Intellectual Property 2026

MEXICO Trends and Developments Contributed by: Gilberto Sánchez Escárcega, Eduardo Vázquez Labra, Claudia Stephany González Trujano and Frida Sofía Cuevas Castillo, Specific IP

Trends in Intellectual Property in Mexico: A System in Transition Towards Regulated Innovation In Mexico, the industrial property system has under- gone a significant evolution, increasingly aligning with international standards. As part of this process, and following the recent amendment to the Federal Law for the Protection of Industrial Property (LFPIP), pub- lished on 3 April 2026, new legal concepts have been introduced that represent a substantial shift not only at a regulatory level, but also in the protection and enforcement of intangible assets in the country. Structural Drivers The reform initiative was largely driven by Mexico’s structural lag in innovation. Low participation by domestic applicants in patent filings, the disconnect between academia and industry, and limited tech- nology transfer mechanisms highlighted the need to reassess the system. In this context, the reform responds to a clear eco- nomic rationale: transforming intellectual property into an active instrument of development, aligned with broader policies on innovation and technologi- cal sovereignty. Against this backdrop, seven key pillars stand out: • the incorporation of ambush marketing as an administrative infringement; • the introduction of new non-traditional trade marks; • the adjustment of procedural timelines before the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI); • the linkage between copyright reservations and distinctive signs; • the enactment and implementation of the Federal Law for the Protection of the Cultural Heritage of Indigenous and Afro-Mexican Peoples and Com- munities (2022); and • the emergence of criteria relating to artificial intel- ligence (AI) in copyright matters. Ambush marketing One of the most significant developments, particu- larly in light of large-scale sporting events such as the 2026 FIFA World Cup, is the incorporation of ambush marketing into Mexican legislation. This practice is common across markets and, although previously

addressed indirectly through unfair competition and misleading advertising frameworks, it is now expressly regulated. Ambush marketing is defined as conduct that mis- leads or deceives consumers into believing that there is an official sponsorship relationship between a dis- tinctive sign and a public or private mass event. This infringement may arise both directly and indirect- ly, whether through explicit references to an event or through implied associations. As a result, companies must reassess their marketing strategies, as referenc- es not only to the World Cup but to any large-scale event could potentially fall within this category and trigger administrative liability. At the same time, the incorporation of this legal con- cept is likely to increase administrative litigation. The determination of what constitutes “undue associa- tion” or “confusion” will not always be straightforward, leaving room for interpretative criteria to be developed by IMPI. Finally, this regulation introduces a structural tension: while it protects legitimate investments, it may also restrict certain competitive strategies, raising potential concerns from a competition law perspective. Expansion of the non-traditional trade mark system The reform also contemplates the incorporation of non-traditional trade marks that were not previously expressly recognised under Mexican law, including multimedia marks (a combination of images, sounds, movements and visual elements), position marks (pro- tecting the specific placement of a sign on a product), and motion marks (a sequence of images or visual elements that identify a product or service). However, their recognition raises important questions: how will distinctiveness be assessed for such signs? What constitutes an adequate form of representation before the authority? And what criteria will IMPI apply in evaluating their scope and potential conflicts with prior rights?

232 CHAMBERS.COM

Powered by