New Regulation of the Federal Law for the Protection of Industrial Property

New Regulation of the Federal Law for the Protection of Industrial Property

1. Scope and Entry into Force

On April 28, 2026, the Decree issuing the Regulation of the Federal Law for the Protection of Industrial Property (hereinafter, the “Regulation”) was published in the Federal Official Gazette. The Regulation implements the Federal Law for the Protection of Industrial Property (hereinafter, the “LFPPI”, for its acronym in Spanish) and repeals the Regulation of the Industrial Property Law published on November 23, 1994. Pursuant to the First and Second Transitory Articles, the Regulation will enter into force sixty business days after its publication.

The Regulation updates the practical operation of the Mexican industrial property system before the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (hereinafter, the “IMPI”, for its acronym in Spanish) through new rules on trademarks, patents, appellations of origin, geographical indications, technology transfer, online infringement proceedings, conciliation, electronic signatures, and certified electronic copies. Pursuant to Article 1 of the Regulation, its application and interpretation correspond to the IMPI for administrative purposes.

The relevance of the Regulation does not lie in the creation of a new law, but rather in updating the regulatory framework that implements the LFPPI. In practical terms, the Regulation specifies documentary requirements, formalizes IMPI’s review criteria, develops figures introduced or recognized by the LFPPI, and expands the use of electronic tools for the management, defense, and exploitation of industrial property rights.

2. Trademarks and Distinctive Signs

The Regulation develops more detailed rules for the representation of trademarks and distinctive signs. Pursuant to Article 84, sound, scent, position, motion, and multimedia trademarks must be accompanied by a description that allows the requested sign to be determined clearly and precisely; in addition, IMPI may request clarifications, amendments, or specifications when the description is incomplete, does not allow the scope of protection to be determined, or does not correspond to the submitted medium.

The requirements applicable to letters of consent and coexistence agreements are also strengthened. Articles 88 and 89 allow the express and written consent of the holder of a prior file or registration related to the coexistence of distinctive signs, but require elements to avoid confusion, including business origin, the products or services involved, applicable limitations or exclusions, delimitation of commercial sectors or target consumers, and any other element necessary to avoid erroneous association.

Regarding acquired distinctiveness through use, Article 86 provides that a trademark acquires distinctive character in Mexico when the prolonged and exclusive use of the sign is evidenced, as well as the identification of the product or service with the sign and its association with the manufacturer or service provider. Article 87 provides means of evidence such as advertising, surveys, market research, consumer reaction studies, means of dissemination of the trademark in Mexico, and any other relevant elements.

The Regulation also specifies trademark use. Article 121 provides that a trademark is in use when the products or services it distinguishes have been placed in commerce or are available in the Mexican market under that trademark, in the quantity and manner corresponding to commercial uses and customs. A trademark is also deemed to be in use when it is applied to products intended for export. In addition, use may be evidenced through a relevant number of commercial transactions, not sporadic or merely apparent, as well as through external acts of sale, distribution, marketing, or storage.

Lastly, Article 125 regulates the dissolution of linked trademarks, requiring that the request be filed by the holder of the linked registrations or pending applications, that the registration or application number where the dissolution will take effect be identified, and that the intent to dissolve the link be expressly stated.

3. Cultural Heritage, Appellations of Origin, and Geographical Indications

The Regulation incorporates a specific rule for trademark applications that include elements of Indigenous or Afro-Mexican cultural heritage. Pursuant to Article 85, the applicant must attach to the application the original certificate of authorization from the corresponding community general assembly, under the terms of the applicable legislation.

This rule requires a prior review of the origin of names, designs, symbols, expressions, graphic elements, or cultural elements intended to be incorporated into distinctive signs. In commercial operations, advertising, packaging, and product development, the use of cultural elements must be analyzed not only from a marketing perspective, but also from the perspective of community authorization, documentary traceability, and risk of refusal or dispute before IMPI.

The Regulation also develops the regime for appellations of origin and geographical indications. Among other aspects, Article 127 allows IMPI to delegate to a third party the authority to exercise protection and defense actions for protected appellations of origin and geographical indications when such actions cannot be exercised directly by the Institute; Articles 145 and 146 regulate the requirements for applications for authorization of use and renewal; Article 148 allows persons authorized to use a protected appellation of origin or geographical indication to associate for the purpose of promoting, defending, and disseminating the protected product; and Article 153 provides verification powers with respect to the obligations of distributors or marketers.

In practical terms, these changes are relevant for producers, associations, regulatory councils, chambers, distributors, and companies that use protected geographical references or market products linked to origin, reputation, or regional characteristics.

4. Patents and Inventions

The Regulation develops the provisional patent application. Article 63 provides that, in addition to the requirements under Article 105 Bis of the LFPPI, a provisional patent application in Mexico must be accompanied by the corresponding proof of payment; Article 64 provides that the claimed subject matter in the corresponding patent application must be strictly related to the matter supported in the description of the provisional application, and that any additional matter exceeding what was originally filed will not benefit from such provisional application.

This figure may be useful for inventors, universities, research centers, startups, and companies with technological developments seeking to secure an early filing date while preparing more complete technical documentation. However, it requires the initial description to be clear and sufficient, since any matter not adequately described in the provisional application may fall outside the benefit of the earlier filing date.

Article 60 incorporates disclosure obligations when the claimed invention is based on genetic resources or traditional knowledge associated with such resources, without which the invention could not have been made. In such cases, the country of origin or source of the genetic resources, or the Indigenous peoples, local communities, or source of the traditional knowledge, must be disclosed; if the applicant does not know such information, this must be stated under oath when filing the application.

