Argentina Trademark Docketing: The Conflict Check INPI Stopped Running

On 1 March 2026 the Instituto Nacional de la Propiedad Industrial stopped examining Argentine trademark applications for conflicts with earlier marks. Relative grounds are now raised by opposition or not at all, and the window to raise them is thirty calendar days. Most pages still ranking for Argentine trademark deadlines describe the procedure that reform replaced, and none reach the mid-term declaration of use that blocks renewals. This is a working note on Argentina trademark docketing as it stands in November 2026: the three INPI resolutions that rewrote the calendar, the deadlines they create, and the maintenance dates they left untouched.

Why Argentina Trademark Docketing Changed on 1 March 2026

For four decades an Argentine trademark application was screened for conflicts by the office itself. An examiner at the Instituto Nacional de la Propiedad Industrial ran the prior-rights search, and a confusingly similar earlier mark was refused whether or not its owner ever heard about the application.

That stopped. INPI Resolution P-583/2025, published on 11 December 2025, limited ex officio examination to absolute prohibitions and grounds of public order. The procedural reordering that goes with it took effect on 1 March 2026.

Relative grounds — similarity to an earlier registration or pending application, likelihood of confusion, the use of a non-notorious third party’s name or image — are no longer screened by the office at all. They are raised by opposition, or they are not raised.

The consequence for a portfolio is narrow and severe. In Argentina the only thing now standing between an earlier mark and a confusingly similar registration is a third party noticing the publication and filing inside thirty days. Nobody at INPI will do it on the owner’s behalf.

That makes the watch feed a docketing input rather than a marketing report, and it is the single change that should drive how Argentina trademark docketing is configured this year.

The Three Resolutions That Rewrote Argentina Trademark Docketing

Three instruments carry the 2026 Argentine position, and they hold different things. Mixing them up is how a record ends up half-migrated.

Resolution P-583/2025 (published 11 December 2025) is the substantive one. Article 1 narrowed what INPI examines and applied immediately on publication. Article 2 reordered the procedure and applied from 1 March 2026.

Resolution 297/2026 (issued 6 August 2026, published in the Boletín Oficial on 10 August 2026) replaced the administrative opposition procedure. It consolidated several sequential stages into one window and added a final-submissions stage.

Resolution 63/2026 changed how INPI tells you any of this happened. Office actions and interlocutory acts arrive in the user’s electronic platform; final decisions and rulings that an opposition was not maintained are published in the Trademark Gazette.

Note that the statute itself — Law No. 22.362 of 1980, as amended by Decree 27/2018 and Law No. 27.444 — was not touched. The term, the renewal window and both declarations of use are unchanged. What changed is examination, opposition procedure and notification.

Resolution 583/2025: What INPI Still Examines, and What It Dropped

The dividing line is between prohibitions that protect the public and prohibitions that protect a private interest.

Still examined ex officio: absolute prohibitions — lack of distinctiveness, generic and descriptive signs, national and foreign appellations of origin — together with grounds related to public order.

No longer examined ex officio: similarity to earlier registered or applied-for marks, likelihood of error or confusion, and the use of names or images of non-notorious third parties. Argentine counsel describe these as the grounds that depend on the existence of a private interest.

Read that list against a docket and the exposure is obvious. Every relative ground that used to be caught by an examiner is now caught by an opposition or by nothing.

It also changes what a clearance search is for. Before the reform a search predicted whether INPI would refuse. Now it predicts who might oppose, and whether anyone is watching closely enough to do it.

Argentina trademark docketing inherits that shift directly: the record has to generate the opposition deadline, because the office will not generate the refusal.

What the Pages Currently Ranking Still Say

This is worth stating plainly, because it is the reason this note exists.

The general Argentine filing guides that rank for deadline queries describe the filing route, clearance and the renewal term, and several do it well. What they do not contain is Resolution 583/2025, the 1 March 2026 reordering, or the mid-term declaration of use.

The pages that do cover the mid-term declaration cover it narrowly and accurately — the five-to-six-year window, the presumption of non-use, the renewal block — and stop there. They do not reach the examination reform, the opposition timetable or the notification channels.

And at least one widely cited summary still sets out the old sequence: substantive examination sixteen to twenty months after the opposition period closes. Under the current procedure examination happens before publication, and an unopposed application proceeds to grant when the opposition period expires.

None of that is dishonest. It is a reform published in December 2025 that bit in March 2026 and was then amended in August 2026, and most reference pages have not been rebuilt since. It does mean a record configured from those pages is configured for a procedure that no longer runs.

The New Order of Events: Examine, Publish, Then Grant

The current sequence, as Argentine counsel describe it under Resolution 583/2025:

INPI conducts formal and substantive review after filing. Once the application is approved, or formal defects are remedied, INPI orders publication in the Trademark Gazette. A thirty-calendar-day opposition period runs from publication. If no opposition is filed, the mark proceeds to grant.

Two docketing consequences follow from the reordering alone.

First, publication is no longer an early procedural event with a long tail behind it — it is close to the end of the file. The gap between publication and a granted, enforceable right is now measured in weeks, not in the sixteen to twenty months the older guides describe.

Second, an unopposed application is granted without a further substantive decision on relative grounds. There is no second bite. A record that carries a diary entry for “await examination result” after publication is modelling a step that has already happened.

Both points argue for re-reading the pending Argentine files rather than the rules alone. Argentina trademark docketing built around the old sequence will hold diary entries for stages that no longer exist, while the one stage that now decides the outcome passes unwatched.

Thirty Calendar Days: The Only Window That Now Protects an Earlier Mark

The opposition period did not change length. It is thirty calendar days from publication of the application in the Trademark Gazette, filed electronically with INPI.

What changed is its function. Before 1 March 2026 the thirty days were one of two defences, and the weaker one in practice, because the examiner’s own prior-rights search sat behind it. Now they are the whole defence.

Thirty calendar days matters. Argentine procedural deadlines inside the opposition itself run in business days; this one does not. A record that applies a single working-day convention across the whole Argentine file will compute this window long and miss it.

It is also a short window by international standards. The EUIPO allows three months from publication; Vietnam, after its own 2026 reform, allows three. Thirty calendar days leaves no room for a watch notice that is reviewed monthly.

In practice that is the hard constraint on an Argentine watch programme: notice-to-instruction has to fit inside a month, including the time it takes to reach a decision-maker who can authorise the filing.

Thirty days is therefore the number that sets the tempo of Argentina trademark docketing as a whole. Every other Argentine clock can absorb a week of internal delay; this one cannot.

Why the Watch Feed Is Now an Argentina Trademark Docketing Input

Trademark watching has always been sold as risk management. In Argentina it is now a deadline-generating system, and that is a different thing to run.

A watch hit against an Argentine publication creates a dated obligation with a thirty-day fuse. It needs to land in the same queue as a renewal or a declaration of use, carry a computed due date, and escalate when it is not actioned — not sit in a monthly PDF.

This is the integration problem we have written about separately in trademark watch and docketing integration: watch results and the docket have to share one record, or the hit and the deadline live in two systems and only one of them is monitored.

The mechanics of running the opposition itself — what to diarise once the window is met — are set out in our note on trademark opposition docketing.

The practical test for an Argentine portfolio is whether an unactioned watch hit can age past thirty days without anyone being told. If it can, the reform has already created an uncontrolled exposure.

Resolution 297/2026: The Fifteen-Business-Day Consolidated Window

Once an opposition is filed, Resolution 297/2026 governs what happens next — but only for oppositions against applications filed on or after 1 March 2026.

The central change is consolidation. Where the old procedure ran sequential stages — a notice to maintain the opposition, a fee, then a separate evidentiary round — the new rules fold them into a single fifteen-business-day window in which a party maintains or answers the opposition, pays the fee and files its documentary evidence together.

That is a front-loaded evidentiary process, and it is the part most likely to catch a foreign-instructed file. Documentary evidence has to exist when the response is due, not be gathered after the pleading stage closes.

