Court of Appeals Reverses Rejection of Trademark Including “Eco” for Not Being Misleading

Eco de los Andes SA filed an application to register the trademark “ECO DE LOS ANDES LOGICA USEMOS UNA NUEVA LOGICA” (and design) in classes 16 and 32 of the international classification. The Trademark Office rejected both applications on the grounds that the trademark was misleading (article 3 paragraph d of the Trademark Law No. 22362) and its registration is prohibited for including the term "eco" (article 11 of Decree 206/2001, which regulates Law 25127). Eco de los Andes took the decision of the Trademark Office to court and requested its reversal.

The first instance judge upheld the Trademark office’s decision on the basis of the rules mentioned above, sustaining that it had not found exceptions to them in this case. Eco de los Andes appealed this decision.

The Court of Appeals took into account that, visually, the trademark could also be read as “ECOLOGICA DE LOS ANDES, USEMOS UNA NUEVA LOGICA”.

It also considered that ECO DE LOS ANDES is a trademark registered in Argentina to identify the product "natural mineral spring water".

Further, the Court considered the Argentine Food Code definition of “natural mineral water” as “that not subject to treatments- except for permitted operations”, which is different from “drinking water” or “common water for drinking”. Following the Code, any labeling must state the name of the product using expressions such as "table natural mineral water from springs", "natural mineral water from springs", "table natural mineral water," or "natural mineral water". 

As for the term "ecológico" (ecological), the court confirmed that it refers to what is made or obtained without using chemical compounds that harm the environment. It concluded that natural mineral spring water is an environmentally friendly product, and connecting it to ecology did not imply an attempt to mislead the consumer with a characteristic it does not have. The Court thus rejected applying article 3 paragraph (d) of the Trademark Law to this trademark.

The Court then analyzed Law 25127 and stated that, for the purposes of this law, “ecological, biological or organic” means any agricultural production system, agro-industry and sustainable harvesting, capture, and hunting systems that—through the rational management of natural resources—avoid using chemical synthesis products and other products that may effectively or potentially affect human health.

Moreover, article 11 of Decree 206/2001 states that the terms above cannot be used as trademarks or part of trademark combinations on products of agricultural origin such as foodstuffs, fibers, woods, furniture, or paper. However, mineral spring water is not an agricultural product and is suitable for drinking, unlike "agricultural water," which is used for growing fresh produce and raising livestock.  Therefore, Law 25127 and its regulatory decree do not apply to mineral spring water. Therefore, the judgment of the First Instance was reversed.