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

Anousha Davies, associate and trademark attorney at Birketts, unpicks how the university’s reputation enabled it to see off a proposed trademark for ‘Cambridge Rowing’
IP lawyers, who say they are encouraging clients to build up ‘tariff resilience’, should treat the risks posed by recent orders as a core consideration in cross-border licensing
Regulatory changes and damages risks are prompting Canadian firms and clients to opt for settlements in generic and biosimilar cases
News of Via Licensing Alliance adding two new members and Nokia’s proposal to extend interim licences to Warner Bros Discovery and Paramount were also among the top talking points
A new claim filed by Ericsson, and a request for access to documents, were also among recent developments
Cooley and Stikeman Elliott advised 35Pharma on the deal, which will allow GSK to get its hands on S235, an investigational medicine for pulmonary hypertension
Simon Wright explains why the UK should embrace the possibility of rejoining the UPC, and reveals how CIPA is reacting to this month’s historic Emotional Perception AI case at the UK Supreme Court
Matthew Grady of Wolf Greenfield says AI presents an opportunity in patent practice for stronger collaboration between in-house and outside counsel
Aparna Watal, head of trademarks at Halfords IP, discusses why lawyers must take a stand when advising clients and how she balances work, motherhood and mentoring
Discussion hosted by Bird & Bird partners also hears that UK courts’ desire to determine FRAND rates could see the jurisdiction penalised in a similar way to China
Gift this article