Xcaret Group Retains Trademark Rights After Court Ruling, Indigenous Participation Questions Persist

Mexico City — Xcaret Group will retain the right to use its commercial name after a Mexican court ruled in favor of the company in a trademark dispute, though questions persist about the participation of indigenous Maya communities in the decision-making process.

The Specialized Chamber for Intellectual Property Matters of the Federal Court of Administrative Justice (TFJA) resolved the litigation over the “Xcaret” trademark registration in the company’s favor. The court decision was based on the company having obtained recognition as a “famous brand” since 2022, a figure provided for in the Federal Law for the Protection of Industrial Property that grants reinforced protection to distinctive signs with broad recognition among consumers.

The Origin of the Conflict

The conflict began when the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI), headed by Santiago Nieto Castillo, determined in December 2024 to revoke the registration, considering that the term “Xcaret” has a direct relationship with a geographical, historical and cultural space linked to the identity of the Maya people.

According to IMPI, keeping the trademark in the hands of a private company could generate confusion about its origin and open debate about possible commercial appropriation of indigenous cultural elements.

Historically, Xcaret (meaning “small inlet” in Maya) was an important commercial port and Maya pilgrimage point previously known as Polé, according to the National Institute of Anthropology and History.

Following that resolution, Xcaret Group filed a nullity lawsuit before the TFJA, resolved on March 30 by Judge Francisco Medina Padilla, who concluded that IMPI did not sufficiently justify the cancellation nor fully prove the prohibitions provided for in the legislation.

Sentence Aligned With Precedents

Specialists in administrative law and intellectual property note that the sentence aligns with criteria maintained by both the TFJA and the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN), regarding that restrictions on trademark registration must be properly founded and motivated, especially when they affect previously recognized rights.

The SCJN has established that every administrative authority must precisely express the factual and legal reasons that justify its determinations, particularly when they affect acquired rights or legitimate expectations.

Beyond Trademark Protection

The litigation has generated additional questions about the participation of indigenous communities. Various voices point out that during the procedure, traditional authorities or representatives of the Maya Cruzo’Ob communities, directly linked to the use of the name “Xcaret,” were not formally incorporated.

Jurists specialized in indigenous rights maintain that when a matter involves cultural symbols, names or elements, authorities must guarantee prior, free and informed consultation. The SCJN and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have recognized this right in cases such as the Yaqui Tribe and the Kichwa People of Sarayaku vs. Ecuador.

Experts like Francisco López Bárcenas and Magdalena Gómez warn that commercial appropriation of indigenous cultural symbols poses risks of decontextualization and exclusion, especially when communities do not participate in decision-making processes.

Some observers consider that if deliberate exclusion of directly interested parties were proven, new legal controversies could open about possible violations of due process.

For now, the company retains protection of its trademark, though the case keeps alive the discussion about the boundaries between industrial property, indigenous cultural heritage and community participation in decisions involving historical identity symbols.