Beyond Recognition: IMPI Sanctions the Unauthorized Use of the “CUBA” Designation of Origin 

October 28, 2026

Protected designations of origin (“PDOs”) have gained increasing importance in Mexico and internationally in recent years. However, disputes related to these rights tend to focus on issues of recognition or denial, validity, or scope of protection. In contrast, infringement proceedings for the unauthorized use of a designation of origin remain relatively rare in practice. 

Article 386 of the Federal Law on the Protection of Industrial Property sets forth various acts constituting administrative infringements related to PDOs, and Article 402 further establishes a specific criminal offense for certain acts associated with their misuse.  

In this context, a recent decision by the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (“IMPI”) is particularly relevant, in which the Institute found that an administrative infringement had occurred due to the unauthorized use of the designation of origin “CUBA” for manufactured tobacco products. 

Beyond the specific outcome of the case, the decision is noteworthy in that it offers a rare example of the enforcement mechanisms provided for PDOs once they have been recognized and protected. Although Mexican law expressly provides for infringement actions to protect these types of rights, there are few public precedents in which IMPI directly analyzes and sanctions conduct related to the misuse of a designation of origin, especially when compared to the volume of cases involving trademarks or other forms of industrial property. 

The decision also confirms that the protection of a DO does not end with its formal recognition. On the contrary, these rights are backed by enforcement tools designed to prevent unauthorized uses and to preserve the link between the protected product, its quality, and its geographic origin. 

While the decision serves as an interesting reference for holders of PDOs and other distinctive signs linked to the geographic origin of products, it is important to bear in mind that this is a first-instance administrative ruling. Consequently, its scope and the criteria adopted by the authority may continue to evolve should the ruling be challenged and submitted for review by appellate or judicial bodies. 

In an environment where designations of origin and geographical indications continue to gain economic and strategic importance, it will be interesting to observe whether these types of enforcement proceedings become more common and contribute to the development of increasingly clear criteria regarding the effective protection of these rights in Mexico.