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.
The rest of this article is locked for subscribers only. Please login to continue reading.
If you don't have a login, you will need to purchase a subscription to gain access to this article, including all our online content. Please use this link and follow the steps.
For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription to us that we can add you to for FREE, please email Atif Choudhury at firstname.lastname@example.org
IMPI, IP crimes, counterfeiting, MIPL, general attorney