For a docket the implication is that the Argentine opposition response date is no longer a pleading date with evidence work behind it. It is a single hard date with evidence assembly in front of it, which means the internal lead time has to be diarised separately and earlier.

Fifteen business days is roughly three calendar weeks, and less than that across an Argentine holiday run. Business-day arithmetic against a local holiday calendar is not optional here.

The Thirty-Business-Day Settlement Interruption

Resolution 297/2026 also recognises what the parties mostly do, which is talk.

Where an alternative dispute resolution mechanism is initiated and INPI is notified, the proceeding is automatically interrupted for thirty business days. After the interruption, a fresh ten-business-day period runs for final submissions.

Automatic interruption is a useful feature and an awkward one to docket. The due date that was computed when the opposition was answered is no longer the operative date, and the new one depends on an event — the notification of settlement talks — that a docketing team may learn about late or informally.

The safe configuration is to treat the interruption as a recomputation trigger rather than an extension. The stored date is replaced, not pushed, and the file carries the fact that an interruption was invoked so the subsequent ten-day window is not mistaken for the original deadline.

It is also worth recording who notified INPI and when, because that is what the recomputation is anchored to.

Ten Business Days for Final Submissions

The new final-arguments stage is short, and it is the stage with the least margin in the whole procedure.

Ten business days is two working weeks. For a file instructed from outside Argentina, that has to absorb the notification reaching the foreign firm, instructions going back to local counsel, and the submission being prepared and filed.

Argentine counsel describe the opportunity as arising automatically once the fifteen-business-day response window expires, which is helpful: the trigger is a computable date rather than a discretionary invitation. A rules engine can diary it the moment the response window closes.

What it should not be is a reminder generated on receipt of a notice. At ten business days, a docket that waits for the notice to arrive before creating the deadline has already spent part of it.

Which Oppositions the New Rules Reach, and Which They Do Not

This is the transitional trap, and it is unusually clean as transitional traps go.

Resolution 297/2026 applies to oppositions filed against new trademark applications filed on or after 1 March 2026. Oppositions against earlier applications continue under the previous procedure.

So for a period measured in years, an Argentine portfolio will run two opposition procedures in parallel, and the discriminator is not the opposition date — it is the application filing date of the mark being opposed.

A docketing record therefore needs the opposed application’s filing date available to the rules engine when it computes opposition deadlines, which is not where most systems keep it. Storing the procedure version as a field on the opposition at the point it is created is the more robust answer.

Argentine counsel also report no explicit transitional guidance on the examination side for applications filed before 1 March 2026, which is a reason to keep the per-file marker rather than infer the regime from a date range.

Resolution 63/2026: Two Notification Channels, One Docket

Resolution 63/2026 split INPI’s notifications across two channels, and a docket has to be fed by both.

Office actions and interlocutory acts are notified through the user’s electronic platform. Final decisions, and rulings that an opposition was not maintained, are communicated by publication in the Trademark Gazette.

The second half is the one that bites. A final decision that arrives by Gazette publication does not arrive in anyone’s inbox. Nothing is pushed; the Gazette has to be read.

A record that assumes platform notification for everything will be current on office actions and silently stale on outcomes — including the outcome that an opposition against the portfolio’s own mark was not maintained, which is good news nobody hears.

The configuration that holds is a scheduled Gazette review with its own recurring diary entry, separate from the platform inbox, and a file note recording which channel each notification arrived through.

The Ten-Year Term Runs From the Registration Date

Against all that procedural change, the maintenance anchors are stable — and they are the ones most likely to be wrong in an inherited record.

Under Law 22.362 an Argentine registration runs for ten years from the date of registration and is renewable indefinitely in consecutive ten-year terms.

From the registration date, not the filing date. That is the US convention rather than the convention used in Vietnam, Israel or Nigeria, and it means Argentine expiry dates do not inherit the prosecution delay.

It is also the one place where a record built on US anchors will get Argentina right by accident. The anchor matches; the obligations attached to it do not.

