Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

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

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Brands should not be deterred from pursuing lookalike producers, and an unfair advantage claim could be the key, say Emma Teichmann and Geoff Steward at Stobbs
Justice Mellor’s highly anticipated ruling surprised SEP owners and reassured implementers that the UK may not be so hostile after all
The England and Wales High Court's judgment comes ahead of a separate hearing concerning one of the patents-in-suit at the EPO
While the rules allow foreign firms to open local offices and offer IP services, a ban on litigation and practising Indian law could mean little will change
A New York federal court heard oral arguments this week in a copyright case pitting publishing giants against a digital library
Commissioner Hamano Koichi shares his vision for the JPO and explains that IP offices must promote innovation that drives social change
The Asia-Pacific awards research cycle has now begun – don’t miss on this opportunity be recognised in 2023
The Supreme Court, which is hearing two IP cases this week, should limit the power of US courts to rule on foreign sales
Safety standards wouldn’t lose copyright protection when named in law, so long as they were accessible for free online
In-house tech sources say Amgen v Sanofi has the potential to stifle their prosecution and litigation strategies if SCOTUS’s decision is too broad