Argentina: The trade mark in the pharmaceutical product

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Argentina: The trade mark in the pharmaceutical product

Since the activity of the pharmaceutical industry is a regulated activity, in the sense that medicaments require governmental authorisation in order to be commercialised, registering the trade mark with the Trademark Office – as intellectual property right – is not sufficient to guarantee its use in the pharmaceutical product, because the name of the medicament must be accepted by a health authority at the time of issuance of the marketing and sales authorisation.

The criteria adopted by the health authority for approving the medicament's name is different from that of the Trademark Office. This difference exists in all legal systems of comparative law.

From the viewpoint of the trade mark as intellectual property right, and in terms of likelihood of confusion within trade marks of pharmaceutical products, the Argentine law does not contain specific rules related to the risk of confusion in the field of medicaments.

The most recent doctrine understands that each particular case should be analysed separately, in order to determine whether the common criteria – or either stricter or milder criteria – should be applied.

The health authority shall basically consider the risk entailed for the health, because in the event of potential likelihood of confusion and medication error, the element of trade mark or name of the product plays a significant role and affects physicians, pharmacists, and consumers.

In Argentina, in 1982, The Supreme Court of Justice, in its ruling "el Monaguillo SA v Province of Buenos Aires", distinguished the intellectual property right as guaranteed by the constitution, from its regulation and justified the fact than even when the trade mark was registered the regulatory authority could prohibit its use, in virtue of the existing double regulation. It emphasised, however, that the regulatory authority must apply the criteria in a reasonable manner.

Daniel R Zuccherino

Obligado & Cia

Paraguay 610, 17th Floor

C1057AAH, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Tel: +54 11 4114 1100

Fax: +54 11 4311 5675

admin@obligado.com.ar

www.obligado.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Brian Paul Gearing brings technical depth, litigation expertise, and experience with Japanese business culture to Pillsbury’s IP practice
News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Gift this article