Mexican Supreme Court Upholds Copyright Protection and Measures Against Infringement

By Goodrich, Riquelme y Asociados

The Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (the "Court") has upheld key provisions of the Mexican Federal Copyright Law (the "LFDA") and the Mexican Federal Penal Code (the "CPF") that strengthen copyright protection and provide mechanisms for online service providers to remove infringing content.

The Court specifically upheld the following provisions:

-Article 114 Octies, Section II(a)(i), second paragraph: This provision requires online service providers to take "reasonable measures" to prevent the re-uploading of content that has been removed due to a copyright infringement notice. The Court found that this requirement is necessary to protect copyright rights and that the term "reasonable measures" is not vague or undefined.

-Article 114 Octies, Section II(a)(1) and Section III: These provisions establish the procedure for online service providers to remove, withdraw, delete, disable, or suspend access to content that has been transmitted without the consent of the copyright holder, upon receipt of a notice from the copyright holder or their representative. The Court found that these provisions are clear and precise, that they require the copyright holder to demonstrate a legitimate interest, that they do not require the service provider to adjudicate copyright disputes, and that they allow for judicial or administrative resolution of disputes.

-Articles 232 Bis; 232 Ter; 232 Quinquies; and 232 Sexies of the LFDA, and Articles 424 Bis; 427 Bis; 427 Ter; 427 Quáter; and 427 Quinquies of the CPF: These provisions establish administrative and criminal penalties for circumventing technological protection measures (TPMs) without authorization or in violation of the LFDA. TPMs are tools provided by information technologies that allow copyright holders to protect their works or control access to them. The Court found that these provisions are not overly broad, that they allow for individualized sanctions, and that they do not unduly restrict the right to engage in commerce.