Definitive global law guides offering comparative analysis from top-ranked lawyers
CHAMBERS GLOBAL PRACTICE GUIDES
Trade Marks & Copyright 2026
Definitive global law guides offering comparative analysis from top-ranked lawyers
Contributing Editors Dale Cendali and Joshua Simmons Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Global Practice Guides
Trade Marks & Copyright Contributing Editors Dale Cendali and Joshua Simmons Kirkland & Ellis LLP
2026
Chambers Global Practice Guides For more than 20 years, Chambers Global Guides have ranked lawyers and law firms across the world. Chambers now offer clients a new series of Global Practice Guides, which contain practical guidance on doing legal business in key jurisdictions. We use our knowledge of the world’s best lawyers to select leading law firms in each jurisdiction to write the ‘Law & Practice’ sections. In addition, the ‘Trends & Developments’ sections analyse trends and developments in local legal markets. Disclaimer: The information in this guide is provided for general reference only, not as specific legal advice. Views expressed by the authors are not necessarily the views of the law firms in which they practise. For specific legal advice, a lawyer should be consulted. Content Management Director Claire Oxborrow Content Manager Jonathan Mendelowitz Senior Content Reviewers Sally McGonigal, Ethne Withers, Deborah Sinclair, Stephen Dinkeldein, Vivienne Button and Sean Marshall Content Reviewers Lawrence Garrett, Marianne Page, Heather Palomino, Alison Moore, Adrian Ciechacki and Michael Irvine Content Coordination Manager Nancy Tsang Senior Content Coordinators Carla Cagnina and Delicia Tasinda Content Coordinator Joanna Chivers Head of Production Jasper John Production Coordinator Genevieve Sibayan
Published by Chambers and Partners 165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AE Tel +44 20 7606 8844 Fax +44 20 7831 5662 Web www.chambers.com
Copyright © 2026 Chambers and Partners
Contents
INTRODUCTION Contributed by Dale Cendali, Joshua Simmons and Jeremy King, Kirkland & Ellis LLP p.5
IRELAND Law and Practice p.210 Contributed by Pinsent Masons Ireland LLP
ARGENTINA Law and Practice p.9 Contributed by O’Conor & Power
ISRAEL Law and Practice p.233
Contributed by Reinhold Cohn Group Trends and Developments p.254 Contributed by Sanford T Colb & Co
BANGLADESH Law and Practice p.30
Contributed by Doulah & Doulah Trends and Developments p.57 Contributed by H & H Company
JAPAN Trends and Developments p.260 Contributed by Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu
CHINA Law and Practice p.61 Contributed by CCPIT Patent and Trademark Law Office Trends and Developments p.80 Contributed by Jingtian & Gongcheng
LUXEMBOURG Law and Practice p.265 Contributed by Elvinger Hoss Prussen
MALAYSIA Law and Practice p.286
Contributed by LAW Partnership Trends and Developments p.307 Contributed by LAW Partnership
COSTA RICA Law and Practice p.88
Contributed by Zurcher, Odio & Raven Trends and Developments p.107 Contributed by Morera & Chahin
MALTA Law and Practice p.314
Contributed by Ganado Advocates Trends and Developments p.335 Contributed by Ganado Advocates MEXICO Law and Practice p.341 Contributed by Becerril, Coca & Becerril Trends and Developments p.362 Contributed by Becerril, Coca & Becerril
FRANCE Law and Practice p.112
Contributed by Cabinet Bouchara Trends and Developments p.129 Contributed by Dreyfus & Associés
GERMANY Law and Practice p.135 Contributed by SZA Schilling, Zutt & Anschütz Trends and Developments p.151 Contributed by SZA Schilling, Zutt & Anschütz HAITI Law and Practice p.158 Contributed by Cabinet Abdel-Razak & Associés Trends and Developments p.178 Contributed by Cabinet Abdel-Razak & Associés INDIA Law and Practice p.183 Contributed by Anand and Anand Advocates
PAKISTAN Law and Practice p.366 Contributed by Ali & Associates
PHILIPPINES Law and Practice p.382
Contributed by Villaraza & Angangco Trends and Developments p.407 Contributed by Villaraza & Angangco
PORTUGAL Law and Practice p.414 Contributed by Inventa
3 CHAMBERS.COM
Contents
SERBIA Law and Practice p.432 Contributed by Popović, Popović & Partners Trends and Developments p.447 Contributed by Mikijelj, Janković & Bogdanović
UAE Law and Practice p.596 Contributed by United Trademark & Patent Services Trends and Developments p.613 Contributed by United Trademark & Patent Services
SINGAPORE Law and Practice p.450 Contributed by Drew & Napier LLC
UKRAINE Law and Practice p.620 Contributed by Mamunya IP Trends and Developments p.643 Contributed by Mamunya IP USA Law and Practice p.650 Contributed by DLA Piper LLP
SOMALIA Law and Practice p.471
Contributed by Just Legal Services Trends and Developments p.489 Contributed by Just Legal Services SOUTH AFRICA Law and Practice p.494 Contributed by KISCH IP Trends and Developments p.517 Contributed by KISCH IP SOUTH KOREA Law and Practice p.522 Contributed by Yoon & Yang LLC SRI LANKA Law and Practice p.544 Contributed by Julius & Creasy Trends and Developments p.564 Contributed by Julius & Creasy
USA – CALIFORNIA Trends and Developments p.676 Contributed by Barceló, Harrison & Walker, LLP USA – FLORIDA Trends and Developments p.682 Contributed by Shutts & Bowen LLP USA – GEORGIA Trends and Developments p.689 Contributed by Thomas Horstemeyer LLP
USA – NEW YORK Trends and Developments p.694 Contributed by Cowan DeBaets Abrahams & Sheppard LLP
SWITZERLAND Law and Practice p.571 Contributed by MLL Legal
4 CHAMBERS.COM
INTRODUCTION
Contributed by: Dale Cendali, Joshua Simmons and Jeremy King, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Kirkland & Ellis LLP is one of the world’s leading law firms, with approximately 2,500 lawyers practis - ing from 14 offices in the United States, Europe and Asia. The firm’s clients and experience cut across
every major industry and discipline. Clients across the globe call upon Kirkland to handle their most im - portant and complex corporate, litigation, intellectual property and restructuring matters.
