On September 19, 2012, in the case “Picca, Estela v. Palacios, Ariel”, Division 3 of the National Court of Appeals on Federal Civil and Commercial Matters ruled that the trademark "AROMAS CASEROS” (and device) (home-made scents, in Spanish) applied for in international class 29 was not confusingly similar with the opposing trademarks "AROMAS" and "AROMAS” (and device) in the same class.

To so decide, and thus reverse the Judge of First Instance´s decision that had declared them to be confusingly similar, the Court argued as follows: (i) the word "Caseros" and the drawing accompanying the plaintiff’s trademark (a bowl on a plate with a steaming liquid substance, which appears to be a soup made from tomatoes and herbs) provides sufficient distinctiveness vis-a-vis the opponent´s trademark; (ii) the plaintiff has the same trademark "Aromas Caseros” (and design) registered in class 41 since 2003 and is the owner of an amateur cooking school called "Aromas Caseros Cooking School"; and (iii) it is not reasonable to assume that consumers will confuse the products that the plaintiff wants to use with the trademark "Aromas Caseros” (“poultry, game, jellies, jams, eggs and dairy products”) with those sold by the defendant in his chain of coffee shops called "Aroma", where different types coffee and teas, sandwiches and patisserie can be found.

The Court thus concluded that, although the trademarks involved belong to the same class and share the word "Aroma", they are different enough to avoid association as to the origin of the products, and allow discarding an unfair competition purpose. In this case, it seems that the Court took specially into account the fact that the opposing trademarks had been assigned to the company Aroma Café S.A., which owns coffee stores under the names "AROMA" or "AROMA CAFE": the Court held that "in the settlement of disputes like this, the commercial and productive interests at stake should be borne in mind”.