by María Aurora GarcíaSimplification of the trademark system: an opportunity for business and investment in Argentina
In the professional practice of trademark law, we emphasize this in every consultation with entrepreneurs, SMEs, and large companies: trademark protection is essential to any business strategy. Trademarks identify and differentiate products and services in the market, and adequate protection is key to guaranteeing ownership and taking action against third-party infringers, thereby safeguarding the investment made. Ideally, any improvement in the trademark registration system should have a positive impact on business development and, therefore, on the real economy.
In this context, and in line with the government’s policy of deregulation and administrative modernization, a significant step was taken last week to streamline and make the trademark registration process more efficient through the implementation of Resolution 583/2025 by the National Institute of Industrial Property (AR PTO).
Until now, a trademark registration process—if it encountered no obstacles during processing—could take approximately eight months. Although this was significantly less time than in previous years, it was still not in line with the dynamics that the business world requires to launch products or services on the market. This process included an analysis of registrability based on the various criteria set forth in the Trademark Law, including the possible existence of conflicts with similar trademark signs.
Now, the role of the AR PTO takes on a different configuration: it will limit the examination of new trademark applications to evaluating only absolute prohibitions—mainly absolute grounds for non-registrability due to the sign’s lack of distinctiveness—and those related to public order. Conflicts between similar trademarks are subject to claims by third parties who believe that a trademark for which registration has been requested is similar to or likely to be confused with theirs, in which case they must file an opposition to such registration. Once the examination has been carried out and the 30-day period from the publication of the trademark application in the Official Gazette has expired, if no oppositions have been filed against the trademark, it will be granted.
The recitals of this Resolution establish the key to this new approach, which aims to promote “investment, innovation, competitive differentiation, and job creation throughout the national territory,” making it clear that it is the owner of a trademark right “who must decide whether or not to defend it against possible infringements” through oppositions, invalidity and/or non-use cancellation actions.
This new criterion brings Argentina closer to the most relevant trademark systems at the international level, especially that of the European Union. A predictable, modern trademark system aligned with international standards brings order to the market and fosters investment and economic development.
by Emilio BerkenwaldTowards a new balance between human creation and AI
Artificial intelligence has become a central part of our daily lives. It generates texts, images, melodies, and even contributes to the development of technical innovations. However, this advance has sparked a legal and philosophical debate: can AI be the owner of intellectual property rights?
For now, the short answer is no. The world’s leading intellectual property offices require that the inventor or author be a human being. In the case known as “DABUS,” patent applications were filed naming as the inventor an AI (“Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience”) developed by researcher Stephen Thaler. Between 2023 and 2025, courts in the United Kingdom, Germany, Korea, and Japan confirmed that only humans can be recognized as inventors, even if the system generated the invention autonomously. The case became a global benchmark and confirmed that, at least for now, artificial intelligence cannot hold industrial property rights, particularly invention patents.
Some authors argue that, in the near future, it may be necessary to redefine the notion of legal personality to include machines with autonomy and creative capacity. They even speak of a possible “robotic legal personality” that would allow certain rights or obligations to be recognized for intelligent systems. For now, that idea seems closer to science fiction than legal reality.
So, what can be protected by intellectual property rights in the context of artificial intelligence? It is important to distinguish between the different types of protection that exist. If AI generates an artistic or literary work, the result could be protected by copyright, depending on the territory, provided that there is a certain degree of human intervention in the creative process. In the case of an industrial design, its ornamental aspect may be protected, and in the case of a technical invention, a patent could be applied for. In all cases, the author of the work, the designer, or the inventor must be human beings, and the objects must meet the corresponding validity requirements (originality in the case of works; novelty and distinctive character for a design; novelty, inventive step, and industrial application for an invention).
In the case of patents, current practice recognizes “AI-assisted inventions,” i.e., developments in which artificial intelligence collaborates with humans and is used as a tool, but does not replace their role as inventors. Therefore, patents for AI-assisted inventions continue to be examined under the same criteria as computer-implemented inventions, for which there is extensive case law. Under this approach, it is also possible to protect generative AI technology involving a model or algorithm, provided that it meets the traditional requirements of novelty, inventive step, and industrial application.
In turn, since patents are not authorizations for use, there may be obstacles to exploitation when the development obtained with AI is based on training data or software protected by prior rights. A researcher may hold a patent on a new AI application, but if they used data or tools protected by third parties to develop it, they may need to obtain the appropriate authorizations in order to exploit it commercially.
This tension is evident in the debate over Studio Ghibli-style images. In 2024, various AI models began producing visual works that imitated the Japanese studio’s style, prompting complaints from creators’ associations and warnings about the unauthorized use of protected material in model training. In some jurisdictions, a “visual style” is not always protected by copyright per se, although the production of derivative or overly similar works could constitute infringement, e.g., if they reproduce well-known characters or scenes.
Some countries are already considering whether to establish specific exceptions for the use of data for training generative AI models. The idea would be to allow certain uses without infringing copyright, provided that conditions such as transparency, scientific purpose, or non-commercial use are met.
Artificial intelligence poses a challenge to the current legal framework. Its ability to create, learn, and evolve forces us to rethink the boundaries of authorship and intellectual property. We are in the process of redefining the relationship between humans and technology in a context where machines are no longer just tools, but creative actors with a real impact on the economy and culture. At the same time, the law will have the difficult task of finding a balance between protecting innovation, ethics, and common sense.