Where the anchors do diverge across a mixed portfolio, our note on international trademark renewal docketing sets out which jurisdictions measure from filing and which from grant.

Renewal: Six Months Before, Six Months After

The Argentine renewal window is symmetrical, which is rarer than it sounds.

A registration may be renewed from six months before the expiry date up to six months after it. The second half is a grace period and carries the usual consequence of grace filings: additional official fees.

Two dates, not one. A record that stores only the expiry date cannot tell a user that the window is open, and a record that stores only the window’s close treats the grace expiry as the deadline — which it is, but at a cost and with the registration exposed in the interim.

The field-level answer is three stored values: window opens, expiry, grace expiry. The middle one is the date to act on; the last one is the drop-dead date.

And the renewal is not a standalone filing. It carries a declaration of use with it, and the declaration can block it. That coupling is the reason Argentina trademark docketing cannot treat renewal as a fee-and-form exercise.

The Sworn Declaration of Use at Renewal

A renewal application in Argentina must be accompanied by a sworn declaration that the mark was used in Argentina within the five years preceding expiry.

This is a statement about a historical window, which means the evidence it rests on has to have been captured while it was happening. A declaration signed in year ten about use in years five to ten cannot be reconstructed from an empty file.

Argentine practice on what counts as use is also narrower than some: counsel report that advertising, promotional material, or internet use with no link to the real market are not by themselves sufficient. Actual commercialisation in the market is the standard.

For a docket, the usable control is a last-documented-use field maintained per class and reviewed on a schedule, rather than a question asked for the first time when the renewal falls due.

The declaration also interacts with the mid-term filing, and that is where most Argentine portfolios have an actual gap.

The Mid-Term Declaration of Use: Years Five and Six

This is the Argentine deadline that most often has no diary entry at all, because it did not exist before 2018 and it has no counterpart in most of the jurisdictions a foreign portfolio is built around.

Decree 27/2018 of 10 January 2018, ratified by Law No. 27.444 of 30 May 2018, introduced a mid-term sworn declaration of use. It must be filed between the fifth and sixth anniversary of the registration — a one-year window that opens once the mark has been registered for five years.

The window is measured from registration, or from the most recent renewal. It is a distinct obligation from the declaration filed with the renewal itself, and filing one does not satisfy the other.

The structural similarity to the US §8 declaration is close enough to be dangerous. Both fall between the fifth and sixth year after registration; both are declarations of use. What differs is everything about the consequence of missing them.

What Actually Happens If the Mid-Term Declaration Is Missed

Be precise about this one, because it is widely stated loosely — including in pages that otherwise rank well.

Missing the Argentine mid-term declaration does not cancel the registration automatically. Two things happen instead.

First, non-use of the mark is presumed. The presumption is rebuttable, but it shifts the position in any cancellation action a third party or the office brings, and it is the owner who then has to prove use.

Second, renewal is blocked. INPI will not grant a renewal until the outstanding declaration has been filed and its fee paid. A late declaration remains possible; it is a condition on processing the renewal rather than a forfeiture.

The contrast with the United States is the point. A missed §8 declaration, once the six-month grace period has run, cancels the registration and there is no revival for it. A missed Argentine mid-term declaration leaves a registration that is alive, curable and more vulnerable than it looks.

So the two should be escalated differently. Both are red; only one of them is terminal. Argentina trademark docketing that borrows the US escalation path for this date will either under-react to the renewal block or raise a terminal alarm for something still curable.

Which Registrations the Mid-Term Obligation Reaches

The obligation was not retroactive to the whole register, and the cut-off is a date worth storing.

The requirement applies to registrations that had been in force for five years as at the date the new legislation came into effect — 12 January 2018. In practice, Argentine counsel express this as: registrations granted from 12 January 2013 onward must file a mid-term declaration between the fifth and sixth year.

For any portfolio built in the last decade that means every Argentine registration is in scope. For older marks it means the obligation attaches at the next renewal cycle rather than historically.

