SCJN outlines endorsing legal security of Mexican trademarks – El Sol de México

The Plenum of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) outlines declaring unconstitutional article 151 section I of the Industrial Property Lawwhich will allow the law protects the rights of Mexican trademarks and do not leave the door open for invalidity lawsuits to be initiated for its use.

According to the presentation by Minister Alberto Pérez Dayán on this matter, which has to do with the Contradiction of Thesis 187/2021, and which he will present in this Thursday’s session in the Court session, This norm is unconstitutional since “it turns out to be in violation of the principle of legal certainty.”

We recommend you: FGR has three open investigations against former President Peña Nieto

The above, the opinion abounds, “since the person will never have the certainty of ownership of their trademark registration, since there will always be the contingency that for any violation of the law someone can demand its nullity at any time.”

With this, Minister Pérez Dayán will propose, “a permanent threat is caused to the right that was recognized in industrial property, which is contrary to the intention of the legislator to perfect the national industrial property system through greater protection. to the rights it establishes.

The minister’s presentation also states that “this rule is so disproportionate that the owner of a trademark registration, after it has been granted, can be sued within five, ten, 50 or 500 years”.

“Article 151 section I of the Industrial Property Law is so disproportionate and unbalanced that, inexplicably, Mexico is the only country in the world to support iteven when it causes enormous harm to its own citizens.”

➡️ Subscribe to our Newsletter and receive the most relevant notes in your email

The Contradiction of Thesis 187/2021 that will be resolved by the plenary session of the highest body of justice in the country occurs after the Second Chamber of the SCJN ruled in 2019 that this regulation is unconstitutional, but a ruling by the First Chamber, dating from 2011 and in 2015, it ruled that this norm is constitutional.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back to top button