Contributing Editors
Co-Author
Jeremy King is an associate in Kirkland & Ellis’s copyright, trade mark, internet and advertising litigation group. His practice includes copyright, trade mark and false advertising litigation in federal courts,
Dale Cendali is the firm-wide head of Kirkland & Ellis’s copyright and trade mark practice group. Chambers and Partners has repeatedly named Dale as a Star Individual in New York and ranked her in Band 1 nationwide for
as well as counselling entertainment industry clients regarding acquisition, maintenance and enforcement of their IP rights. Prior to joining Kirkland & Ellis, Jeremy spent a decade as a professional musician, working on dozens of Broadway productions and numerous RIAA Certified Diamond®, Platinum®, Gold®, and Grammy® Award winning albums.
Intellectual Property: Trademark & Copyright as well as for Media & Entertainment: Litigation in New York. Dale is a leader in the Bar, having served as counsel to the board of INTA, chairing numerous committees and serving on the Council to the ABA’s IP Litigation Section. Dale is a prolific writer, speaker and long- time adjunct professor at Harvard Law School, where she teaches copyright and trade mark litigation.
Joshua Simmons is a nationally recognised appellate and trial court litigator in the USA. He has won every kind of IP litigation and related commercial disputes. In addition to his practice at Kirkland & Ellis, Josh hosts
PLI’s IP Discussions with Joshua Simmons, and frequently speaks about and authors numerous articles on emerging IP trends. He is an active member of the Bar, serving as an officer and council member for the ABA IP Law Section and chairing INTA’s Internet Global Policy Subcommittee, having previously sat on its Online Counterfeiting Task Force.
5 CHAMBERS.COM
INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Dale Cendali, Joshua Simmons and Jeremy King, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Kirkland & Ellis LLP 601 Lexington Avenue
New York NY 10022 USA
Tel: +1 212 336 4800 Fax: +1 212 446 4900 Email: jeremy.king@kirkland.com Web: www.kirkland.com
2025 was a year dominated by artificial intelligence, producing landmark court rulings in AI-based copy - right cases both in the United States and abroad. The past year also produced the Dewberry Group v Dew- berry Engineers Supreme Court decision in the United States, resetting the table for how plaintiffs determine which corporate entities to include as defendants. At the same time, trade mark offices across the globe are trending towards speedier, more efficient outcomes and cracking down on use requirements and over - broad registrations. AI In 2025, US courts and those abroad issued highly anticipated rulings at the intersection of copyright and artificial intelligence. In the United States, district court decisions in Thomson Reuters v ROSS Intelli- gence , Kadrey v Meta and Bartz v Anthropic provided guidance to litigants as to the paramount importance of a plaintiff showing the effect on the market for works used in training under the United States’ fair use rubric. Emphasising the importance of the effect on the mar - ket factor, the Thomson Reuters court held that the defendant’s copying of Westlaw headnotes to create a competing legal research product was not fair use. This case is currently on interlocutory appeal in the United States’ Third Circuit Court of Appeals, where it stands to be the first US appellate decision applying copyright law to the training of an artificial intelligence. Both Kadrey and Bartz were class actions brought by authors asserting that the defendants infringed plaintiffs’ copyrights by ingesting the plaintiffs’ works to train the defendants’ respective AI models. Key to
both decisions, however, was there was no evidence that either defendant’s AI product was capable of cre - ating infringing works, placing the focus of the fair use inquiry on the defendants’ use of the authors’ works to train the AI model. Although, as in Thomson Reuters , the Kadrey court confirmed that the most important factor in a fair use analysis is the effect of the infringing work on the market, it ruled against the plaintiffs on the facts presented. The Kadrey court noted that the plaintiffs could have shown a market effect by the compet - ing works generated by defendant’s Large Language Model (LLM), “even if the model can’t regurgitate [plaintiffs’] own works or generate substantially simi - lar ones”, if the LLM “can generate works that are similar enough (in subject matter or genre) that they will compete with the originals and thereby indirectly substitute for them”. The court, however, held that these particular plaintiffs had failed to do so. The court ultimately concluded that the plaintiffs had only argued “harm from the loss of fees paid to license a work for a transformative purpose” which it described as “not cognizable”, holding that the defendant’s use was a fair use. The opinion’s discussion of market effects by competing works, however, offers a trail of breadcrumbs to would-be plaintiffs on how to present a more compelling damages case on similar facts. In Bartz v Anthropic , the court held that even if a market for AI training data for LLMs were to develop, “that use is not one the Copyright Act entitles Authors to exploit”. The court, however, drew a distinction between the facts in its case and Thomson Reuters , agreeing with the Thomson Reuters court that “using a proprietary system for finding court opinions in
6 CHAMBERS.COM
INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Dale Cendali, Joshua Simmons and Jeremy King, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
response to a given legal topic” to train “a competing AI tool for finding court opinions in response to a given legal topic… was not transformative”. In holding that the defendant’s use of the plaintiffs’ works to train its LLM constitutes fair use, the court remarked that “the technology at issue was among the most transforma - tive many of us will see in our lifetimes”. Anthropic, however, used copies of these works for multiple pur - poses, one of which was to create a “central library” containing over seven million pirated books. The Court held that keeping pirated copies in a library was not fair use. These cases provide practitioners with important data points on (1) how courts will view the significance of transformativeness on a fair use inquiry, (2) how transformativeness will be analysed under the Supreme Court’s recent Warhol decision, and (3) the market effects courts will find persuasive, all of which may vary between judges. In Germany, the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg issued the first EU appellate court decision involv - ing AI and copyright, holding that the EU text and data mining (TDM) exceptions permit non-profits to compile datasets for AI training from publicly avail - able content. As highlighted in last year’s guide, many nations, such as the UK and Singapore, have simi - lar TDM laws, and practitioners in those jurisdictions should look to this decision for guidance. Trends Towards Efficiency and Increased Control Exerted by Trade Mark Offices Over the Content of the Register In 2025, several nations emphasised speed and effi - ciency in their trade mark regimes. United Arab Emirates In 2025, the UAE shifted its trade mark policy from compliance with international treaties such as the Madrid Protocol to acceleration and commercial integration. Focusing on “optimising velocity” over “establishing rights”, applications that used to take a month now take a day, and litigation that used to be handled in civil courts is now handled in streamlined administrative proceedings. South Africa In San Miguel Brewing v Power Horse Energy Drinks , the South African High Court declined to stay a trade
mark opposition proceeding pending the outcome of an expungement proceeding involving the same par - ties and marks. In so doing, the High Court noted its frustration with the unnecessarily long-winded nature of the proceedings, allowing the two proceedings to proceed concurrently. Costa Rica Costa Rica also recently implemented electronic filing procedures and made electronic certificates available, further supporting the global trend towards efficien - cies. Expungements and Trade Mark Offices Asserting More Control Over the Register United States The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently updated its expungement procedures to allow for par - ties to flag marks for USPTO review that the party believes should be removed from the Principal Regis - ter, as well as for sua sponte examination for expunge - ment by the USPTO. As of January 2025, the USPTO reported that it had cleared over 25,000 marks from the Principal Register as a result of this mechanism, promoting a more streamlined review process for new applications and lowering the burdens of inter partes cancellation proceedings, which had been the primary mechanism for removal of marks. This process pre - sents interesting strategic decisions for litigants, as the proceeding cannot be retracted or otherwise dis - missed by the initiating party once the USPTO takes action. Israel In Commissioner of Trademarks v Kviscal Services , the Israel Supreme Court held that the trade mark office was not bound to accept the terms of a coexistence agreement where the office independently determined that there was a likelihood of consumer confusion. In so doing, it ruled that the protection of public inter - est overrides private autonomy. Similar to the Unit - ed States expungement proceeding, this decision reinforces that the Trademarks Department has the authority to act irrespective of private parties’ wishes. France France has seen an increase in expungements, as well as a trend away from broad filings covering numerous
7 CHAMBERS.COM
INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Dale Cendali, Joshua Simmons and Jeremy King, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
classes with vague language for goods and services. This strategy, which was popular until recently, now entails increased risk as trade mark examiners are issuing more frequent partial revocations under L.714- 5 of the French Intellectual Property Code. In 2025, the French Supreme Court held in decisions Nos. 23-21.296 and 23-21.866 that products registered in broad classes are subject to partial revocation where a subcategory is more appropriate, finding taxi services too specific to occupy the entire “transport” category, and textiles impregnated with active substances to specific to cover the entire “cosmetics” category. The French courts and trade mark office are, on the whole, emphasising need to avoid “theoretical” protection. ***
Overall, there is a trend across the globe towards allowing trade mark offices to act with authority to swiftly carry out their missions of protecting the public from consumer confusion and promoting efficient reg - isters. Practitioners should be aware of the changing landscape, both in artificial intelligence and in trade mark office policies, and should adjust their strategic guidance accordingly.
