News & Analysis
- Data & Tools
- Login | Register
In <i>Del Olmo v Pastas Frescas San Genaro SRL</i>, within the context of opposition proceedings, the Court of Appeals has held that unregistered marks deserve legal protection “at least through the application of the general principles of law”. Opponent Pastas Frescas San Genaro SRL had opposed the registration of the mark SAN GENARO based on its unregistered mark.
13 November 2013
The Supreme Court of Justice has rejected a motion to appeal in a dispute between cigarettes manufacturers. Last year the Federal Court of Appeals had rejected a complaint brought by Massalin, a Philip Morris subsidiary, against Japan Tobacco and its licensee Nobleza Piccardo regarding the use of the mark WINSTON. The complaint sought to enforce a self-imposed restriction placed on Reynolds Tobacco - the then owner of the mark - in 1954.
16 September 2013
The decision of the Court of Appeals in <i>AES Property Corp v Instituto Nacional de la Propiedad</i> has illustrated that, if a trademark application is confusingly similar to an earlier mark, the registration will not be granted, even if the owner of the earlier mark has withdrawn its opposition.
23 January 2013
In <i>Roemmers SA v Laboratorios Casasco SA</i>, the Federal Court of Appeals in Civil and Commercial Matters has cancelled the defendant’s trademark registration for DIBAFLEX on the grounds that it was in breach of the Trademark Law. The decision to cancel the DIBAFLEX mark was based on the fact that the mark had never been used, despite having been repeatedly registered over a period exceeding 20 years.
30 November 2011
The Inspección de Personas Jurídicas, the authority in charge of approving the incorporation of legal entities, has, for the first time, dealt with a conflict between a company name and a trademark. Even though it did not actually decide on the conflict itself, it stated that the notoriety of the mark must be "objectively known" and that the rejection of a company name on this ground would be exceptional.
17 November 2011
In <i>Bayer SA v Craveri SA</i>, the Federal Court of Appeals in Civil and Commercial Matters has upheld a lower court decision finding that the registration for the trademark CIPROBACT had lapsed on the grounds of non-use. Among other things, the court held that obtaining an authorisation to market a medicine did not meet the requirement of use.
07 November 2011
In <i>re Budweiser Budvar National Corporation v Anheuser-Busch Incorporated</i>, the Federal Court of Appeals has upheld Anheuser-Busch Incorporated’s opposition against Budweiser Budvar National Corporation’s application for the registration of BUDEJOVICKY BUDVAR, thereby putting an end to a longstanding dispute between the parties in Argentina.
16 September 2011
In <i>Old Navy (ITM) Inc v Chirazi</i>, the Federal Court of Appeals has upheld a decision of the first instance court in which the latter had ordered the co-defendants to cease using the trademark OLD NAVY. Among other things, the court found that the co-defendants did not use their trademark YACHTING OLD NAVY as registered.
15 July 2011
The Court of Appeals has upheld a decision of the Court of First Instance in which the latter had accepted an opposition filed by the <i>Institut national de l'origine et de la qualité</i> against the registration of the trademark MARTINIQUE. The opponent argued that ‘Martinique’ is not registrable as a trademark because it is a protected designation of origin in France.
29 March 2011
In <i>Expobicentenario SA v Arte Gráfico Editorial Argentino SA</i>, the Court of Appeals has rejected a request by the owner of the mark ARGENTINA 200 AÑOS ('Argentina 200 years') for an injunction against use of the phrase '<i>Argentina 200 años</i>'. The court found that the defendant did not use the phrase as a trademark.
31 January 2011
Unlock unlimited access to all WTR content