Argentina. Trademarks. A simplified examination promises faster registration times
INPI will no longer examine trademark applications as it previously did. It will focus only on public order issues and identical marks. Similarity will be left to private parties and the opposition system, seeking to speed up procedures.
The National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) published Resolution No. 583/2025, with the aim of modernizing and streamlining the trademark registration procedure in Argentina. The reform is part of a series of initiatives intended to simplify procedures, reduce timeframes, and provide greater legal predictability to the trademark system, aligning it with international standards.
The main changes introduced are as follows:
1. Reduction of the scope of the administrative examination of trademarks
INPI will limit the initial examination of trademark applications to:
- Absolute grounds for refusal (for example, lack of distinctiveness).
- Aspects related to public order (for example, identical prior trademarks, appellations of origin, official signs of the national state or foreign states).
By contrast, relative prohibitions (for example, conflicts with similar pre-existing trademarks— which will only be analyzed if a third party files an opposition within the corresponding legal term—, deceptive trademarks, names of persons).
2. New order of examination and procedural stages
- The formal and registrability examination will be carried out immediately after the filing of the application, prior to publication in the Trademark Gazette.
3. Application and entry into force
- The modification of the scope of examination will be applicable immediately upon publication of the resolution.
- The new procedural stages will enter into force as of March 1, 2026, and will also apply to applications already pending.
Relevance of the reform
Efficiency and legal certainty
This reform constitutes a structural change in the Argentine trademark registration system, with several relevant implications:
Reduction of processing times
By limiting the initial examination to objective issues and matters of public order, INPI seeks to shorten administrative timeframes that have traditionally delayed the granting of trademarks, favoring the rapid protection of distinctive signs with less subjective intervention.
Greater predictability for owners and applicants
The reform provides early legal certainty to applicants by focusing the initial review on formal and absolute requirements, while deferring relative disputes—usually a source of extensive objections—to the opposition stage.
Impact on contentious practice
Lower burden of subjective objections
By limiting the substantive examination vis-à-vis third parties (for example, due to similarity with earlier trademarks), the resolution could reduce the volume of improper or purely strategic administrative objections, benefiting those seeking faster access to trademark rights.
Role of interested third parties
The decision to depend on third-party initiative to assess relative objections reinforces the importance of oppositions and strategic defenses at the administrative stage, with possible effects on trademark protection and enforcement strategies. This may also intensify the filing of reasoned oppositions.
Regulatory transition
The staggered entry into force—with effects as of publication and other stages as of March 2026—provides time for professionals and users of the system to adapt to the new procedural dynamics.
Conclusion
INPI Resolution No. 583/2025 represents a significant step toward a more efficient, simpler, and internationally aligned trademark regime. The limitation of administrative examination to absolute grounds and public order considerations, together with a more streamlined procedure, promises to improve predictability and reduce the duration of proceedings, with a direct impact on entrepreneurs, companies, and trademark law practitioners. At the same time, it strengthens the role of oppositions as the central mechanism to defend relative rights against third parties at the administrative stage.
An additional issue to consider
If INPI will no longer consider similar prior trademarks as a matter of public order or an absolute impediment, it is possible that, in the near future, coexistence agreements between private parties may be accepted, unless they refer to identical trademarks used to distinguish the same products or services.
It is still too early to draw this type of conclusion. Only the passage of time will determine whether this resolution effectively has any impact on coexistence agreements.
H&A
Communication Department