8 CHAMBERS.COM
ARGENTINA
Brazil
Paraguay
Chile
Uruguay
Buenos Aires
Argentina
Law and Practice Contributed by: Santiago R O’Conor, Gisela M Russo, Gisela M Manrique and Ayelen Rocio Velaz O’Conor & Power
Contents 1. Trade Mark and Copyright Law p.12 1.1 Governing Law p.12
1.2 Conventions and Treaties/Rights of Foreign IP Holders p.12 2. Trade Mark Ownership, Protection and Rights p.12 2.1 Types of Trade Marks p.12 2.2 Essential Elements of Trade Mark Protection p.12 2.3 Trade Mark Rights p.13 2.4 Use in Commerce p.13 2.5 Notices and Symbols p.13 2.6 Related Rights p.13 3. Copyright Ownership, Protection and Rights p.13 3.1 Types of Copyrightable Works p.13 3.2 Essential Elements of Copyright Protection p.13 3.3 Copyright Authorship p.13 3.4 Copyright Rights p.14 3.5 Term of Protection and Termination p.14 3.6 Collective Rights Management Systems p.14 3.7 Copyright Registration p.14 3.8 Copyright Application Requirements p.14 3.9 Refusal of Registration p.15 3.10 Related Rights p.15 4. Trade Mark Registrations and Applications p.15 4.1 Trade Mark Registration p.15
4.2 Trade Mark Register p.15 4.3 Term of Registration p.15 4.4 Application Requirements p.16
4.5 Use in Commerce Prior to Registration p.16 4.6 Consideration of Prior Rights in Registration p.16 4.7 Revocation, Change, Amendment or Correction of an Application p.16
4.8 Dividing a Trade Mark Application p.17 4.9 Incorrect Information in an Application p.17
4.10 Refusal of Registration p.17 4.11 The Madrid System p.17 5. Trade Mark Procedure for Inter Partes Proceedings p.17 5.1 Timeframes for Filing an Opposition or Cancellation p.17 5.2 Legal Grounds for Filing an Opposition or Cancellation p.17 5.3 Ability to File an Opposition or Revocation/Cancellation p.17 5.4 Opposition or Revocation/Cancellation Procedure p.18 5.5 Legal Remedies Against the Decision of the Trade Mark Office p.18
9 CHAMBERS.COM
ARGENTINA CONTENTS
5.6 Amendment in Revocation/Cancellation Proceedings p.18 5.7 Combining Revocation/Cancellation and Infringement p.18
5.8 Measures to Address Fraud p.19 6. Assignments and Licensing p.19
6.1 Assignment Requirements and Restrictions p.19 6.2 Licensing Requirements or Restrictions p.19
6.3 Registration or Recording of an Assignment or Licence p.19 7. Initiating Trade Mark and Copyright Lawsuits p.19 7.1 Timeframes for Filing Infringement Lawsuits p.19 7.2 Legal Claims for Infringement Lawsuits and Their Standards p.19 7.3 Factors in Determining Infringement p.21 7.4 Prerequisites and Restrictions to Filing a Lawsuit p.21 7.5 Lawsuit Procedure p.21 7.6 Declaratory Judgment Proceedings and Other Protections for Potential Defendants p.22 7.7 Small Claims p.22 7.8 Effect of Trade Mark and Copyright Office Decisions p.22 7.9 Counterfeiting and Bootlegging p.22 8. Litigating Trade Mark and Copyright Claims p.23 8.1 Special Procedural Provisions for Trade Mark or Copyright Proceedings p.23 8.2 Effect of Registration p.24 8.3 Costs of Litigating Infringement Actions p.24 9. Defences and Exceptions to Infringement p.24 9.1 Defences to Trade Mark Infringement p.24 9.2 Defences to Copyright Infringement (Fair Use/Fair Dealing) p.25
9.3 Exhaustion p.25 10. Remedies p.26
10.1 Injunctive Remedies p.26 10.2 Monetary Remedies p.27 10.3 Attorneys’ Fees and Costs p.27 10.4 Ex Parte Relief p.28 10.5 Customs Seizures of Counterfeits or Parallel Imports p.28 11. Appeal p.29 11.1 Appellate Procedure p.29 11.2 Timeframes for Appealing Trial Court Decisions p.29 12. Additional Considerations p.29 12.1 Emerging Issues p.29 12.2 Trade Mark and Copyright Use on the Internet p.29
10 CHAMBERS.COM
ARGENTINA Law and Practice Contributed by: Santiago R O’Conor, Gisela M Russo, Gisela M Manrique and Ayelen Rocio Velaz, O’Conor & Power
O’Conor & Power has extensive experience in han - dling IP portfolios for domestic and international clients in Argentina and Latin America. Its lawyers, industrial property agents and a select network of engineers and technical professionals bring togeth - er their diverse backgrounds and expertise to work closely as a team representing international, regional and local companies in trade marks, patents, util - ity models, designs, copyright, software, domain names, transfer of technology, franchising, licensing and related matters. The firm advises clients across
different sectors, including food and wine, technolo - gy and telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, enter - tainment, clothing and textiles. The team is qualified to protect and enforce clients’ IP interests through transactions, dispute resolutions, litigation, border enforcement measures and unfair competition-relat - ed actions. The professionals and staff regularly par - ticipate in seminars and conferences nationally and internationally, thereby keeping updated on the lat - est IP legal developments in Argentina, Latin America and worldwide.
Authors
Santiago R O’Conor is the managing partner at O’Conor & Power in Buenos Aires. He has more than 40 years’ experience in practising IP law in Argentina and across the region. Santiago was previously in charge of
Gisela M Russo is a patent and trade mark agent at O’Conor & Power. She is a member of ASIPI (Interamerican Association of Intellectual Property). Gisela M Manrique is an attorney-at- law at O’Conor & Power. She is a patent and trade mark agent and a member of ASIPI (Interamerican Association of Intellectual Property). Ayelen Rocio Velaz is an attorney-at- law at O’Conor & Power. She is a patent and trade mark agent and a member of ASIPI (Interamerican Association of Intellectual Property).
the international trade mark department of the largest IP law office in Argentina, and was an associate at an international law firm with offices in Buenos Aires. Throughout his career, he has been, and continues to be, responsible for managing the IP portfolios of local and international companies both in Argentina and Latin America. He is also an active member of INTA, ECTA, MARQUES, ASIPI, IPO, PTMG, among other professional bodies.
