On March 22, 2012 Division 1 of the Federal Court of Appeals rejected the request for cancellation of trademark “WRGE”, but granted damages for approximately US$ 7,800 derived from the illegal use the defendant had made of such term.

The court considered as sufficient evidence of use of the objected mark a couple of testimonies, the documentary evidence filed including calendars and brochures and a notary public’s declaration.

The plaintiff had objected to the evidence secured by the defendant, emphasizing the fact that said evidence did not include an expert accountant’s opinion. The court of appeals, in turn, disregarded this objection and pointed out that plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant had not used his mark in Argentina. In fact, the court noted that the plaintiff had not sent any request for information to third parties, nor requested the appointment of an expert accountant to look into defendant’s books and records and had limited to simply deny the authenticity of the documentary evidence filed by the adversary.

On the above basis and since, in case of doubt, the solution to a conflict must lean in favor of the subsistence of a right and that a strict criterion should be applied when examining the possibility of the expiration of a right, the court rejected the complaint.