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

Cookies Settings

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

Boehringer Ingelheim has instructed a team from Kirkland, while Teva is being represented by Pinsent Masons
The Delhi High Court’s latest directions offer an opportunity to move beyond remedies against bad-faith registrations and address how suspicious applications are identified in the first place, says Fatima Baig at Lexlinc
Camilla Hamrin describes how the acquisition by Acapo Onsagers will impact Bergenstråhle’s trademark practice – and reflects on changes she has seen over 30 years in IP
On a recent trip to the French capital, we learned that the UPC is squeezing domestic litigation while firms are chasing senior talent, experimenting with AI and considering new ways of organising their practices
Daniel Law says a string of lateral hires and broader expansion plans will strengthen its position to capitalise on Brazil’s burgeoning IP and patent litigation market
Jason Raeburn’s arrival will expand the firm’s London footprint in AI, copyright and tech disputes
The firm is shaping its AI strategy around partnerships with Harvey and Legora alongside internally developed tools from its legal technology company, Eltemate
A dispute Down Under shows why trademark lawyers cannot afford to wait on the sidelines when a rival brand gathers momentum
The Third Circuit’s decision in Thomson Reuters v ROSS marks the first appellate-level decision addressing AI and fair use, prompting copyright counsel to consider arguments around potential licensing markets
Injunctions for HandsFree Labs and Align Technology come as the Court of Appeal warns that busy teams must have the staffing and resources to meet UPC deadlines
Gift this article