O’Conor & Power San Martín 663, Piso 9 Ciudad de Buenos Aires C1004AAM Argentina
Tel: +5411 4311 2740 Fax: +5411 5368 7192 Email: oconor@oconorpower.com.ar Web: www.oconorpower.com.ar
11 CHAMBERS.COM
ARGENTINA Law and Practice Contributed by: Santiago R O’Conor, Gisela M Russo, Gisela M Manrique and Ayelen Rocio Velaz, O’Conor & Power
1. Trade Mark and Copyright Law 1.1 Governing Law Trade marks are governed by Law No 22.362 and copyright is governed by Law No 11.723. In Argentina there is no common law. 1.2 Conventions and Treaties/Rights of Foreign IP Holders Argentina has ratified of the following treaties: • the Paris Convention (Law No 17.011); • the TRIPS Agreement (Law No 24.425); and 2. Trade Mark Ownership, Protection and Rights 2.1 Types of Trade Marks Argentina’s legal system provides for the protection of collective marks; certification marks, denomina - tion of origin, indication of origin and geographical indications; emblems, as well as well-known trade marks. The Argentine Trade Mark Law sets out in Article 1: “The following can be registered as trade marks to distinguish products and services: one or more words with or without conceptual content; draw - ings; emblems; monograms; engravings; prints; the stamps; the images; the bands; the colour combina - tions applied to a particular place on the products or packaging; the wrappings; packaging; the combina - tions of letters and numbers; the letters and numbers for their special drawing; advertising phrases; reliefs with distinctive capacity and any other sign with such capacity.” Brands can be traditional or non-traditional. Tradi - tional marks include wordmarks, labels and figurative marks. Non-traditional marks that can obtain protec - tion include three-dimensional marks, combinations of colours, position marks, sounds marks, olfactory, tactile marks, gustatory marks, movement marks, multimedia marks (movement and sound), holograms, trade dress as well as the shapes of buildings. • the Berne Convention (Law No 25.140). All of these treaties are self-executing.
Proper names, pseudonyms and portraits may be reg - istered as trade marks only by the physical person concerned or with their consent or that of their heirs up to and including the fourth degree. A collective mark is a common distinctive sign that identifies products and services provided by enter - prises aimed at the development of the social econ - omy. This type of trade mark is governed by Law No 26.355. Law No 25.380 provides for the protection of geo - graphical names, regulating two categories: Geo - graphical Indication and Denomination of Origin. Foreign appellations of origin are not registrable as trade marks. The designation of origin is understood as the name of a country, a region, a place or a specific geographical area that serves to designate a product originating there and whose qualities and character - istics are due exclusively to the geographical environ - ment. An appellation of origin is also considered to refer, for certain products, to a specific geographical area. Emblems, on the other hand, may be registered as trade marks. However, the registration of trade marks, as well as elements thereof, consisting of coats of arms, flags and other state emblems of the countries of the Union, official signs and hallmarks of control and guarantee adopted by the member states of the Paris Convention is prohibited. Argentina is a member of the Paris Convention and the TRIPS Agreements, which both grant protection to well-known trade marks. 2.2 Essential Elements of Trade Mark Protection Trade marks must have distinctive character to be registrable. The distinctive character of a brand can be established through the logo, typography, colours, and name, among other features. Acquired distinctiveness is a process that requires time and effort. To determine whether a trade mark has acquired a secondary meaning, it must be dem - onstrated that consumers, upon seeing the trade
12 CHAMBERS.COM
ARGENTINA Law and Practice Contributed by: Santiago R O’Conor, Gisela M Russo, Gisela M Manrique and Ayelen Rocio Velaz, O’Conor & Power
mark, perceive the goods or services in question as coming from a particular source. To demonstrate that a trade mark has acquired distinctiveness, the appli - cant must present evidence, such as: • ownership of one or more earlier registrations of the same trade mark; • duration of use of the brand in the market; • advertising expenses; • survey evidence, market research, consumer feed - back studies; • statements by merchants and consumers indicat - ing recognition of the trade mark applied for as a trade mark; and • other miscellaneous factors, especially evidence demonstrating consumer recognition of the trade mark applied for as a mark for the applicant’s goods. 2.3 Trade Mark Rights The trade mark registration grants the owners the exclusive use of said registration. It also authorises the exercise of all necessary defences to prevent third parties, without authorisation, from marketing identi - cal products or services with the same trade mark or using a name so similar that it may create confusion. These rights are exclusive to the owner; however they are liable to be lost if the trade mark has not been used since the fifth year of registration, by the third party requesting the cancellation of the trade mark on the In order to maintain the registration of a trade mark, an affidavit must be filed stating that the trade mark has been used; there is no need to attach proof of such use. On the other hand, if a trade mark faces an action for revocation for lack of use, it is necessary to provide evidence to the contrary. basis of the lack of use. 2.4 Use in Commerce This use must be real, public, consistent and pro - longed in the country, even for goods/services other than those distinguished in the trade mark registra - tion, as long as they are related.
