involved would have certainty as to which of them had the prior use of the trademark in conflict, avoiding the unnecessary expense and wasted time of filing a new action aſter the first resolution.


However, as long as the Mexican IP law continues to restrict the litis of this type of cancellation action as mentioned above, and, as a result, the IMPI continues to maintain its criterion of studying only the evidence submitted by the plaintiff to prove a prior use without assessing the eventual evidence filed by the defendant, the parties will have to be involved in two actions.


Terefore, considering the current scenario aſter the first resolution, the former defendant’s only possible action—in the event that the use he/she wants to claim is prior to the former plaintiff’s use of the trademark—is to argue and prove that he/she has a better right than the former plaintiff only through a second litigation action. 


Carlos Hernández is manager of IP litigation at Becerril, Coca & Becerril. He can be contacted at: chernandez@bcb.com.mx


World Intellectual Property Review Annual 2014


Carlos Hernández is an attorney at law specialising in international law and IP law. Hernández joined Becerril, Coca & Becerril, S.C. in 2005, and became an associate of the firm in July 2013. He is a member of the Mexican Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AMPPI), and has published articles in different media. As the manager of Becerril, Coca & Becerril’s IP litigation department, Hernández focuses his practice in the areas of IP litigation and constitutional law.


www.worldipreview.com


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