INPI Resolution 297/2026 concentrates deadlines and evidence: a trademark opposition in Argentina now requires a prompt response and a complete case from the very first filing.
Argentina’s new trademark opposition rules simplify the proceeding, but make any oversight more costly: there is no longer a separate evidence-production stage, and both the opponent and the applicant must submit their supporting evidence within non-extendable deadlines. Moreover, if the applicant fails to pay the required fee within fifteen administrative business days, the INPI will refuse the application without deciding whether the opposition was well founded.
Key point: under INPI Resolution 297/2026, receiving an opposition no longer starts a proceeding that can be completed later. The filing, the evidence and the payments must be prepared as a single strategy from the outset.
What is a trademark opposition, and why does it matter?
A trademark opposition is an objection filed by a third party against an application because the new mark is believed to affect an existing right. Most commonly, the opponent relies on an earlier identical or confusingly similar trademark, although the dispute may also concern a trade name, prior use or bad faith. An opposition does not mean the application is automatically lost: it opens a three-month period for the parties to seek an agreement.
If no agreement is reached, the dispute moves to the administrative stage before Argentina’s National Institute of Industrial Property, known as the INPI. This is the part amended by Resolution 297/2026, published on August 10, 2026. The new rules apply to oppositions against new trademark applications filed on or after March 1, 2026. Earlier applications remain governed by the previous rules.
Fifteen days to maintain the opposition and submit evidence
Once the three-month negotiation period expires, the system will automatically notify the opponent. From that notice, the opponent has fifteen administrative business days, without extension, to pay the fee and keep the opposition in force. Within the same period, the opponent may expand the grounds and must offer and produce the evidence supporting its position.
The decisive word is produce. The regulation eliminates the standalone evidence stage: documents, background records, screenshots, invoices, advertising, proof of use and other supporting materials must accompany the filing in documentary or instrumental form. If websites, social media or digital databases are cited, the links must be precise, accessible and freely available. A broken or restricted link may be disregarded.
The exception is narrow. If particular evidence could not be produced at that time, the party must say so expressly and explain the reason in the filing. The INPI will decide whether to admit it when issuing its final opinion. Holding evidence back for a later stage is no longer a workable strategy.
The applicant also faces a decisive requirement
Once the INPI determines which oppositions remain in force, it will notify the applicant. The applicant then has another non-extendable fifteen administrative business days to pay, once per application, the administrative resolution fee. Within the same period, the applicant may answer each opposition individually and submit all supporting evidence.
The consequence of non-payment is particularly severe: the application will be refused without the INPI ruling on the merits of the oppositions. Therefore, in addition to choosing the correct classes and conducting clearance searches before filing—steps explained in our step-by-step guide to trademark registration in Argentina—it is now essential to monitor the electronic address throughout the proceeding.
Comparison table: the previous and new procedures
To understand the true scope of the reform, the previous framework—created by INPI Resolution P-183/2018 and its 2024 and 2026 amendments—must be compared with the new text. Some requirements already existed; INPI Resolution 297/2026 automates and consolidates them while removing intermediate stages.
Opening of the proceeding
After the three-month negotiation period, the INPI notified the opponent to decide whether to maintain the opposition.
The notice is generated automatically when that period expires, with the aim of avoiding operational delays.
Opponent
The opponent had fifteen business days to pay, maintain the opposition, expand its grounds and offer evidence.
The fifteen-day period remains, but the evidence must be offered and produced with the same filing.
Applicant
The response, offer of evidence and applicant’s fee introduced in 2024 were regulated in separate provisions, although they shared the same fifteen-day period.
Payment, response and evidence are expressly consolidated into a single fifteen-business-day stage.
Production of evidence
Non-documentary evidence could be produced later, within the period set by the INPI, up to a maximum of forty business days.
That stage is eliminated: all evidence must be produced and submitted in documentary or instrumental form with the initial filing.
Digital evidence
The INPI could make any electronic verifications it considered relevant.
Links must be precisely identified, accessible and freely available; inaccessible links are disregarded.
Invalidity or cancellation
These issues were addressed separately from the opposition dispute under the applicable specific procedure.
Certain claims may be raised in the opponent’s or applicant’s filing and decided within the same proceeding.
Final arguments
The parties had an optional ten-business-day period after evidence was produced. Mediation could interrupt it once for thirty days.
Those periods remain, but the notice is generated automatically once the applicant’s stage ends.
Appeal
The direct appeal followed the previous framework, and the INPI forwarded the record to the Court of Appeals.
It is filed electronically with the Court of Appeals and must be reported to the INPI by sworn statement within twenty business days.
Applications covered
The previous procedure continues to apply to applications filed through February 28, 2026.
The new rules apply to oppositions against new applications filed on or after March 1, 2026.
A practical example
Suppose you applied for “NORTE PURO” for clothing and a company that owns “PURO NORTE” files an opposition. The parties exchange proposals for three months but do not reach an agreement. Under the new procedure, the opponent has fifteen business days to pay and submit, for example, its registrations, sales records, campaigns and evidence of recognition. You then have fifteen business days to pay the fee, respond and submit your analysis of the signs, the relevant public, the products and any evidence of use or coexistence supporting your defence.
There will be no later stage to comfortably fill any gaps. The record is effectively assembled through those two filings. An optional common ten-business-day period for final arguments follows. The parties may also jointly report that they have started mediation or conciliation, which interrupts the period once for thirty administrative business days.
What improves—and what new risk arises?
Automation may reduce idle time and make the proceeding more predictable. The express treatment of digital evidence and consensual dispute-resolution methods is also positive. The trade-off is that important decisions are concentrated into short, strict windows: requesting access to the file does not suspend any deadline.
The new framework is part of a broader series of recent changes to Argentina’s trademark system. Since 2026, informal third-party “alerts” are no longer available for new applications, so objections must be channelled through a formal opposition. In practice, registering and defending a trademark now requires closer monitoring and earlier preparation.
What should you do if your application receives an opposition?
First, record the exact date of the notice and do not wait until the deadline. Second, gather the trademark file and all available commercial evidence. Third, assess whether it is better to negotiate, limit the goods or services, enter into a coexistence agreement, or defend the application through a decision. The regulation requires representation by a lawyer or registered industrial property agent, but the practical reason to act quickly is simpler: a missed deadline may end the proceeding before anyone discusses which party had the stronger right.
Has someone opposed your trademark—or do you need to defend it?
We review the file, the deadlines and the available evidence to define a strategy before the opportunity to respond expires.