Argentina: Comparative advertising in the new Civil and Commercial Code

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Argentina: Comparative advertising in the new Civil and Commercial Code

Several rules have been applied to comparative advertising, for example competition law rules which regulate unfair competition (Section 159 of the Argentine Criminal Code, Section 10 bis of the Paris Convention), and trade mark-related rules.

Now, with the approval of the new Civil and Commercial Argentine Code, comparative advertising, which had been dealt with basically from the point of view of the unfair competition law or the trade mark law, is also dealt with, in the new Code, from the perspective of the consumer law. In this regard, the code establishes when comparative advertising is prohibited.

Section 1101 of the new Code makes reference to the different types of advertising that are prohibited, and specifically subsection b) refers to the cases in which comparative advertising is prohibited. This section states:

Advertising. Advertising shall be banned if:

...

b) it makes comparisons between goods or services, when the nature of said comparisons is such that they lead the consumer to error;

Therefore, by virtue of this section, the prohibited comparative advertising is that which is not based on the truth and, consequently, leads the consumer into error. It is, for example, comparative advertising based on elements or parameters that lack objectivity.

It should be noted that the prohibition established is intended to protect the consumer, as the Code effects such protection when regulating consumption agreements and, thus, other principles or regulations shall become applicable to the conflicts that comparative advertising might cause among competitors.


Daniel R Zuccherino


Obligado & CiaParaguay 610, 17th FloorC1057AAH, Buenos Aires, ArgentinaTel: +54 11 4114 1100Fax: +54 11 4311 5675admin@obligado.com.arwww.obligado.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Erise IP has added a seven-practitioner trademark team from Hovey Williams, signalling its intention to help clients at all stages of development
News of prison sentences for ex-Samsung executives for trade secrets violation and an opposition filed by Taylor Swift were also among the top talking points
A multijurisdictional claim filed by InterDigital and a new spin-off firm in Germany were also among the top talking points
Duarte Lima, MD of Spruson & Ferguson’s Asia practice, says practitioners must adapt to process changes within IP systems, as well as be mindful of the implications of tech on their practices
Practitioners say the UK Supreme Court’s decision could boost the attractiveness of the UK for AI companies
New awards, including US ‘Firm of the Year’ and Latin America ‘Firm to Watch’, are among more than 90 prizes that will recognise firms and practitioners
DWF helped client Dairy UK secure a major victory at the UK Supreme Court
Hepworth Browne led Emotional Perception AI to victory at the UK Supreme Court, which rejected a previous appellate decision that said an AI network was not patentable
James Hill, general counsel at Norwich City FC, reveals how he balances fan engagement with brand enforcement, and when he calls on IP firms for advice
In the second of a two-part article, Gabrielle Faure-André and Stéphanie Garçon at Santarelli unpick EPO, UPC and French case law to assess the importance of clinical development timelines in inventive step analyses
Gift this article