The First Circuit on Administrative Matters recently issued opinion number PC.I.A. J/78 A (10a.), entitled: “Invalidation of Trademark Registration. When the date of first use of a mark is allegedly falsified, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof to prove the facts of the elements of the cause of action.” In such case, the court determined that when one alleges the invalidation of the registration of a trademark, in accordance with that set forth in section III of Article 151 of the Intellectual Property Law, based on the alleged falsification of the date of first use of the mark stated on the application for registration, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof to prove its case. This conclusion is consistent with the terms of the Intellectual Property Law, as well as the Federal Code of Civil Procedure, in the sense that it is the obligation of the party requesting the invalidation to prove the facts that comprise its cause of action.
After a long discussion process, a constitutional reform was finally approved in order to politically categorize the Federal District as a new state, with autonomy as relates to its internal system and its political and administrative organization. The newly-named Mexico City is now the 32nd Mexican state. Mexico had followed, with a few variables, the U.S.’s solution to designate a defined territory to serve as the seat of federal governmental power. In the U.S., the capital is Washington, District of Columbia (or D.C.), while in Mexico it has been the Federal District (Distrito Federal or D.F.). One difference between the two capitals is that in Mexico the D.F. was established as the political, cultural, religious and economic center of the country, while in the U.S., Washington D.C. was created by the agreement of the states. Some argued that residents of the Federal District had diminished political representation because they could not designate their governing authorities because the Mexican Constitution provides that the President of the Republic would appoint the “Head of the Department of the Federal District,” who would report directly to the President.
After several reforms in recent years, a Legislative Assembly was created as a kind of state Congress, and local districts or “delegations” were given the authority to appoint the delegation heads, and the residents of the Federal District were given the authority to designate the Head of Government of the city. Now with the constitutional reform, residents of the former Federal District may designate the Head of Government of Mexico City, the delegation mayors, as well as the members of the Legislature. The reform changed the historic name of the Federal District, and replaced it with Mexico City, the acronym for which is “CDMX” for its name in Spanish. The name change has been greatly criticized by residents of the capital because the prior expression, “D.F.” was deeply rooted.
There is much anticipation as to the contents of the new Mexico City Constitution. Additionally, there will be mayors in the 16 delegations, who will be accompanied in their administrative work by collegiate bodies consisting of 10 councilors for each delegation who will be responsible for the administration of each delegation.
The Constituent Assembly that will begin to work on September 15, 2016 is to deliver the text of the Constitution to be enacted in February, 2017, which will coincide with the commemoration of the centenary of Mexico’s Constitution on February 5, 2017. The process of creating the Assembly is set forth in the Mexican Constitution, by means of a mixed mechanism: 60 deputies elected by popular vote under the principal of proportional representation on a multi-member list, which has already occurred in the elections held on June 7; 14 senators elected by two thirds of the members of the Senate of the Republic; 14 federal deputies designated by the vote of two thirds of the representatives in the Chamber of Deputies (federal); 6 deputies designated by the President of the Republic and 6 deputies designated by the Head of the Government of the Federal District. This group of constituents will review the draft Constitution of Mexico City to be presented by the Mexico City Head of Government.
For purposes of preparing the draft to be discussed, the Mexico City Head of Government has consulted with various advisors, including academics, politicians, and constitutional law experts, including Dr. Mario Melgar Adalid, who serves as of-counsel to Cacheaux, Cavazos & Newton, L.L.P.
Prior to the labor reform of 2012, and in accordance with article 47, section XV of the Federal Labor Law, an employer had the obligation to deliver notice of dismissal directly to an employee at the time of termination, and if the employee refused to accept such notice, the employer had five business days to present such notice at the Board of Conciliation and Arbitration with jurisdiction, providing the employee’s address and requesting the intervention of the authorities for purposes of delivering the dismissal notice to the employee. Subsequently, the Federal Labor Law was reformed and Article 47, Section XV was amended, resulting in an important change to the procedure for giving notice of dismissal in terminations for cause and its effects, the first being that it leaves it to the employer’s discretion to give the notice of dismissal directly to the employee at the time of termination or to give notice of such to the Board of Conciliation and Arbitration, each option having different legal effects. Therefore, in the case of absent employees, the employer may, in its own discretion, give such notice of dismissal directly to the authority with jurisdiction and not necessarily directly to the employee. The effects of exercising any of the two options provided by the amended article have not been determined. Secondly, the commencement of the statute of limitations will not prejudice the employee. Therefore, in an extreme case, such as, for example, if the employer chooses to give the notice of dismissal to the employee by means of the Board of Conciliation and Arbitration, and such authority does not deliver notice until two years following the actual date of termination, then the employee has the right to file a claim for unjustified termination within two months following the date on which the labor authority delivered the notice of dismissal to the employee. In the example given, the employee may file suit two years following the actual date of termination because the authority delayed in delivering the notice of dismissal. In view of the foregoing, it is important to take the entire situation into consideration before deciding to how to deliver notice of dismissal, in the case of a termination for cause.
Sources of information and disclaimer: The following sources of information, among others, have been used in preparing this document: Official Journal of the Federation, the Bank of Mexico, Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, Department of Finance and Public Credit. The CCN MéxicoReport ™ does not constitute legal or tax advice and should not be used for purposes other than as purely informative for the general public. For more information on the CCN MéxicoReport ™, any of the issues mentioned therein or to inquire about legal services, please contact Rob Barnett (firstname.lastname@example.org) or Mario Melgar (email@example.com), phone (210) 222-1642.
© Copyright 2016, CCN. All Rights Reserved.