Changes of ownership before de INPI: New Regulation | Argentina
On May 29, INPI Resolution No. 162/2026 was published, approving a new regulation for the recordal of transfers of ownership and name changes before the National Institute of Industrial Property.
The new regulation repeals INPI Resolution No. 39 of March 2011 and its amendment, INPI Resolution No. 61 of June 2020, which had governed these proceedings until now. The new regime introduces relevant flexibility for the management of intellectual property assets.
Trademarks, patents, utility models, and industrial designs or models constituteform part of their owners’ assets and, as such, may be transferred. These intangible assets are increasingly relevant in commercial agreements and play a key role in negotiations, corporate reorganizations, and transactions involving industrial property portfolios.
It should be noted that rights that have not yet been granted may also be transferred, meaning that pending applications may also be assigned. When a change of ownership takes place, proper recordal before the INPI is essential for that change to be enforceable against third parties.
The new regulation addresses the recordal of transfers of ownership and name changes. A transfer of ownership involves an actual change in the owner of the right, while a name change refers to a modification of the name or corporate denomination of the same owner, without any transfer of the right itself.
The regulation also introduces several changes in connection with ownership recordals that should be taken into account.
First, apostille or consular legalization is no longer required for the document or instrument evidencing the requested change, or for the document or instrument evidencing legal representation, provided that such documents were executed in another jurisdiction. This change considerably eases the process for applicants and, most importantly, clarifies the formal requirements applicable to the necessary documentation.
The regulation also maintains and confirms the requirement to certify the assignor’s signature when the document is a private instrument, regardless of where the document was executed.
Another relevant change, which contributes to simplifying practice, concerns multiple recordals and abbreviated chain of title. As a general rule, when multiple successive transfers over the same right must be recorded, separate applications must be filed and the corresponding official fees must be paid for each transfer or modification. However, a single application may be filed when the successive transfers or modifications were executed in the same act and are reflected in a single document. This is an interesting option to consider, especially in cases where the transaction is documented through an ad hoc instrument.
The new regulation also addresses other matters, including spousal consent, deadlines to respond to objections, the prohibition on recording changes over extinguished rights, and the effective date of the recordal.
In short, if the owner of the right is married under a community property regime, the spouse must provide the corresponding consent. If the applicable regime is separation of property, the assignor must evidence that circumstance, unless it had already been evidenced during the prosecution of the application.
If the application is objected to, the applicant will have a ten-business-day term to respond, with three automatic extensions for equal and consecutive periods, in accordance with the mechanism set forth in the regulation.
It will not be possible to record a transfer of ownership or name change if the industrial property right has been extinguished for any reason.
Since the recordal is declaratory in nature, its effects apply from the filing date of the recordal application.
INPI Resolution No. 162/2026 represents a welcome modernization in the management of industrial property assets in Argentina. The repeal of the previous regime and its replacement with a regulation that is conceptually more precise and operationally more agile responds to a need long identified by those operating within the system.
The elimination of certain formal requirements, the express regulation of situations that had previously raised interpretive doubts, and the incorporation of guidelines that facilitate ownership traceability reflect an intention to simplify procedures without undermining legal certainty.
Ultimately, this is a reform that favors simplicity without sacrificing rigor, in line with the objective of consolidating industrial property as an effective tool in the asset and commercial strategy of individuals and legal entities.
