Issue 103–July 2012

July 1, 2012

Recent Jurisprudence – Documentary Evidence in a Labor Lawsuit

The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) recently approved court decision by contradictory court opinion number 2a./J. 77/2012 (10a.) titled “Documentary evidence in a labor lawsuit consists of the identification card or name tag. If not challenged or disaffirmed by the employer, such is valid to presume an employment relationship.” In such case decision, the Second Chamber determined that if the plaintiff exhibits an identification card or name tag in the proceeding as documentary evidence to prove the employment relationship denied by the employer, without the latter objecting to or proving its objection as far as the content and signature and upon its analysis, if the Board determines identification information that links the plaintiff … read more

July 1, 2012


By Pablo Sáenz

Due to the importance a salary has in the workplace, the purpose of this article is to discuss the characteristics that a salary should have and the forms in which it may be stipulated. The Federal Labor Law defines a salary as compensation that an employer must pay to an employee for work performed. Salary has the following characteristics: (i) it should be remunerative, meaning a salary should be proportional to the quantity and quality of work performed by the employee; (ii) it should be the same for all employees carrying out the same position, work schedule and at the same level of efficiency; (iii) its payment term may not be greater than one week for blue-collar work employees (los … read more

Madrid Protocol
By Antonio Campero

In April 2012, the Mexican Senate approved Mexico’s accession to the Madrid Agreement for the International Registration of Trademarks, known as the Madrid Protocol. While this may be seen as a step toward improved harmonization of our international trademark system, the inclusion of Mexico in this agreement also has disadvantages, given being that our current legislation is not compatible with the laws of most of the countries that form part of this agreement. Examples of this include: that the trademark registration process in Mexico does not provide for what is known as a “period for opposition” that most participating countries have; that in Mexico each trademark application may request the protection of products or services in one class (in accordance … read more