MEXICO Law and Practice Contributed by: Victor Adames, Carlos Hernandez, Paola Becerril and Eduardo Saldaña, BC&B Law & Business
ney General’s Office, so any of these authorities can send an official communication ordering the suspension of the free circulation of the imported goods and make them available to the compe - tent authority in the warehouse designated by the authority for such purposes In order that customs authorities are aware of counterfeit goods, the Official Database of Mexican Trade Mark Registrations of the Mexi - can Customs was created. After a trade mark is recorded in said database and once customs authorities receive any type of merchandise, they will review if it complies with the Mexican regulation and if there is the presumption of counterfeit/infringing merchandise. Once customs authorities detect merchandise that is presumed to be counterfeit/infringing they will send an alert to the representatives of the trade mark holder, so they can file the cor - responding actions against the merchandise. Please refer to 3.9 Refusal of Registration and 5.2 Legal Grounds for Filing an Opposition or Cancellation for discussion of the appeal pro - cess in Mexico. 11.2 Timeframes for Appealing Trial Court Decisions An appeal must be filed with the relevant admin - istrative or judicial authority within the specified timeframes. Regarding the types of appeals, a review recourse or an amparo appeal typically takes about six months to be decided. On the other hand, a nullity appeal is expected to be decided 11. Appeal 11.1 Appellate Procedure
within approximately eight to ten months. These timeframes can vary depending the complexity of each case and the workload of the authorities. 12. Additional Considerations 12.1 Emerging Issues Regulations regarding artificial intelligence (AI) are still under discussion and development. However, there is an ongoing case where Chat - GPT, through its legal representatives, filed a nullity appeal against a copyright registration refusal issued by INDAUTOR, arguing that AI should not be denied moral rights. This case is still pending, and its outcome could be pivotal in determining the legal status of AI in terms of title ownership. It is important to note that the FCL currently only recognises natural persons as copyright holders, particularly with regard to moral rights, meaning that AI does not have the legal capacity to hold these rights. We will have to wait to see how this issue is addressed as AI- related regulations continue to evolve. 12.2 Trade Mark and Copyright Use on the Internet The use of trade marks and copyrights on the internet is governed by the same rules as their use in physical spaces. However, recent amend - ments to the relevant regulations have intro - duced provisions for notice-and-takedown pro - cedures, which establish a process to address alleged infringements. Additionally, with the incorporation of blockchain- related provisions in the FCL, service providers may be held liable if content hosted on their plat - forms infringes intellectual property rights and they fail to remove it following a notice-and-take - down request or a corresponding warning letter.
343 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook