To date, there has been a general consensus that counterfeiting represents a huge obstacle in the development of an economy.
Its effects are wideranging as it not only affects the owners of the counterfeited trademarks but the complete consumption chain. Therefore it cannot be tolerated by any state under any circumstances, especially considering the fact that such activities have taken on an unimaginable magnitude to the extent that today, almost every product is counterfeited, from clothing and handbags to tyres and nappies.
Mexico, like many other countries, has shown its commitment in this matter through different measures in Mexican legislation, such as the Mexican Industrial Property Law (MIPL), in which Mexico expressly recognised counterfeiting trademarks as harmful enough to our society and economy in order to call for the use of all of the state’s resources in the pursuit and punishment of these actions.
Under this scenario, every year criminal actions filed by IP rights owners to deal with trademark counterfeiting are increasing in number. One especially interesting aspect of this is that the Attorney General’s Office (GAO) requires the opinion of an expert witness to determine whether a trademark has been counterfeited or not.
To continue reading, you need a subscription to WIPR. Start a subscription to WIPR for £455.
In-house feature articles, the archive and expert comment require a paid subscription. Subscribe now.
Want to give it a try? We are offering a two week free trial to the WIPR website – register and select “Free Trial” to begin access to the full WIPR archive and read the latest news, features and expert comment. Begin your free trial here.
Is your 2 week free trial about to end? Upgrade to a 12 month subscription for £455 now.
If you have already subscribed please login.
If you have any technical issues please email James Lynn on email@example.com.
IMPI, IP crimes, counterfeiting, MIPL, general attorney