This is the kind of rule that is correct in a migration and wrong a year later, because it is usually implemented as a one-off filter over the portfolio instead of a rule on the record. The better form is a rule the engine re-evaluates: grant or renewal date, plus five years, equals window open.

Five Consecutive Years of Non-Use

Behind both declarations sits the cancellation exposure they are evidence about.

An Argentine registration may be cancelled for non-use where the mark has not been used in Argentina during the five years prior to the action. Since the 2018 amendments, partial forfeiture is available — the cancellation can reach only the goods or services not used.

Article 26 of Law 22.362, as amended, cuts the other way and is worth knowing: a mark registered and used for certain goods or services does not lapse if the same mark is used for related or similar goods or services, even in other classes, or forms part of the designation of a related activity.

That is a defensive provision with a documentation requirement attached. Invoking it means being able to show the related use, which again is a captured-as-you-go record rather than a retrospective exercise.

On a docket this is a rolling exposure rather than a date, and it is best modelled as a per-class review cycle against last-documented use.

Argentina Is Not a Madrid Member, and What That Costs the Docket

Argentina does not appear in WIPO’s list of contracting parties to the Madrid Protocol. Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba and Mexico do; Argentina does not.

Three consequences follow for a portfolio that is otherwise run through WIPO.

Argentina cannot be designated in an international registration, so every Argentine right is a national file with its own number, its own anchor and its own agent of record. There is no consolidated WIPO renewal that reaches it.

The five-year dependency does not apply to it either. Under Article 6(2) and 6(3) of the Madrid Protocol an international registration becomes independent of the basic mark five years after the international registration date, and before that a successful central attack brings it down — with transformation into national applications available within three months of cancellation under Article 9quinquies. None of that machinery touches an Argentine national registration.

In practice that means the Argentine file is the one that falls out of a WIPO-centred renewal process. A portfolio review that walks the international registrations will not walk Argentina, which is a recurring theme of our Mexico trademark docketing and Brazil trademark docketing notes for the opposite reason: those two are Madrid members and Argentina is the regional exception.

Argentina Trademark Docketing vs the Matching US Clocks

Most Argentine records in a foreign portfolio were configured by someone whose default is the USPTO, so Argentina trademark docketing tends to inherit US conventions silently. Here is where the two systems agree and where they part.

Term anchor. Both measure from registration. Argentina: ten years from registration, indefinitely renewable. United States: ten-year terms from registration.

Mid-term declaration. Both fall between the fifth and sixth year after registration. The US §8 declaration has a six-month grace period and cancellation behind it. The Argentine declaration has no cancellation behind it, but blocks renewal and triggers a presumption of non-use.

Renewal. The US window is between the ninth and tenth year, with a six-month grace period. Argentina opens six months before expiry and closes six months after.

Opposition. Thirty calendar days from publication in Argentina. In the United States, thirty days from publication with extensions available.

Office-action response. Argentina’s opposition timetable runs in business days. The US pre-registration response period is three months with one three-month extension.

Ex officio conflict search. The USPTO still refuses on likelihood of confusion under §2(d). INPI, since 1 March 2026, does not. This is the asymmetry a US-trained docketing assumption gets most wrong.

The US Windows This Article Has Been Comparing Against

Stated once, so the comparison above rests on something verifiable rather than recollection. These are the USPTO’s own figures.

The §8 declaration of use or excusable non-use is filed between the fifth and sixth years after the registration date. A six-month grace period follows, with an additional fee.

The combined §8 and §9 filing is due between the ninth and tenth years after registration, and every ten years thereafter — between the nineteenth and twentieth, the twenty-ninth and thirtieth, and so on. The same six-month grace period applies.

The §15 declaration of incontestability is optional and requires at least five years of continuous use in commerce. It is commonly combined with the §8 filing in the years five-to-six window.

Madrid-based US registrations maintain under §71 rather than §8, on the same years-five-to-six schedule.

The TMA Response Window: Three Months Plus One Extension

The other US figure worth stating correctly, because it is the one most often quoted at its pre-2022 value.

