In August 2026, the Argentine National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI), declared two ex officio trademark cancellations, which the Office itself had granted. There was no opposition from third parties or legal action: it was the Institute itself that, after detecting what it described as an “error in granting the registration,” initiated the procedure to cancel both registrations. These cases raise a significant question about the legal certainty of trademark owners in Argentina.
The first case involves the word mark trademark “TREONATO DE MAGNESIO”, registered in Class 5 for dietary supplements and vitamin preparations. The INPI concluded that this is the scientific name of a commonly used magnesium salt and that its registration violated Argentine Trademark Law No. 22,362, which prohibits the registration of necessary or customary product names.
The second case involves the design trademark “GRADO PHARMA”, registered in Class 35 for the sale of dietary supplements and commercial brokerage services. According to the ruling, “PHARMA” is a term in common use that consumers associate with the pharmaceutical sector, serving a purely descriptive function; while “GRADO” evokes level or category without providing sufficient distinctiveness. According to the INPI, the combination does not create a new or fanciful meaning that would allow for the identification of a specific business origin. It is worth noting that, in this case, since it is a design trademark, its registration included graphic elements in addition to the word mark. However, the INPI’s analysis focused exclusively on the word elements.
The INPI’s authority to declare ex officio trademark cancellations is provided for by law. However, the pattern observed in these cases raises legitimate questions. The Office examines an application, approves it, grants registration, and subsequently revokes it upon noticing an error in its own evaluation process.
As a result, the message sent to the market is troubling. Legal certainty is not merely an abstract principle: it is what allows entrepreneurs, companies, and professionals to make investment decisions with a minimum of predictability. These cases should serve as a wake-up call for every trademark owner in Argentina. How should the system balance the INPI’s authority to review registrations with the protection of those who obtained their registrations in good faith?