5. Technology Transfer Registry

The Regulation incorporates specific rules for the Technology Transfer Registry, administered by IMPI. Licenses, assignments of intellectual property rights, confidentiality agreements, collaboration agreements, consulting agreements, research sponsorship agreements, material transfer agreements, research project agreements, academic spin-off agreements, research-based startup agreements, joint venture agreements, and other instruments involving the transfer of technology or knowledge may be recorded in such Registry. Registration is not a requirement for validity between the parties, but it may be relevant for enforceability against third parties.

Likewise, the Regulation specifies the periods that will be considered reasonable delays for purposes of patent term adjustment. Pursuant to Article 76, these include the eighteen-month and two-month periods provided in Articles 107 and 109 of the LFPPI, respectively, as well as the time elapsed between the end of such periods and the issuance of the first official action in substantive examination.

6. Online Infringement Proceedings and Conciliation

The Regulation creates the online administrative infringement declaration proceeding. Pursuant to Articles 184 and 185, such proceeding may be initiated online at the request of any party with legal interest, will be conducted and resolved through IMPI’s electronic services, and the electronic file will be chronologically integrated with filings, evidence, exhibits, official letters, orders, resolutions, and all other actions.

Articles 186 to 189 regulate operational elements of the electronic file, including access and filings through advanced electronic signature, evidentiary value of electronic or digitized documents with electronic signature, continuous operation of the electronic service, electronic notifications, and the effects of resolutions notified within the electronic file.

This chapter will not enter into force together with the rest of the Regulation. The First Transitory Article provides that the online administrative infringement declaration proceeding will enter into force on the day following publication in the Federal Official Gazette of the Administrative Agreement for its implementation, which must be published within a term not exceeding eighteen months from the entry into force of the Regulation.

The Regulation also regulates alternative dispute resolution mechanisms within administrative infringement declaration proceedings. Articles 197 to 200 allow IMPI to promote conciliatory solutions, establish principles such as voluntariness, confidentiality, good faith, legality, impartiality, equity, flexibility, and party autonomy, and allow conciliation to take place at any stage of the administrative proceeding before the final resolution, provided that third-party rights or public order provisions are not affected.

Article 201 provides that the settlement agreement must be in writing, in physical or electronic format, signed by the parties and the facilitator, will produce binding effects between the parties, and will have the effect of res judicata in administrative matters once ratified by the competent authority.

7. Electronic Signature, Certified Electronic Copies, and Evidentiary Value

The Regulation reinforces the digitalization of proceedings before IMPI. Article 36 allows the Institute to issue simple or certified copies electronically; electronic certification will produce the same effects as certifications with wet-ink signature and will have the same evidentiary value, pursuant to the validation mechanisms established in the corresponding Administrative Agreement.

Likewise, Articles 186 and 187 regulate the use of electronic signatures in electronic files. To access IMPI’s electronic services, it will be necessary to have an electronic signature recognized by the Institute, in accordance with the formalities established in the corresponding Administrative Agreement, and electronic or digitized documents with electronic signature will produce the same effects that the law grants to documents with wet-ink signature.

These rules may reduce physical documentation burdens and strengthen the evidentiary use of electronic files, but their practical implementation will depend on the Administrative Agreements issued by IMPI, particularly regarding recognized signatures, validation mechanisms, operation of electronic services, and technical requirements for the electronic file.

8. Practical Implications

In trademark matters, companies should strengthen the way they design, describe, and document distinctive signs, especially in the case of sounds, scents, motion, position signs, multimedia, cultural elements, coexistence with prior trademarks, effective use, or acquired distinctiveness through use. The preparation of applications should be aligned with sufficient documentary evidence to delimit the scope of protection and avoid office actions or refusals.

In trademark portfolios, document management becomes more relevant. It will be necessary to preserve evidence of transactions, distribution, marketing, storage, advertising, surveys, market studies, licenses, franchises, coexistence arrangements, and authorizations, especially when protection depends on proving use, acquired distinctiveness, or absence of likelihood of confusion.

In innovation and research and development, provisional patent applications will require early coordination between technical and legal teams to ensure that the initial description adequately covers the invention. Companies in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, agro-industrial, food, cosmetic, or chemical sectors should also review whether their developments involve genetic resources or associated traditional knowledge.

In disputes, administrative litigation, and compliance, the online infringement proceeding and conciliation will make it advisable to prepare robust electronic files, internal electronic signature policies, control of digital evidence, traceability of ownership, powers of attorney, licenses, assignments, and negotiation criteria, particularly when the electronic route is used. The possibility of agreements with the effect of res judicata in administrative matters may also modify the strategy for resolving disputes before IMPI.

9. What Comes Next?

Follow-up should focus on the general entry into force of the Regulation, the publication of the Administrative Agreement to implement the online administrative infringement declaration proceeding, the Administrative Agreements related to electronic signatures and validation of certified electronic copies, the Technology Transfer Registry, and the administrative criteria adopted by IMPI on non-traditional trademarks, consent, acquired distinctiveness, genetic resources, traditional knowledge, conciliation, and electronic files.

Pending matters will continue to be processed under the provisions in force at the time of their filing, pursuant to the Third Transitory Article. However, pending administrative proceedings may access, as applicable, the provisions on alternative dispute resolution mechanisms provided in the Regulation, and such mechanisms in judicial proceedings may be promoted or used as from the entry into force of the Regulation pursuant to the applicable regulations of the Federal Court of Administrative Justice.

The Intellectual Property practice area remains available to assess the impact of the Regulation on trademark and patent portfolios, pending applications, intangible asset protection strategies, disputes before IMPI, technology transfer agreements, and innovation processes subject to legal protection.