In Mexico, the shift toward preventive models already has legal backing in the current Federal Law for the Protection of Industrial Property (“LFPPI” or the “Law”) and in recent amendments published in the Official Gazette of the Federation (DOF) on April 3, 2026, which strengthen the role of the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property ("IMPI") as an enforcement authority and promoter of best practices.
The amendment to the Law modified more than 200 articles and added, among others, subsection XXXII Ter to Article 5, granting IMPI the function of promoting the adoption of compliance systems in industrial property matters.
For corporate governance purposes, this addition to Article 5 of the LFPPI consolidates the expectation that IMPI will promote compliance mechanisms in Industrial Property, opening the door to the development of official guidelines and programs.
The new Regulations of the LFPPI (the “Regulations”), published on April 28, 2026, complement this framework by empowering IMPI to implement compliance training programs, with the possibility of granting certificates and distinctions to legal entities that demonstrate that all of their personnel have completed the training.
Although the LFPPI does not provide express mitigating factors for having compliance programs, the formal recognition of training may become a reputational asset and, where applicable, serve as evidentiary support to demonstrate the absence of intent when the authority individualizes sanctions pursuant to Article 392 of the Law.
While this is a power granted to IMPI, and it is not an obligation imposed on companies, its incorporation into the Law sends a clear signal: the Mexican State is committed to transitioning from a reactive model of industrial property protection to a preventive one.
Even without a direct mandate on companies, it should be noted that the LFPPI empowers IMPI to investigate alleged infringements, order inspections, and request information. Therefore, integrating the IP function into a comprehensive risk map and internal control cycle similar to anti-corruption or personal data protection, helps reduce risk exposure and facilitates responses during verification processes. A preventive approach also strengthens the rights holder’s position when claiming damages for infringements.
The USMCA, in force since July 2020, contains specific commitments on intellectual property including enforcement provisions and border measures against piracy and counterfeiting that have driven domestic regulatory updates. Even though the 2026–2027 joint review is of an interstate nature, the context reinforces the expectation that Mexico will maintain and strengthen its protection standards in this area.
A compliance program, regardless of the risk category it addresses, generally consists of the same elements: risk identification and assessment, internal policies and controls, personnel training, continuous monitoring, and the generation of evidence demonstrating a culture of legality. Although the Law does not develop the concept of a compliance program in industrial property, we believe that this is the logic underlying IMPI’s new powers.
Applied to industrial property, this framework may translate into: (i) mapping specific risks (use of distinctive signs by third parties, leakage of trade secrets); (ii) internal policies (brand use and branding manual); (iii) operational controls (review of advertising materials, enhanced confidentiality clauses); (iv) segmented training by exposure area; and (v) continuous monitoring (market sampling, mystery shopping, channel audits). This approach is consistent with IMPI’s powers for inspections and sanctions.
For example, a consumer goods company launching private label brands may implement prior searches by Nice classification, phonetic and figurative analyses, and verification of actual and effective use (Art. 233 LFPPI) before filing for registration. Documenting these steps—minutes, search reports, training certificates—generates evidence that may serve to demonstrate due diligence and absence of intent in the event of a verification or proceeding before IMPI.
In an environment of globalized digital economy, the risks of counterfeiting, piracy, and misuse of distinctive signs multiply. In this context, an industrial property compliance system serves a dual purpose: protecting the company’s own intangible assets—trademarks, patents, designs, trade secrets—and, at the same time, ensuring that business operations do not infringe third-party rights. The objective is to manage those risks proactively, rather than waiting for them to materialize in administrative proceedings, complaints, or reputational crises.
The operation of any company entails risks in industrial property matters that a compliance program can help identify, prevent, and manage.
Among the most frequent areas of exposure in Mexican practice are: the use of trademarks without prior searches or adequate control, deficient management of confidentiality agreements and access to reserved technical knowledge (know-how), unsupported advertising claims, and the acquisition of products from suppliers dealing in counterfeit merchandise. These conducts may give rise to different types of liability:
Although the Law and the Regulations do not develop in detail the concept of an industrial property compliance program, we believe that every company could benefit from adopting preventive actions in this area. The benefits are clear: proactive risk management, prevention of conduct that could constitute infringements or crimes, and the ability to demonstrate a culture of compliance in any eventuality.
As a starting point, it is advisable to assess the current state of compliance with LFPPI obligations (trademark use, licenses, advertising), mapping processes and available evidence. The publication of the new Regulations (DOF 04/28/2026) anticipates administrative instruments from IMPI—such as certificates and distinctions—whose implementation should be monitored.
Among the actions that can be implemented starting today are:
i. designing and implementing a corporate industrial property policy, including internal guidelines for trademark use and prior authorization of materials;
ii. developing a differentiated training program for the most exposed areas (marketing, procurement, product development, technology);
iii. implementing due diligence protocols for the supply chain, including periodic audits of suppliers and distributors;
iv. establishing model confidentiality and ownership-of-results clauses, as well as an approval matrix for advertising campaigns;
v. defining a response protocol for the detection of counterfeit products (evidence preservation, reporting, and actions before IMPI); and
vi. systematically documenting compliance efforts to demonstrate the existence and effectiveness of the program before any authority.
Additionally, an enforcement strategy—including market surveillance, sending cease and desist letters, and actions before IMPI—complements preventive measures and strengthens the company’s position against third-party infringers.
Finally, it is advisable to schedule and monitor the filing of the declaration of actual and effective use of trademarks (Art. 233 LFPPI), review licenses and franchises for registration, and align employment and service agreements with specific industrial property and confidentiality clauses.
By way of example, a company operating an e-commerce platform in Mexico can reduce compliance risks by implementing: (a) documentary verification of sellers; (b) contractual clauses on authenticity and non-infringement; (c) a reporting channel and expedited removal of infringing listings; and (d) cooperation with rights holders for rapid takedowns. These measures are consistent with the LFPPI’s sanctioning and enforcement framework.
The amendment to the LFPPI and its Regulations open the door to a new paradigm in compliance for industrial property. Although the development of these powers has yet to be defined, companies today could get ahead and strengthen the management of their intangible assets.
The time to act is now: companies that institutionalize an industrial property compliance program before IMPI develops its guidelines will be better positioned to adapt to the new framework.
At Mijares, we maintain a cross-cutting vision of compliance by combining two strengths: extensive experience in managing effective compliance systems, and deep technical knowledge across various regulatory disciplines, including intellectual property. We remain at your disposal to analyze the impact of these reforms on your operations and to assist you in the design and implementation of a program tailored to your organization.
Awards
.svg){kind=small}
.webp)
