51. The representative of Mexico said that her delegation needed some time to consult with the authorities in the capital to respond to the sub-questions. She would, however, attempt to provide an overview of the system for geographical indications in Mexico. As to the first sub-question, she said that the industrial property law in Mexico defined a geographical indication as a name that indicated a product originating from a given place, the quality and characteristics of which were due exclusively to the geographical environment, including natural and human factors. Mexico also used the definition contained in TRIPS Article 22.1. The industrial property law considered that international treaties to which Mexico was party were valid rules throughout the territory. Those treaties included the Lisbon Agreement, the TRIPS Agreement, and the Paris Convention. Mexico also had a bilateral agreement with the European Union that included chapters on intellectual property rights, including protection for geographical indications.
52. As to the procedures on how to enforce that protection, it was stipulated that an application complying with the IP office's requirements had to be filed. The right would be cancelled only if the office decided that it was to be cancelled, for example because the trademark holder had let the trademark become generic. In Mexico, the parties had the burden of proof for their allegations, in other words the parties had to provide the basis for their applications or requests. However, with regard to annulments or termination of the protection, the burden of proof was reversed and such applications had to be substantiated. She said that her delegation would provide greater details in writing on the system for geographical indications in Mexico.
