Who owns that smile? 3D trademark protection

On December 16, 2025, Division II of the Federal Court of Appeals in Civil and Commercial Matters issued its ruling in the case “Bagley Argentina S.A. c/ Parnor S.A s/ Apelación de Resolución Administrativa.” This ruling affirms the decision of the Trademark Office, who had rejected the oppositions filed by Bagley against two applications filed by Parnor for 3D trademarks in class 30, for cookies depicting facial expressions.

 

Trademark applications filed by Parnor

Bagley’s registered trademarks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Court held that the fact that both trademarks depict cookies with facial expressions does not per se determine their likelihood of confusion, as this is a common and generic graphic device in products in class 30 and its use cannot be monopolized. Accordingly, it found that protection for such signs is limited to the specific distinctive features of each design.

In this regard, the Court emphasized that Parnor’s applications consist of 3D cookies with caricature-like facial expressions, whereas Bagley’s marks are characterized by faces with symmetrical features and arabesque-decorated borders. The Court thus concluded that the marks present sufficient graphic differences to allow them to be distinguished without difficulty.

Further, the Court noted that Parnor already owned similar figurative trademarks registrations that had coexisted in the market with Bagley’s marks without causing confusion.

The Court addressed Bagley’s argument regarding the well-known status of its “Sonrisas” family of marks and concluded that, even though it acknowledges the need to apply a stricter assessment in cases involving well-known marks, this does not alter the outcome of the comparison, as the signs are clearly distinguishable.

Accordingly, the Court upheld the Trademark Office’s decision declaring the oppositions ill-founded and allowing the registration of Parnor’s 3D trademark applications.