Since 3 December 2022, under the Trademark Modernization Act, an applicant has three months to respond to an office action issued during examination of an application filed under §1 or §44. One three-month extension may be requested, once per office action, giving a total of six months from the issue date.

Applications filed under Madrid Protocol §66(a) were not changed and keep a six-month response deadline.

So a US record has to branch on filing basis to compute a response date at all. Argentina has an analogous branch, on a different axis: the opposition procedure version depends on the filing date of the opposed application.

Both are cases where a single stored figure is wrong for half the portfolio, which is the general shape of most docketing errors worth finding.

Thirty Business Days to Appeal an INPI Decision

One date to close the procedural picture. Argentine counsel report a thirty-business-day period to challenge INPI rulings before the federal courts.

Business days again, and running from a notification that under Resolution 63/2026 may have arrived by Gazette publication rather than in the platform inbox.

That combination — a business-day appeal clock started by an event nobody is pushed — is the sharpest edge in the current Argentine procedure. It is the one deadline where a Gazette review cycle that is slightly too slow does not merely delay work; it can consume the entire window.

Because the exact computation and starting point turn on how the decision was notified, this is a figure to confirm with local counsel on the specific file rather than to hard-code as a portfolio default.

A Field-Level Argentina Trademark Docketing Configuration

What the above amounts to, expressed as fields rather than prose. This is the configuration we run for Argentine matters.

Registration date as the live computation anchor for the ten-year term, not a stored expiry value.

Three renewal dates: window opens at expiry minus six months, expiry, grace expiry at expiry plus six months — the last flagged as a surcharge date.

Mid-term declaration window computed from registration or last renewal plus five years, open for one year, with its own escalation path that records it as curable-but-blocking rather than terminal.

Last documented use, per class, reviewed on a cycle, serving both declarations and the rolling five-year non-use exposure.

Opposition procedure version stored on each opposition at creation, derived from the opposed application’s filing date against 1 March 2026.

Business-day arithmetic against an Argentine holiday calendar for the fifteen-day, thirty-day-interruption, ten-day and appeal clocks — with the thirty-day opposition window explicitly marked as calendar days.

Settlement interruption as a recomputation trigger, replacing the stored final-submissions date rather than extending it.

Two notification channels, with a scheduled Gazette review diarised independently of the platform inbox.

Watch hits as dated obligations with a thirty-calendar-day fuse and an escalation that fires on inaction.

Auditing Argentina Trademark Docketing in Half an Hour

Four checks on an inherited record, in order of how often they find something. None of them needs anything INPI holds.

One. List every Argentine registration granted or renewed more than five years ago and ask whether a mid-term declaration was filed. If the field does not exist in the system, that is the finding. This is the most common gap we see, because the obligation has no US counterpart in its consequences and was often never configured.

Two. Subtract the registration date from every stored Argentine expiry. The answer must be exactly ten years. Anything else means the record was anchored to filing, which is the wrong convention for Argentina even though it is right for several of its neighbours.

Three. Check whether any Argentine deadline is computed in calendar days where it should be business days, or the reverse. The thirty-day opposition window is calendar; the opposition timetable is business days. If one convention is applied to both, one of them is wrong.

Four. Ask who reads the Trademark Gazette, on what cycle, and where the result is recorded. If the answer is that notifications arrive electronically, the record is current on office actions and blind to final decisions.

The general version of this exercise, independent of jurisdiction, is in our trademark docketing checklist and trademark docketing best practices.

None of these four requires access to INPI. All four can be run against the record you already have, and each one that fails is a date the portfolio is currently computing wrong.

Sources

Every date in this article was verified against the following sources on 10 November 2026.

