In conformity with applicable Mexican laws governing the concept of Designations of Origins (Denominación de Origen) “the name of a country’s geographic region may serve to designate a product originating from such region, which has certain qualities or characteristics pertaining exclusively to such geographic region, including natural and human factors”. Mexican law grants ownership to such designations of origin to the government, which is to say that the government is the only party that may own such designations of origin. This single concept exists in order to protect the consumer who, upon knowing the designation of origin and the products acquired from such region, knows that the products have complied with a series of rules and regulations that apply specifically to that product. Thus, a product may not be given the designation of origin unless it meets certain natural and human characteristics. Given the importance arising from designations of origin, which are held by the various countries that own such designations, and which may generate significant revenue, Mexico has become a part of the legal system protecting designations of origin known as the “Lisbon Agreement on the Protection of Designations of Origin and their International Registration”. For their part, based on the fact that Canada and the United States of America have not joined the Lisbon Agreement, the three members of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have concluded a special agreement for “distinctive products” which has resulted in the following: i) Mexico and Canada recognize and have agreed to not allow products known as Bourbon Whisky and Tennessee Whisky to enter their countries if they have not been made in accordance with the guidelines of these U.S. products; ii) Mexico and the United States of America have agree to respect, in the same manner, Canadian Whisky; and iii) theUnited States of America and Canada have agreed to respect the designations of origin for “Tequila” and “Mezcal”. Parties desiring to utilize a designation of origin must request approval from the Mexican Industrial Property Institute (Instituto Mexicano de la Propiedad Industrial or IMPI) demonstrating that they have fully complied with all of the guidelines and requirements that are necessary for the product to be called by the desired designation of origin. Authorization for using such a designation of origin lasts ten years and may be extended by the government for equal successive terms.
In Mexico, legal concepts such as authority and granting of powers of attorney are covered in local Civil Codes, which are issued by the local Congress or Legislative Assembly of each Mexican state, which are found in and individually regulated by the 32 Civil Codes in force in Mexico. Even though these legal provisions may seem uniform, various particular differences exist in each one of the civil codes, which must be taken into consideration when considering grants of authority or powers of attorney. In this sense, it is safe to say that certain Civil Codes have similar provisions for the granting, amendment, termination, exercise and term of powers of attorney, as is the case with the current Civil Codes of the states of Aguascalientes, Baja California, Campeche, Colima, Distrito Federal, Durango, Hidalgo, Oaxaca, Queretaro, and Veracruz. However, in the other states’ Civil Codes currently in force, a number of special provisions and differences exist, including the following: i) restrictions regarding term or duration of a power of attorney, as in the case of the state of Jalisco, which provides that, unless in certain cases where a power of attorney is understood to be renewed, no power of attorney may be granted for longer than a term of five years; and in the Civil Code of the state of Mexico, which provides that a power of attorney must state its duration or term, and in contrary cases such maximum duration is three years; ii) with respect to the required transcription of powers of attorney, it is understood that in the state of Jalisco there is no requirement to insert a transcription of any article; iii) special requirements that a power of attorney must have in order to donate property, as in the case of the state of Quintana Roo where it is not possible to grant apower of attorney for making donations; iv) with respect to the termination or continuation of powers of attorney after the death of the party granting the power of attorney; v) with respect to formalities that must be met and cases in which powers of attorney are granted orally, through a simple private letter, or through public instruments; vi) special cases and provisions regarding irrevocable powers of attorney; and vii) with respect to cases in which the agent is authorized to make decisions regarding medical treatment or health conditions resulting from incapacitation of the granting party. Given the existence of the special provisions in each local jurisdiction, it is always advisable to review specific applicable laws at the time the power of attorney is granted in order to avoid situations where the validity of the power of attorney may be called into question to negate legal acts or judicial procedures carried out as a result of the power of attorney conferred by a principle to an agent.
Last month Mexico’s Supreme Court (SCJN) issued case decision 2a./J.1/2010 under the heading: “Termination of Labor Relationship by Mutual Consent. Pursuant to article 33 of the Federal Labor Law, a worker may request the nullification of a signed settlement or termination agreement if he or she considers that a waiver of rights has taken place”. In recent cases, Mexico’s Supreme Court has held that the termination of a labor relationship by mutual consent ‘does not imply that the worker is barred from requesting the nullification of a settlement agreement entered into with the employer, whether as part of a settlement or termination, if the worker deems that such will constitute a waiver of his or her rights, independent of the terms contained in the agreement that has been ratified by the local labor conciliation and arbitration board”. The above is based on the fact that a termination of labor relationship by mutual consent does not imply a waiver of rights or benefits related to labor services previously provided so that, in cases where, through individual or collective agreements, there is a termination of a labor relationship, article 33 of the Federal Labor Law always applies providing for the principal the impossibility of a waiver of employee rights in agreements or settlements involving such labor rights. Based on the foregoing, it is highly recommended that payments of vacation pay, vacation bonus, holiday pay or any other benefits be totally covered in accordance with the proportional salary and time worked by the employee, since payment of an incorrect amount could imply a possible waiver of rights and, as such, allow an employee to nullify a settlement agreement.