ARTICLE
18 November 2024

Understanding The Novelty Requirement For Industrial Designs Under Mexican Law

O
OLIVARES

Contributor

OLIVARES logo
Our mission is to provide innovative solutions and highly specialized legal advice for clients facing the most complicated legal and business challenges in Mexico. OLIVARES is continuously at the forefront of new practice areas concerning copyright, litigation, regulatory, anti-counterfeiting, plant varieties, domain names, digital rights, and internet-related matters, and the firm has been responsible for precedent-setting decisions in patents, copyrights, and trademarks. Our firm is committed to developing the strongest group of legal professionals to manage the level of complexity and interdisciplinary orientation that clients require. During the first decade of the 21st century, the team successfully led efforts to reshape IP laws and change regulatory authorizations procedures in Mexico, not only through thought leadership and lobbying efforts, but the firm has also won several landmark and precedent-setting cases at the Mexican Federal and Supreme Courts levels, including in constitutional matters.
The concept of novelty is a cornerstone in the protection of industrial designs, ensuring that only truly new and original creations receive legal protection.
Mexico Intellectual Property

The concept of novelty is a cornerstone in the protection of industrial designs, ensuring that only truly new and original creations receive legal protection. In Mexico, the Federal Law for the Protection of Industrial Property (FLPIP) outlines specific criteria for what constitutes a novel design.

Article 67 of the FLPIP stipulates that for a design to be considered novel, it must meet two key criteria:

A) Independent Creation: This means that the design must be the result of the creator's own intellectual effort and not a copy or imitation of an existing design. Industrial designs whose characteristics differ only in "irrelevant details" shall be considered identical.

Although the emphasis of this definition is on the originality of the creation process, the key issue here is the term "irrelevant details". When addressing this criterion, rather than demonstrating that the design was developed independently, one must be focused on explaining why the small differences are not "irrelevant details". The more a design is saturated within the state of the art, the more likely it is that small differences between the designs to be compared could suffice to justify protection.

B) Differ in a Significant Degree: This means that the overall impression the design produces on a technician in the field must differ significantly from the overall impression produced by any other design, considering the "designer's freedom degree" for developing the design.

Many design possibilities are limited by technical or constructional specifications. Precisely because the appearance of a certain design cannot be varied to a significant degree, the technician would have no reason to ignore small differences in the overall impression, especially when the designer's freedom in developing the design is more restricted.

Understanding and effectively demonstrating these aspects are crucial for securing design protection under Mexican law.

Originally published by IP Stars

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More