Search results

Selected filters:

Argentina

Article type

Topic

Sector

731 results found for your search

Sort options
07 July 2005

Fair comparative advertising legal, confirms appellate court

An appellate court has revoked preliminary injunctions preventing Argentine beer company CASA Isenbeck from broadcasting commercials and using print advertisements in which it mentioned the brand name of a competitor. The court held that comparative advertising is not infringing provided that it does not denigrate or discredit the competitor's mark.

13 May 2005

'.ar' domain name registrations must now be renewed

NIC Argentina, the registry for the '.ar' ccTLD, has announced that from June 1 2005 '.ar' domain name registrations will need to be renewed. The original registration rules provided for renewals but the procedures had been suspended as NIC Argentina did not have the infrastructure to handle them.

22 April 2005

Use of sports club's marks on magazine covers is infringing

Argentina's Federal Court of Appeals has reversed a first instance decision, finding that Editorial Atlántida SA's use of Club Atletico Boca Juniors' word mark, logo and combination of colours on the cover of a sports magazine supplement was not protected under the constitutional right of free speech and amounted to trademark infringement.

24 March 2005

CORDURA for yarns outperforms CORDURA for bags

Argentina's Federal Court of Appeals has upheld science company DuPont's cancellation action against a registration owned by Topola SA for the mark CORDURA in Class 18 of the Nice Classification, based on DuPont's earlier registration for an identical mark in Class 23. It also dismissed Topola's oppositions to applications filed by DuPont in Classes 18 and 24 for variations of its CORDURA mark.

08 December 2004

TV parody led to damage to trademark owner, rules court

In Noverasco v Televisión Federal SA, Argentina's Federal Court of Appeals has ruled that a comedy sketch parodying the plaintiff's trademark, which was broadcast on a television programme produced by the defendant, caused damage to the plaintiff. The court held that although no actual damage had been proven, the plaintiff had suffered emotional distress as a result of the broadcast.

21 October 2004

VIAGRA stands up to VAGRAN challenge

Argentina's Federal Court of Appeals has rejected Finadiet SA's opposition to pharmaceutical company Pfizer Products Inc's application to register the mark VIAGRA. The court found that VIAGRA is not confusingly similar to Finadiet's earlier VAGRAN mark.

06 September 2004

Court rules for the first time that smells are registrable as trademarks

An Argentine first instance court has for the first time ruled that smells may be registered as trademarks in Argentina. The court found that smells can meet the distinctiveness requirement of Argentina's Trademark Law. The decision is final and has not been appealed.

02 September 2004

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.

17 June 2004

YUKON marks for different services allowed to coexist

In Calás v Raúl Batalles SA, 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.

15 March 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.

11 December 2003

Carolina Herrera's opposition to PALOMA HERRERA fails

In Carolina Herrera SA v Herrera, 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.

20 November 2003

DELISWISS mark not misleading as to origin, rules court

In Chocosuisse Union des Fabricants Suisses de Chocolat v Gourmesa SA, 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.

01 October 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 'la receta artesanal' and design as a trademark. The court held that the addition of the general term 'la receta' to the word 'artesanal' did not render the sign distinctive or eliminate the likelihood of confusion with a prior registration for ARTESANA for similar goods.

29 July 2003

DONDE mark owner wins 'donde.com.ar' dispute

In Cafre SA v Informática para Profesionales SRL the Second Chamber of the Federal Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals has upheld a decision to cancel the defendant's registration of 'donde.com.ar'. 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.

24 June 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.