• ClarkeModet, “Argentina implements key changes to its trademark system” — INPI Resolution 583/2025 of 11 December 2025: ex officio examination limited to absolute prohibitions and public policy grounds; implementation from 1 March 2026; automatic grant where no opposition is filed.
• H&A, “New INPI Resolution (Argentina): a shift in the prior art examination” — Resolution P-583/25: Article 1 effective on publication (11 December 2025), Article 2 from 1 March 2026; the relative grounds no longer examined; the resulting need to monitor the Gazette and oppose within thirty days.
• Noetinger & Armando, “Trademark registration in Argentina: what changed in the examination, oppositions and notifications before the INPI” — the new order of events, the thirty-calendar-day opposition period, and the Resolution 63/2026 notification split between the electronic platform and the Trademark Gazette.
• Bruchoú & Funes de Rioja, “New Regulations for the Administrative Resolution of Trademark Oppositions — INPI Resolution No. 297/2026” — publication on 10 August 2026; the consolidated fifteen-business-day window for maintaining or answering an opposition with documentary evidence; application to oppositions against applications filed from 1 March 2026.
• Noetinger & Armando, “Trademark oppositions in Argentina: Key changes to proceedings before the INPI” — Resolution 297/2026 issued 6 August 2026; the automatic thirty-business-day interruption for alternative dispute resolution and the subsequent ten-business-day period for final submissions.
• Boletín Oficial de la República Argentina, INPI Resolución 297/2026 — the official text as published on 10 August 2026.
• H&A, Argentina trademark prosecution guidelines — Law No. 22.362 of 26 December 1980 as amended; thirty days from publication to oppose; ten-year term from the registration date; renewal from six months before expiry with a six-month grace period; mid-term declaration of use between the fifth and sixth year; five-year non-use cancellation; the standard that advertising or internet-only use is insufficient; and confirmation that Argentina is not a Madrid Protocol member.
• Dreyfus, “Understanding the Declaration of Use in Argentine Trademark Law” — the fifth-to-sixth-anniversary window, the rebuttable presumption of non-use, and the rule that INPI will not approve a renewal until the outstanding declaration is filed.
• Lexology, “Argentina: Amendment of Trademark Law — Declaration of Use, Third Party Oppositions” — Decree No. 27/2018 of 10 January 2018 ratified by Law No. 27.444 of 30 May 2018; the obligation reaching registrations granted from 12 January 2013; and the amended Article 26 on use of related or similar goods and services.
• USPTO, “Keeping your registration alive” — the §8 declaration between the fifth and sixth years after registration, the combined §8 and §9 filing between the ninth and tenth years and every ten years thereafter, the six-month grace period, §15 incontestability after five years of continuous use, and §71 for Madrid-based registrations.
• USPTO, “New three-month deadline for responding to pre-registration office actions” — effective 3 December 2022: three months to respond for §1 and §44 applications with one three-month extension available per office action, and §66(a) applications unchanged at six months.
• WIPO Lex, Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks — Article 6(2) and 6(3) on the five-year dependency of the international registration on the basic mark, and Article 9quinquies on transformation within three months of cancellation.
• WIPO, Contracting Parties to the Madrid Agreement and Protocol Concerning the International Registration of Marks — the official list, in which Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba and Mexico appear and Argentina does not.

Argentine procedure is in active flux: three INPI resolutions landed between December 2025 and August 2026. Confirm the position with local counsel on any file where a date is close, and treat this note as current to its verification date.

How PerspireIP Can Help

PerspireIP runs trademark docketing as a managed service for firms and in-house teams whose portfolios cross INPI, the USPTO, the EUIPO and WIPO. For Argentine matters that means the registration date is held as a live computation anchor rather than reference data, the renewal window carries an opening date and a grace expiry as well as an expiry, the mid-term declaration window is computed from registration or last renewal and escalated as curable-but-blocking, last-documented use is recorded per class against the rolling five-year non-use exposure, each opposition stores the procedure version derived from the opposed application’s filing date, and the Trademark Gazette review is diarised independently of the electronic platform inbox.

If your Argentine records were configured before December 2025, two checks take minutes. Subtract the registration date from every stored Argentine expiry — the answer has to be exactly ten years. Then list every registration granted or renewed more than five years ago and look for a mid-term declaration of use. If that field does not exist, that is the finding, and it is the one we see most often. We will tell you what we find either way.

Frequently Asked Questions