INPI Resolución No. 295/2024: A change tool that is beginning to show results
By Paula Galván
Less than a year after its entry into force, INPI Resolution No. 295/2024 is starting to show its effects: cases are moving forward, processes are being streamlined, and the system is seeking renewal. How are we doing today, and what can we expect going forward?
This article provides an update to our initial analysis published in the September 2024 edition of BeNews, in which we assessed the first impressions following the implementation of the Resolution.
Eight months after the entry into force of INPI Resolution No. 295/2024, the opposition proceedings in Argentina show clear signs of evolution. The measure, aimed at expediting resolution processes, enabled a firm step toward reducing the backlog of pending oppositions and optimizing the use of administrative resources. In this article, we review the main conclusions from its practical application to date.
A necessary change: Clear objectives and tangible results
INPI Resolution No. 295/2024 was introduced with two main objectives: (i) to reduce the significant backlog in the processing of ratified oppositions, and
(ii) to focus the Institute’s resources on those cases where both parties expressed an interest in having the conflict resolved administratively.
Today, the balance is positive. According to data provided by INPI, approximately seventeen thousand (17,000) trademark cases with ratified oppositions notified to the applicant and pending resolution had accumulated. Following the entry into force of the Resolution, nearly eleven thousand (11,000) trademark cases were notified under the transitional clause, distributed across seven (7) trademark bulletins. The most recent batch of notifications was published on March 12, 2025 (very likely the last one based on the transitional clause), showing INPI’s effort to close this stage and definitively resolve these pending cases.
The impact was clear: as a result of this process, the backlog in the processing of cases with ratified oppositions was substantially reduced, effectively achieving the first major objective of the reform.
A more efficient and focused procedure
The change introduced by the Resolution -imposing on the applicant the obligation to pay an additional fee to activate the administrative resolution- proved to be a good practice that contributed to a more rational use of the Institute’s resources.
Far from generating confusion, applicants properly understood that the transitional clause only allowed for the payment of the fee, without enabling the submission of spontaneous defenses at that stage.
Although the fee payment notices issued under the transitional clause were not visibly incorporated into the digital case files, they were uploaded -with some delay- into the trademark tracking system, allowing their monitoring. This practice, although improvable, reasonably fulfilled the intended objective, and the act of notification was accessible through the tracking grid of each trademark.
Implementation lessons: Some practical observations
In the context of the notifications issued pursuant to the transitional clause of Resolution No. 295/24, certain relevant nuances were observed:
- INPI issued an individual notification to the applicant for each ratified opposition, requiring payment of the fee under the transitional clause. While this practice is consistent with the one followed for the notification of ratified oppositions, multiple fee notifications to the applicant may cause confusion, especially because: a) in some cases involving multiple oppositions, notifications were issued in different bulletins; b) multiple notifications complicate the calculation of when an application will be ready to be definitively rejected; and c) the Resolution establishes that the applicant must only pay a single fee per application.
- Although it is still early to draw definitive conclusions on this point (because many of the cases notified in recent months are still pending resolution), it is expected that even in cases where the applicant was notified multiple times for the payment of the fee due to different ratified oppositions, only one fee payment will suffice to prevent the automatic rejection of the application and to compel INPI’s Trademark Office to issue a decision on the merits of each opposition.
- In the cases where applicants failed to pay the fee based on the transitional clause, INPI acted promptly: the first rejection decisions for non-payment date from September 17, 2024, just weeks after the Resolution came into force.
Currently, all trademarks notified under the transitional clause whose applicants did not pay the fee have been rejected. - In our experience, we noticed isolated cases where, despite the transitional clause being applicable, the applications had not been included in the notification batches, even though later-filed cases had already been notified. Upon notifying INPI of these isolated omissions, the Institute reacted quickly and incorporated the missed cases into the following trademark bulletin. This agile response reflects a positive attitude by INPI to promptly correct isolated errors reported by users.
Generally, and now turning back to the notification of maintained oppositions to applicants, it is important to bear in mind that the payment of the fee allows the applicant to submit its defense at that time. The procedural strategy at this point is clear: the notification of the transfer of the opposition and the request for payment of the fee opens the only instance for the applicant to submit arguments. If the applicant fails to do so at that time, INPI’s Trademark Office will no longer consider such arguments, and if the opposition is declared founded, the applicant will not be able to introduce new arguments on appeal before the National Civil and Commercial Federal Court of Appeals.
An operational aspect to be considered is that although the fee established by Resolution No. 295/2024 is included in the general list of INPI fees, it is not yet automatically available when uploading a response against an opposition in the digital file.
As a result, to effectively pay the new fee, applicants must initiate a separate filing in addition to the submission of their defense arguments. In this simultaneous filing, the applicant must expressly request the payment of the new fee and manually select fee code 170000, corresponding to “Administrative Resolution of Pending Oppositions – Applicant’s Fee under Article 2 bis of Resolution 183/18”.
Although effective, this additional procedure currently represents an operational inconvenience for applicants, who must complete two separate filings for the same procedural act. It would be advisable for INPI to incorporate this fee payment option directly into the filing process for responding oppositions, thereby streamlining the management for applicants.
The system regains momentum
As previously announced, INPI prioritized the handling of pre-existing ratified oppositions, temporarily suspending the notification of new ratified oppositions until all pending notifications were completed. This commitment was honored: as of February 5, 2025, INPI resumed the notification of new maintained oppositions, progressively normalizing the pace of proceedings.
The decision to sequence priorities allowed for a more orderly and efficient approach, logically ensuring that older cases were resolved before newer ones.
An optimistic outlook
There is still progress to be made toward achieving greater speed in the administrative resolution of oppositions, consistent with the spirit of Law No. 27,444 and its Regulatory Decree No. 242/2019, which promoted the debureaucratization and simplification of procedures. We are confident that, as this new stage consolidates, INPI will continue improving timelines and efficiency, thus fulfilling the purpose of providing faster and more specialized responses, as originally intended when transferring these powers from the judiciary to the administrative sphere.
INPI Resolution No. 295/2024 has proven to be an effective tool for easing system congestion by filtering truly active applications, focusing resources, and improving the dynamics of opposition proceedings. While all changes generate some uncertainty, as often happens after initial reticence, the overall balance is clearly positive.
In times where agility and efficiency are increasingly demanded, this first step invites optimism that the Argentine trademark system can continue evolving towards clearer, more dynamic, and user-focused procedures, in line with the best practices in the region.
Special thanks to Candela Basilotta, whose collaboration was key in systematizing these initial conclusions.
For further information please contact pgalvan@ojambf.com
