In July 2026, the Federal Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals reversed, by majority, a decision of the Argentine National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) that had upheld the oppositions filed by YPF S.A. against the registration of the word mark trademark “IPFS”, applied for by Protocol Labs, Inc. in Classes 9 and 42 (software, distributed data storage and computer services). The case brings two worlds into conflict: the energy industry and decentralized technology.
The INPI had considered that “IPFS” was visually “practically identical” to “YPF” in its word component. YPF invoked the notoriety of its trademarks, which feature their own graphic, color and typographic elements, and argued that there was a risk of indirect confusion regarding the business origin. Protocol Labs answered that the signs were clearly distinguishable, that its target audience was technically qualified, and that the very notoriety of “YPF” operated as a factor of differentiation, rather than confusion.
By majority, the Court of Appeals reversed the INPI’s decision and declared YPF’s oppositions unfounded, authorizing the registration of “IPFS”. The judges considered that the differences between the signs were sufficient: different length (four letters vs. three), a different initial letter (“I” vs. “Y”), a fourth phonetic emission that modifies the sound cadence, and the complete absence of design in “IPFS” as opposed to the graphic elements of YPF’s composite trademarks. It also considered that “IPFS” was not a speculative choice, but rather the name of an actual project (Inter Planetary File System), that its products operate in a technological market unrelated to the energy sector, and that the strong association of “YPF” with hydrocarbons contributes to differentiating, rather than bringing the signs closer together.
The message of the decision is clear: the notoriety of a trademark is not an absolute shield against every application that shares common letters. A partial coincidence of consonants does not automatically amount to likelihood of confusion, particularly when the signs operate in different commercial spheres and target different audiences. For technology companies, the decision is an encouraging signal: a technical acronym supported by a concrete project may successfully proceed to registration even when confronted with well-known trademarks. Should the notoriety of a trademark be enough to block registrations in sectors with which it has no actual connection?