Evidence such as links, photographs, publications, packages, labels, advertisements, invoices are admit - ted in order to demonstrate the use of the trade mark. 2.5 Notices and Symbols The trade mark ® symbol is only used if the trade mark has been granted. Its improper use may lead to legal sanctions. In Argentina, symbols such as TM and SM are also often used for trade marks that are not yet registered. Including these symbols in the application for trade mark registrations is not mandatory, since their use is optional. 2.6 Related Rights There are certain trade marks that can be protected under other legal systems such as copyright and/ or industrial designs, eg, logos, cartoons or titles of works/series/films. Surnames can only obtain trade mark and copyright protection by the physical person or with their consent. 3. Copyright Ownership, Protection and Rights 3.1 Types of Copyrightable Works The following can be protected with copyright: liter - ary works, musical works, choreography, graphic or sculptural works, architectural works, computer pro - grams, databases, plastic works, multimedia works and scientific works, as established by Copyright Law No 11.723. 3.2 Essential Elements of Copyright Protection The basic requirements to obtain copyright protection are novelty, authorship and originality. 3.3 Copyright Authorship The author is the person who creates the work, as well as their collaborators. If the work is created on com - mission, several issues must be taken into account. For example, if the person hired to create a work does so using all the tools offered by the employer, the authorship will be attributed to the employer. How -
13 CHAMBERS.COM
ARGENTINA Law and Practice Contributed by: Santiago R O’Conor, Gisela M Russo, Gisela M Manrique and Ayelen Rocio Velaz, O’Conor & Power
ever, if they were only hired to do a specific task but were not provided with the tools for that purpose, the authorship will be attributed to the actual creator of the work. Specific prior agreements may also be made to clarify these issues before the registration process. On the other hand, the Argentine Copyright Law does not recognise creations made by non-human entities, including those made by artificial intelligence. There is no jurisprudence on this matter in the country. In cases of co-authorship, those who have partici - pated in the creation of the work to be registered must be taken into account. The main author is defined as the person who carries out the research and writes and edits the manuscript and the co-author is the one who collaborates with the main author and contributes to the manuscript. The percentages of ownership shall be agreed by the parties. 3.4 Copyright Rights According to Copyright Law No 11.723, the right of ownership of a scientific, literary or artistic work grants the author the right to dispose of it, publish it, execute it, represent it, exhibit it in public, alienate it, translate it, adapt it, authorise its translation and reproduce it in any form. Moral rights in the field of copyright include two spe - cific aspects: • the right of recognition of the authorship of the services of the work; and • the right of an author to preserve the integrity of the work, that is, to refuse any possible amend - ments or derivative works of the same. 3.5 Term of Protection and Termination The term of protection of a copyrighted work corre - sponds to the lifetime of the author and extends to their heirs or successors for up to 70 years from 1 January of the year following the death of the author. In the case of collaborative works, this term begins on 1 January of the year following the death of the last collaborator. For posthumous works, the term of
70 years shall begin to run from 1 January of the year following the death of the author. All copyrights expire at the end of the term stipulated by law. 3.6 Collective Rights Management Systems In Argentina, collective management societies admin - ister the rights of the owners and collect royalties for the public performances of the works that are in their repertoire, distributing the income received among their members. These companies can also grant licences and monitor compliance with the agreements they manage. In Argentina, some of the best-known collective man - agement societies are: ARGENTORES (General Socie - ty of Authors of Argentina), SADAIC (Argentine Society of Authors and Composers of Music), and AADI CAPIF (Society of Phonographic Performers and Producers). 3.7 Copyright Registration The work must be registered before the National Directorate of Copyright in order to qualify for copy - right protection. The Directorate will provide the pre - sumption of validity and the possibility of initiating legal action. The Argentine Copyright Office (DNDA) holds the pub - licly available register. Any natural or legal person may be the owner of a copyright. Foreign applicants must have a legal repre - sentative in the country. The use of notices and sym - bols is not mandatory. 3.8 Copyright Application Requirements The requirements to apply for registration of a copy - right application include paying the official fee, fill - ing out a form with all the owners’ information and submitting the work to the DNDA. In the event the applicant wants to deposit an unpublished work for safekeeping, it must be sent by mail or taken to the DNDA in person in a sealed, signed envelope. The government fees range from ARS600 for unpub - lished works and from ARS1,100 for works that are already published.
14 CHAMBERS.COM
ARGENTINA Law and Practice Contributed by: Santiago R O’Conor, Gisela M Russo, Gisela M Manrique and Ayelen Rocio Velaz, O’Conor & Power
3.9 Refusal of Registration The DNDA shall reject works that by their nature are not registrable as copyright and works that have been created by artificial intelligence, as well as those that lack originality. Decisions of the DNDA may be appealed in accord - ance with the provisions of Law No 19.549. 3.10 Related Rights Certain cases, such as titles of films, books or car - toons, etc, may be protected both as a trade mark and a copyright. To obtain trade mark rights, the latter must be reg - istered. The registration of a trade mark guarantees the owner ownership of the trade mark. It enables the owner to exercise all necessary actions to prevent non-authorised third-party use and the marketing of identical or similar goods or services with the same trade mark or using a name so similar that it may cre - ate confusion among consumers. The registration of a trade mark also protects against partial or complete imitations, including names, words, signs or advertising phrases, as well as their designs and colours. 4. Trade Mark Registrations and Applications 4.1 Trade Mark Registration The trade mark owner may authorise their use by third parties through licence agreements, both exclusive and non-exclusive, sell the trade mark in whole or in part, or obtain credits by offering them as collateral through a pledge registration. Following Resolution No 583/2025, trade mark holders must take a more active role. Obtaining registration no longer guarantees the same level of legal certainty as before. Without an exhaustive ex officio substantive examination, registrations may be more vulnerable to future invalidation actions brought by third parties with superior rights.
