Search results

Selected filters:

Enforcement and Litigation

Article type



43 results found for your search

Sort options
09 November 2006

Competitor may not use shape and colour of Viagra pill

The Federal Court of Appeals has ordered an Argentine drug manufacturer to cease the use of a rhomboid-shaped pill and the colour blue on a drug to treat erectile dysfunction. The court found that even though the defendant had started using the shape and colour for its pill before Pfizer filed an application in Argentina for the same combination for its VIAGRA product, the defendant must have known of Pfizer's prior right.

25 April 2006

Use of MICHELIN mark blocked in part

In Compagnie Générale des Établissements Michelin v Le Radial SRL, the Federal Court of Appeals has upheld a decision to allow, in part, the plaintiff's complaint against the defendant's use of the MICHELIN mark. The court ordered the defendant to cease using the mark on its shop signage but dismissed the complaint in relation to the plaintiff's request to block use of the mark in advertising.

08 February 2006

POWER TOOLS mark outmuscles infringing POWER PLUS mark

The Federal Court of Civil and Commercial Appeals has held that the mark POWER PLUS for machine tools was infringing the mark POWER TOOLS registered for the same type of products. The court found that the term 'power' is generic to the products to which the marks apply and the additional element 'plus' did not distinguish the defendant's mark from that of the plaintiff.

15 December 2005

SUTTER Case sees first decision to be based solely on dilution

In Sutter Finanziaria SpA v Suter SA, the Federal Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals has rejected an application to register trademarks incorporating the name 'Sutter' on the basis that they diluted the well-known mark SUTER. This appears to be the first time that a case has been decided in Argentina solely on the basis of dilution.

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.

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.

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.

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.

03 February 2003

Coexistence allowed, but limited, for similar marks in same class

In Microsules y Bernabo SA v Syncro Argentina SAQUIF, the Federal Court of Appeal in Buenos Aires has held that two confusingly similar trademarks for the same class of goods may coexist if the products are not sold in the same places.

29 January 2003

Argentine courts implement TRIPs-approved temporary injunctions

Two recent cases - one involving the French company L'Oréal, the other involving US company American Home Products Corporation - indicate that the Argentine courts are rigorously applying the provisional measures provided by the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.

20 January 2003

Mark owner awarded damages for loss of licensing opportunity

In Eduardo Denkberg v Coto Cicsa, an appellate court has ruled that the defendant's unauthorized use of the plaintiff's trademark frustrated the plaintiff's ability to license it in the future. The court ordered the defendant to cease using the mark and to pay the plaintiff general damages for loss of opportunity.

17 January 2003

Refilling trademarked containers held to be illegal

In Chivilcoy Gas (Solgas) v Totalgaz Argentina SA, a federal court has found Chivilcoy Gas (and its directors) guilty of infringing the trademark rights of other gas companies by refilling their trademarked containers with its own gas.

28 November 2002

Brand owners suffer the side effects of new generic drugs law

Parliament has approved a new law which requires that all prescriptions for medicine must be made using the medicine's international non-proprietary name. In addition, pharmacists must substitute trademarked medicine with a cheaper alternative. These measures may have the effect of weakening the trademarks of large pharmaceutical companies.