ANAM – IMPI COORDINATION AGREEMENT

May 05, 2026

The recent signing of the Coordination and Collaboration Agreement between the Mexican National Customs Agency (ANAM) and the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI) undoubtedly represents a strengthening of industrial property rights enforcement in foreign trade operations. However, it will be interesting to see how the authorities implement it in practice, taking into account various issues that could affect its proper implementation.

This agreement introduces operational measures that can facilitate and expedite the detection, analysis, sanctioning, and destruction of infringing goods that are brought into the country through our customs.

One of the key points of this agreement is the creation of inter-agency working groups, composed of personnel from both authorities, which will not only serve a coordinating function but also monitor irregularities, evaluate results, and formulate regulatory proposals.

Similarly, the role of technical advisory support through IMPI observers at customs checkpoints is noteworthy. These specialists will participate directly in identifying goods suspected of infringement, providing technical support to customs authorities who have often operated with limited information.

It is also important to highlight the at least four intensive training programs that IMPI plans to implement for customs personnel with the aim of strengthening the identification of goods that may infringe industrial property rights.

However, one of the most relevant and possibly controversial aspects is the promotion of ex officio actions. Indeed, Articles 329 and 344 of the Federal Law on the Protection of Industrial Property grant IMPI the authority to act on its own initiative, imposing the provisional measures it deems appropriate, as well as initiating the corresponding administrative infringement declaration procedure; however, the mechanism introduced by Annex I raises some questions regarding its compatibility with legal provisions.

The aforementioned Annex I establishes a mechanism whereby ANAM will inform IMPI of the entry of suspect goods, and IMPI, in turn, will notify the owner of the potentially affected rights to make payment for the handling, storage, and custody of the goods as a prerequisite for the suspension of their free circulation. This raises the question of whether such payment constitutes an obligation, a power of the owner, or a precondition for the imposition of provisional measures.

Another relevant issue will be to analyze whether this mechanism could hinder or not potential criminal proceedings that the owner might initiate against the shipment in question, especially if such a matter is already being addressed ex officio at the administrative level.

Likewise, the procedure described in Annex I suggests the possible establishment of an abbreviated process by setting a maximum period of 60 days for issuing a substantive decision in the administrative infringement declaration procedure, without expressly providing for stages such as the presentation of evidence or the submission of arguments, as required by law.

While this undoubtedly represents progress in terms of the efficiency and effectiveness of administrative procedures regarding industrial property enforcement, it also raises questions about compliance with the procedural formalities set forth in applicable legislation.

Finally, the reference to the fact that seized goods may be stored in facilities managed by IMPI is particularly noteworthy, raising the question of whether the Institute will, de facto, be assuming the role of a depositary—a function that has traditionally been performed by third parties in practice.

In summary, the ANAM-IMPI Agreement reflects a clear intention to strengthen industrial property enforcement at customs through greater coordination, specialization, and efficiency. However, its implementation will pose interpretive and operational challenges that must be closely monitored to prevent it from becoming an additional obstacle to access to justice, rather than fulfilling its true purpose.