Argentina: Intellectual property and franchise agreements

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: Intellectual property and franchise agreements

Several sections related to IP-related matters in the Argentine New Civil and Commercial Code are among the regulations that govern agreements, and among those agreements it is the franchise agreement that has the largest amount of regulations of interest in terms of intellectual property.

In that respect, Section 1512 sets forth that the franchisor needs to be the exclusive holder of the rights in the trade marks, patents, commercial names and copyrights or needs to have the right to confer to the franchisee the right of use and transmission under the terms of these types of contracts.

The object of the franchise agreement is represented by the authorisation in favour of the franchisee to use a proven good-or-service-commercialisation system.

The license of the referred industrial or intellectual property rights is directly associated with the essential aim of the franchise agreement, which consists of cloning or copying the franchisor's company, including a complete outer identification of the franchise with the corporate image of such franchisor's company.

In addition to the immaterial or intangible, or even material, goods that constitute the object of the franchise agreement, there is also the provision of a body of technical knowledge and constant technical and commercial assistance – as established by the above mentioned section 1512 – which along with the above-mentioned elements makes it possible to commercialise goods or services by using the franchisor's proven system.

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

Lawyers at Lavoix provide an overview of the UPC’s approach to inventive step and whether the forum is promoting its own approach rather than following the EPO
Andrew Blattman, who helped IPH gain significant ground in Asia and Canada, will leave in the second half of 2026
The court ordering a complainant to rank its arguments in order of potential success and a win for Edwards Lifesciences were among the top developments in recent weeks
Frederick Lee has rejoined Boies Schiller Flexner, bolstering the firm’s capabilities across AI, media, and entertainment
Nirav Desai and Sasha S Rao at Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox explore how companies’ efforts to manage tariffs by altering corporate structures can undermine their ability to assert their patents and recover damages
Monika Żuraw, founder of Żuraw & Partners, discusses why IP should be part of the foundation of a business, and taking on projects that others walk away from
Lawyers say attention will turn to the UK government’s AI consultation after judgment fails to match pre-trial hype
Susan Keston and Rachel Fetches at HGF explain why the CoA’s decision to grant the UPC’s first permanent injunction demonstrates the court’s readiness to diverge from national court judgments
IP, M&A, life sciences and competition partners advised on deal that brings together brands such as ‘Huggies’ and ‘Kleenex’ with ‘Band-Aid’ and ‘Tylenol’
Stability AI, represented by Bird & Bird, is not liable for secondary copyright infringement, though Fieldfisher client Getty succeeds in some trademark claims
Gift this article