ARGENTINA: Electronic Prescriptions Reduce Risk of Trademark Confusion

Division II of the Federal Court of Appeals in Civil and Commercial Matters of the city of Buenos Aires has upheld the Trademark Office’s decision in re: Baliarda S.A. v. Eurofarma Argentina S.A.

In its decision on February 18, 2025, the court rejected the opposition filed against the trademark application for CLORAMIL in Class 5, emphasizing the recent implementation of electronic prescriptions, which would reduce errors related to difficulties in reading doctors’ handwritten prescriptions.

Baliarda requested that the Trademark Office dismiss the opposition filed by Eurofarma Argentina, owner of trademarks CLONAGIN and CLONALGIN in Class 5, against the CLORAMIL application in the same class.

The Trademark Office rejected the opposition on May 2, 2023, stating that Eurofarma Argentina had not proved any risk of confusion. It pointed out that the marks were not confusingly similar and emphasized the control over the sale of the opponent’s CLONAGIN drug used in psychiatry because it could only be dispensed with a prescription. As a result, it concluded that there was no reasonable risk of confusion among pharmaceutical professionals.

Eurofarma Argentina appealed, arguing that the poor handwriting of doctors made it wrong to assume that sales with a prescription would prevent confusion.

The Federal Court of Appeals held that as of January 1, 2025, only electronic prescriptions would be valid, explaining that this change would minimize the risks of errors associated with paper prescriptions, such as difficulties in reading doctors’ handwriting. It also emphasized that electronic prescriptions would ensure that patients received the correct medication safely and in accordance with standards of good practice.

This decision marks a shift from previous rulings, which argued that doctors’ handwriting in paper prescriptions could be hard to read, even for experienced pharmacists, potentially causing trademark confusion.

Although every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of this article, readers are urged to check independently on matters of specific concern or interest. Law & Practice updates are published without comment from INTA except where it has taken an official position.

© 2025 International Trademark Association