The application for the registration of a collective marks with the National Institute of Industrial Prop - erty (INPI) may only be applied for and owned by a single group of producers and/or service providers registered in the National Registry of Local Develop - ment and Social Economy Entities. There is not a different standard for registering differ - ent types of marks. 4.2 Trade Mark Register In Argentina, the body in charge of the registration and administration of trade mark prosecution is the INPI. The INPI has only one registry; there are no comple - mentary or secondary registers. It has a public data - base that allows users to search for an identical trade mark by exact words or by marks that begin with or contain that word, including both current and expired registrations. It also allows searches by headings. Searching by word is not useful when performing a prior search to determine the registrability of a trade mark. To address this, the INPI offers word, graphic and phonetic searches for a fee. In addition special - ised IP law firms in the field provide search services which allow for the search of more in-depth marks. It is highly advisable to conduct a search before filing a trade mark application. 4.3 Term of Registration The term of validity of a trade mark is ten years from the date of registration, renewable indefinitely for consecutive ten-year periods. A trade mark can be renewed from six months prior to the expiration date, up to six months after that date (grace period). There are two requirements that must be met in order to renew a trade mark: the filing of the Mid-Term Dec - laration of Use (MTDU) and the filing of the Sworn Declaration of Use (SDU), confirming the use of the trade mark during the five years prior to its expiration. It is not possible to modify and/or amend the trade mark at the time of renewal, nor to extend or amend the goods or services it protects; however it is possi - ble to update the owner’s address and renounce prod -
15 CHAMBERS.COM
ARGENTINA Law and Practice Contributed by: Santiago R O’Conor, Gisela M Russo, Gisela M Manrique and Ayelen Rocio Velaz, O’Conor & Power
ucts or services that are protected under the trade mark being renewed. If a trade mark registration has expired, it is not pos - sible to reactivate it; a new trade mark application must be filed. 4.4 Application Requirements In order to apply for a trade mark, it is necessary to fill out an application form, with information relating to the applicant and the trade mark, namely: wordmark/ design, class, items to be protected and type. This must be accompanied by the necessary documenta - tion, depending on the type of application, ie, a logo should be submitted if it is a label or a pentagram, along with an MP3 file if it is a sound trade mark. Multi-class applications are not allowed in Argentina. For a “basic trade mark” (no priority claim, no repre - sentation ratification, no oppositions, and no office actions), the registration period can be between four) to six months. This period can be extended to 12 to 14 months if the trade mark meets with oppositions and/or office actions. The official fees for a trade mark application in one class are ARS17,680 – which covers up to 20 protect - able items. Each surplus items to be protected carries an additional fee of ARS200. Trade marks can be applied for by individuals or legal entities, public entities, or non-profit associations, both national and foreign. Foreign companies must act through an attorney licensed to practise in Argen - tina, through the granting of a power of attorney. The recent amendment to trade mark law in relation to the Nice Classification is linked to the entry into force of the 13th edition of the International Classification of Goods and Services, applicable to new trade mark applications from 1 January 2026. This update does not introduce changes to the legal principles of the trade mark system, but has a technical and practi - cal impact, since it reorganises and clarifies the way in which certain goods and services should be clas - sified. The changes focus mainly on drafting adjust - ments, terminological clarifications and updating of
the explanatory notes, with the aim of improving the coherence of the system and its alignment with cur - rent technical and regulatory developments. 4.5 Use in Commerce Prior to Registration Prior use is not a requirement for trade mark registra - tion. 4.6 Consideration of Prior Rights in Registration As of December 2025, the INPI will carry out ex officio examinations, which are limited exclusively to abso - lute grounds for refusal (lack of distinctiveness, signs incompatible with the trade mark function, or issues of public order or morality). Relative grounds (similar marks, personal names, etc) will be examined only if a third party files a formal opposition. Trade marks will be published only if the mark has already passed the absolute grounds examination. Third parties are able to file an opposition based on their prior rights within 30 calendar days from the pub - lication of the trade mark, meaning that it is the rights holders themselves who must safeguard their rights. The opposition deadline is not extendable. If a trade mark application receives an opposition and the opposition is maintained through the filing of an additional writ, the administrative opposition resolu - tion procedure is initiated. The Trade Mark Office may refuse an application, even if it has not received an opposition, based on prior rights or other grounds. 4.7 Revocation, Change, Amendment or Correction of an Application It is not possible to amend, modify or correct a trade mark application during the registration process. It is only possible to the update the applicant’s address or limit the scope of protection to fewer goods or servic - es within the same class for which the application was filed. The latter change must be requested before the publication of the trade mark in the Official Bulletin.
16 CHAMBERS.COM
ARGENTINA Law and Practice Contributed by: Santiago R O’Conor, Gisela M Russo, Gisela M Manrique and Ayelen Rocio Velaz, O’Conor & Power
