Playa del Carmen, Quintana Roo — Maya community representatives in Quintana Roo are calling for clearer rules on the commercial use of Indigenous cultural symbols, nearly two months after Mexico’s Supreme Court ruled against Grupo Xcaret in a case that could set an important precedent for tourism, branding and cultural rights.
Hermelindo Be Cituk, state coordinator of the National Indigenous Plural Assembly for Autonomy, known as ANIPA, said the issue has been a recurring topic in recent community meetings, including one held this past weekend. He stressed that the communities are not opposed to Grupo Xcaret itself, but want transparent regulations that ensure the benefits of using Maya cultural heritage reach Indigenous communities broadly, not only selected groups or private intermediaries.
“Our fellow community members have held assemblies where they ask to continue the relationship with the group. They are not against the use of cultural heritage and the corresponding rights. They want it to be regulated,” Be Cituk said.
The dispute centers on the use of Maya symbols, imagery, names and cultural references in commercial tourism. For foreign readers, this is not simply a trademark disagreement. In Mexico, Indigenous and Afro-Mexican communities have legal rights over their collective cultural heritage, including traditional knowledge, designs, symbols, languages, ceremonies, artistic expressions and other identity markers. The relevant law, published in 2022, is the Federal Law for the Protection of the Cultural Heritage of Indigenous and Afro-Mexican Peoples and Communities. It recognizes collective ownership of cultural heritage and generally prohibits third-party commercial use without free, prior and informed consent.
On March 26, Mexico’s Supreme Court revoked a legal suspension that had allowed Grupo Xcaret to continue using elements of Maya cultural heritage in its advertising and tourism promotion while the underlying case continued. The case involves Grupo Xcaret, members of Maya communities and the National Copyright Institute, known as Indautor. According to La Jornada, the ruling means the company must remove that symbolism from advertising and its website while the broader litigation is resolved.
The full written decision outlining the precise legal effects of the ruling had not yet been published in the period immediately following the vote, leaving communities, business leaders and observers waiting for more detail. That matters because the ruling could help define what counts as protected cultural heritage, who has authority to grant permission, how consent must be obtained and how any economic benefit should be shared.
Some business leaders have also called for regulations under the federal cultural heritage law, arguing that companies need clear procedures to comply. That is one of the central problems now: the law recognizes Indigenous cultural rights, but the practical rulebook for businesses, tourism operators, designers, hotel groups and advertisers is still not fully developed.
For Be Cituk, the issue goes beyond Xcaret. In earlier comments, he supported Indautor’s rejection of a private agreement between Xcaret and the so-called Gran Consejo Maya, arguing that the council did not represent all Maya people and that communities did not see the reported 15 million pesos connected to that agreement. His position is that any claim pursued through copyright or cultural heritage law should benefit Maya communities collectively, rather than only certain organizations or representatives.
“There is a legal claim being pursued through copyright law, but it should benefit all Indigenous communities, not just certain groups. We are not against Xcaret; we want benefits for everyone,” Be Cituk added.
Grupo Xcaret is one of the Riviera Maya’s best-known tourism companies, operating major parks, tours and hotels that draw heavily on regional nature, archaeology and Maya-themed storytelling. Its brand is deeply tied to the Mexican Caribbean, which makes the case especially sensitive. Supporters of the ruling see it as a step toward protecting living Maya communities from having their identity turned into a commercial product without consent. Critics and business groups worry about uncertainty for tourism promotion unless the rules are clarified.
Since the ruling, other legal cases involving Xcaret have also drawn public attention, including tax audits, trademark disputes related to its hotels and lawsuits over alleged damages connected to the use of its facilities. Those matters are separate from the cultural heritage case, but together they have placed one of Quintana Roo’s most powerful tourism brands under a brighter legal and public spotlight.
For now, the broader question is not whether Maya culture can appear in tourism. It already does, everywhere from hotel names to park shows to souvenir shops. The question is who decides how it is used, who gives permission and who benefits when that culture becomes part of a profitable tourism brand.
