The General Attorney’s Office (FGR) reaffirms its commitment to the protection of intellectual property

June 16, 2026

On March 26, 2026—which coincides with the date of the operation in which at least 25 tons of counterfeit goods were seized on Aztecas St. in Tepito by the  Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI)—the Attorney General’s Office issued press release 161/26 that reiterates its commitment to intellectual property as an institution.

The press release makes reference to both the obligations that Mexico undertook when it ratified the USMCA as well as the annual Special 301 Report issued by the Office of the United States Trade Representative.

Beyond the brief statement, which underscored a commitment to increasing the number of search warrants issued for intellectual property crimes, this stance should be assessed taking into consideration the organizational context of the Prosecutor’s Office in light of recent changes in its leadership with the appointment of Ernestina Godoy, as well as the structuring of the Specialized Prosecutor’s Office for Competition Control (FECOC) and the Specialized Prosecutor’s Office for Crimes against Copyright and Industrial Property (FEIDCDP).

Among these organizational changes, the appointment of Samantha Andrade as head of the FEIDCDP stands out. Since her arrival, significant adjustments have been made to the Office’s operational criteria, shifting toward a more proactive approach in comparison to recent years.

One example of these important changes is the elimination of the criteria that did not allow express recognition of an intellectual property rights holder as the injured party in an investigation until after an expert opinion was issued confirming that a trademark had been counterfeited or a copyrighted work had been reproduced. This change allows the holder to be afforded all of the rights established in Article 109 of the National Code of Criminal Procedure, such as being notified of decisions and having access to the records contained in the case file, among others.

Another example is the willingness to open investigations related to the importation of counterfeit goods into the country via transshipment, which is a significant change from previous, more restrictive criteria that left these types of operations outside the scope of criminal investigations.

In this context, the FGR’s statement can be interpreted as a sign to shift their institutional approach, opening a new opportunity to implement more robust and effective protection strategies in the fight against piracy in Mexico.

In short, this recent statement, together with the structural changes within the FGR, suggests a turning point in public policy regarding the prosecution of intellectual property crimes in Mexico, whose effective implementation will be key and whose execution is expected to be more consistent and sustained with time.