4.8 Dividing a Trade Mark Application The division of a trade mark application is not possible in Argentina. 4.9 Incorrect Information in an Application Mistakes that are minor, such as an incorrect address, can be amended by filing a writ. Substantially incorrect information, such as the incorrect class, may result in an office action or even the refusal of the application. 4.10 Refusal of Registration As a consequence of INPI Resolution No 583/2025 of December 2025, the Argentine Trade Mark Office now limits its substantive review of trade mark applications to absolute grounds for refusal and matters of pub - lic order. This reflects a shift away from the previous practice of automatically examining both absolute and relative grounds during prosecution. Accordingly, the Trade Mark Office may refuse regis - tration on absolute grounds when the applied for mark materially conflicts with fundamental requirements of registrability, including the following. • Lack of distinctiveness — the sign does not have the requisite distinctive character to distinguish the applicant’s goods/services from those of others. • Signs that are generic or descriptive and thus inca - pable of functioning as trade marks (eg, ordinary terms or common indicators of goods/services). • Signs contrary to public order or morality — marks that would offend public policy, decency or good customs. • Designations that by law cannot be registered — for example, protected geographical indications or denominations of origin that fall under prohibi - tions in the Trade Mark Law and cannot function as trade marks. Under Resolution 583/2025, these absolute grounds are the only ones that INPI will examine automatically (ex officio) as part of its registration review. Only if a mark falls into one of these categories can the INPI refuse it at the office level without any third-party input. If an application is rejected, the applicant may file an appeal with the Trade Mark Office within 20 working days from date of the official notification. If the appeal
is rejected, a further appeal may be filed for a final decision by the President of the INPI. 4.11 The Madrid System Argentina is not a member of the Madrid System. 5. Trade Mark Procedure for Inter Partes Proceedings 5.1 Timeframes for Filing an Opposition or Cancellation It is the rights holders themselves who must safeguard their rights. Any third party with a legitimate interest may file an opposition within 30 days from the publica - tion of the trade mark in the Official Bulletin. It is not possible to request extensions or time to file an opposition. There are two moments of “reflection to reach an ami - cable solution”. The first one is after the official noti - fication of the opposition, for a term of three months. The second one, optional, is requested by means of a joint brief filed by the parties during the process of administrative resolution of the opposition, which sus - pends all deadlines for a period of 30 calendar days. 5.2 Legal Grounds for Filing an Opposition or Cancellation Oppositions and/or cancellations may be based on the rules as foreseen in the Trade Mark Law, in Articles 2, 3, 24 and 26. The existing remedies include expiration in cases of non-use and nullity in cases of defects. Different remedies may be filed at the Trade Mark Office to seek re-examination of a decision: recon - sideration, hierarchical appeal and appeal. 5.3 Ability to File an Opposition or Revocation/Cancellation Any third party may file an opposition based on the legal prohibitions of registrability set forth in the Trade Mark Law No 22.362. An opponent does not neces - sarily have to be the owner of a trade mark application or trade mark registration; an opposition may also be
17 CHAMBERS.COM
ARGENTINA Law and Practice Contributed by: Santiago R O’Conor, Gisela M Russo, Gisela M Manrique and Ayelen Rocio Velaz, O’Conor & Power
based on trade marks abroad, trade marks used or a trade name (in accordance with the Paris Convention and the TRIPS Agreement). While an attorney is not needed to file an opposition,, legal representation is necessary to initiate the admin - istrative resolution of oppositions. The cost to file an opposition with the Trade Mark Office is ARS17,680 and trade mark maintenance costs are ARS88,400. Lawyers’ fees will vary depend - ing on experience and seniority. A revocation or nullity action may be filed by third parties. 5.4 Opposition or Revocation/Cancellation Procedure Once the trade mark has passed the absolute grounds examination, it is published in the Official Bulletin and third parties have 30 calendar days to file an opposi - tion. The applicant is officially notified and has a term of three months to seek an amicable withdrawal of the objection At the end of this period, if the opposition has not been withdrawn, the Trade mark Office will notify the opponent to maintain the opposition within 15 work - ing days, pay an additional fee, and to expand on the grounds and provide any evidence it deems neces - sary. If the opposition is not maintained, the trade mark application returns to substantive examination by the Trade Mark Office. Subsequently, the Trade Mark Office notifies the appli - cant only of the maintained oppositions and grants the applicant a term of 15 working days to pay the official fee corresponding to the opposition proceedings and to respond to each maintained opposition, providing the evidence they consider necessary. Acceptable proof includes documentary evidence of previous trade mark registrations, both in Argentina and abroad, and proof of use, such as brochures, invoices and related links.
Further, there is a period of 40 days to produce the supporting evidence, after which the Trade Mark Office issues an opinion on the evidence, indicating which items are accepted and which are denied. There is then a period of ten working days to file a voluntary writ containing the final arguments; at this time, it is also possible to request the suspension of deadlines for reaching an amicable agreement. None of these deadlines can be extended. Finally, if the opposition has not been withdrawn, the Trade Mark Office will issue its decision, confirming whether it is well-founded or ill founded. Likewise, alongside the maintenance or opposition process, the parties may also file a cancellation or nullity action. Partial cancellations and nullities are acceptable in Argentina. 5.5 Legal Remedies Against the Decision of the Trade Mark Office According to Section 17 of the Trade Mark Law, the decisions on oppositions issued by the National Direc - torate of Trade Marks shall only be subject to direct appeal before the National Chamber of Appeals in Civil and Commercial Federal Matters within 30 work - ing days from the date of their official notification. The appeal shall be filed with the INPI, which will forward it to the courts under the conditions set forth in the applicable regulations. 5.6 Amendment in Revocation/Cancellation Proceedings Amendment is not possible in revocation/cancellation proceedings. 5.7 Combining Revocation/Cancellation and Infringement Decisions in infringement and revocation cases are processed separately since they have different pur - poses. Expiration arises due to lack of use of the trade mark and infringement focuses on the damage caused. The deadlines are also different for the two procedures.
18 CHAMBERS.COM
Page i Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 Page 123 Page 124 Page 125 Page 126 Page 127 Page 128 Page 129 Page 130 Page 131 Page 132 Page 133 Page 134 Page 135 Page 136 Page 137 Page 138 Page 139 Page 140 Page 141 Page 142 Page 143 Page 144 Page 145 Page 146 Page 147 Page 148 Page 149 Page 150 Page 151 Page 152 Page 153 Page 154 Page 155 Page 156 Page 157 Page 158 Page 159 Page 160 Page 161 Page 162 Page 163 Page 164 Page 165 Page 166 Page 167 Page 168 Page 169 Page 170 Page 171 Page 172 Page 173 Page 174 Page 175 Page 176 Page 177 Page 178 Page 179 Page 180 Page 181 Page 182 Page 183 Page 184 Page 185 Page 186 Page 187 Page 188 Page 189 Page 190 Page 191 Page 192 Page 193 Page 194 Page 195 Page 196 Page 197 Page 198 Page 199Powered by FlippingBook