In July 2026, the Federal Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a decision by the Argentine National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) that had declared unfounded the opposition filed by Total Food S.A. against the registration of the design trademark “TOTAL FOOD ARGENTINA”, applied for by Total Food S.R.L. for Class 42 (quality control services, chemical analysis, scientific research, technology consulting, and laboratory services). The case raises a recurring question in trademark law: Can a trademark registered for food products block an almost identical mark intended for technical services?
Total Food S.A., owner of the word marks “TOTAL FOOD” registered in classes 29 and 30 (food products), argued that the phonetic and conceptual similarity created a risk of indirect confusion and dilution. It argued that the services in Class 42 were directly linked to the food sector and that both companies targeted a similar audience. Total Food S.R.L. answered that its design trademarks, with its own graphic elements, as opposed to the opponent’s purely word trademark, and that the principle of specialty should apply because the goods and services belonged to different classes.
The Court ruled in favor of the applicant. It concluded that Total Food S.A. failed to establish any exception to the principle of specialty: it did not demonstrate sufficient distinctiveness of its trademark nor did it prove any actual affinity or overlap between food manufacturing (classes 29 and 30) and the provision of technical laboratory, research, and quality control services (class 42). It found that the evidence in the case file (websites, articles of incorporation, and commercial documentation) showed clearly differentiated activities and target audiences. On that basis, it concluded that the visual, phonetic, and conceptual comparison of the signs was abstract, since the principle of specialty was sufficient to allow for coexistence.
The ruling reinforces a fundamental lesson: sharing a name is not sufficient to block a registration when the goods and services operate in different spheres. The principle of specialty remains the rule, and any exception to it requires concrete evidence of overlap, affinity, or notoriety. For trademark owners, the case serves as a reminder that protection does not automatically extend to all classes in the classification system.
