Region: Argentina

Confusing similarity need not be basis for non-use actions

The Court of Appeals of Argentina has issued two decisions that confirm that the reasons for cancelling a mark on the grounds of non-use are not limited to the elimination of a risk of confusion. Applicants may have other legitimate reasons for bringing such an action, including preventing the current owner from using the mark in order to strengthen the position of the applicant's own mark.

02 September 2004

YUKON marks for different services allowed to coexist

In <i>Calás v Raúl Batalles SA</i>, the Court of Appeals for Federal Civil and Commercial Matters has dismissed the defendant's opposition to the plaintiff's application to register the mark YUKON, even though the defendant owned a prior registered identical mark. The court held that the marks could coexist on the grounds that the services provided by the defendant under the YUKON mark were completely unrelated to the plaintiff's services.

17 June 2004

Time frame for opposition mediation process clarified

The Supreme Court of Justice has clarified the law on the mandatory mediation process that forms part of trademark opposition procedure in Argentina. It rejected previous case law and held that the time frame for the mediation process, which must take place prior to the commencement of any court action, is not limited to one year.

15 March 2004

Carolina Herrera's opposition to PALOMA HERRERA fails

In <i>Carolina Herrera SA v Herrera</i>, the Federal Court of Appeals for Civil and Commercial Matters has dismissed Carolina Herrera SA's opposition to the registration of PALOMA HERRERA as a trademark in Classes 3 and 25 of the Nice Classification. The court ruled that there was no likelihood of confusion.

11 December 2003

DELISWISS mark not misleading as to origin, rules court

In <i>Chocosuisse Union des Fabricants Suisses de Chocolat v Gourmesa SA</i>, the Federal Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals has upheld the registration of the mark DELISWISS, finding that the mark will not mislead consumers as to the origin of the products to which it applies.

20 November 2003

La receta artesanal is not a recipe for registration

The Third Chamber of the Court of Appeals has overturned a decision allowing the registration of the phrase '<i>la receta artesanal</i>' and design as a trademark. The court held that the addition of the general term '<i>la receta</i>' to the word '<i>artesanal</i>' did not render the sign distinctive or eliminate the likelihood of confusion with a prior registration for ARTESANA for similar goods.

01 October 2003

DONDE mark owner wins '' dispute

In <i>Cafre SA v Informática para Profesionales SRL</i> the Second Chamber of the Federal Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals has upheld a decision to cancel the defendant's registration of ''. The court held that even in the absence of evidence of bad faith, the defendant's registration prevented the plaintiff - the owner of the DONDE mark - from registering the domain name for its own use.

29 July 2003

Appellate court writes off PIERRE CARDIN damages calculation

The Buenos Aires Chamber of Appeal has increased the damages to be paid to rights owner Sassoon & Cia to compensate for the infringing use of its PIERRE CARDIN mark from Ps100,000 to Ps150,000. The court ruled that the amount should be a percentage of the infringing items' total sales and not a multiplication of a single month's record sales.

24 June 2003

Series of defeats for Kellogg in cereal dispute

In <i>Kellogg Company v Pehuamar SA</i>, the Second Federal Court of Appeals for Buenos Aires has dealt a serious blow to US breakfast cereal manufacturer Kellogg. The court dismissed Kellogg's claim for damages based on Pehuamar's alleged infringement of its CHOCOLOKO mark, and cancelled its registrations for (i) the mark MÜSLIX, and (ii) a cereal packaging design.

22 May 2003

Federal court issues recovery order for NORTOX

In <i>Nortox Agroquimica SA v Nortox SRL </i>the Federal Court of Appeal has affirmed a lower court's decision to grant the plaintiff's request for (i) a recovery order that transfers the Argentine registration of the mark NORTOX from the defendant to the plaintiff, and (ii) an order cancelling the defendant's trademark and company name registrations.

29 April 2003

Unlock unlimited access to all WTR content