Trademark Consent And Coexistence Agreement

In addition, it is not likely that trademark holders will easily grant a leveraged approval agreement. It reveals differences in the respective brands, which mainly include differences between the brands themselves (appearance, sound/pronunciation, spelling, importance) and the products/services concerned. An approval agreement is a kind of co-existence agreement. Trademark filers may include a consent agreement in the minutes of a trademark tracking for registration purposes. Often, an approval agreement is the brand`s best option to convince the auditor that the proposed brand is unlikely to create confusion in the market. The auditor believes that the parties to an approval agreement are most affected by the potential for consumer confusion in the marketplace; If both parties say consumer confusion is unlikely, the examiner may be more likely to grant brand sharing. There is always a risk in concluding a brand co-existence agreement. Perhaps in the future you would like to expand into new territories and markets and you will find limited by an agreement that you signed many years ago. A co-existence agreement may also restrict your right to transfer your trademark or your ability to enforce it.

Finally, if the other company produces poor quality products or offers insufficient service, your own reputation could suffer. The key to the conviction lies in the applicant`s leverage – that is, the applicant`s previous use justifies the removal of the registration of the blocking mark, as long as the registration is no more than five years old. The priority of use is also a basis for opposition to a trademark application during the opposition period. Trademark owners must protect the value of their trademarks and avoid long-term negative consequences that could negate the short-term benefits of a co-existence agreement. The experience of a lawyer with trademark and intellectual property ownership is an invaluable advantage in developing a strategy of agreement on the use of the trademark. Sooner or later, most trademark holders will have to assess the pros and cons of trademark consent contracts. Since the applicant wishes to obtain the agreement of a third party or vice versa, these agreements are part of the brand landscape. Even if they are short and simple, they can have lasting effects and rights holders are smart to keep an eye on a few critical points.

The USPTO reviews many relevant factors and evidence before reaching a conclusion regarding the approval of a trademark. In cases where the USPTO believes that the requested mark could lead to confusion between the consumer and a previously registered trademark, the USPTO will place significant weight on an agreement between the applicant and the registered trademark holder. However, the approval agreement should be sufficiently detailed, with concrete reasons and evidence indicating that the parties involved do not foresee consumer confusion and the explicit steps they will take to further minimize them. The „naked“ approval agreements (which contain only permission to register the trademark and a brief statement that confusion is unlikely) are much less persuasive to the USPTO. In the end, a high probability of consumer confusion due to extremely similar brands may even null and void the most detailed consent agreement. Where the holder of a registered trademark must obtain authorization, the main lever is generally the applicant`s priority (i.e. the applicant`s prior use of the mark). A well-developed approval agreement should highlight the differences between the brands involved. While this is not necessary, it would be helpful to explain that the parties would take steps to minimize confusion or eliminate actual confusion should it occur.

Dieser Eintrag wurde veröffentlicht in Allgemein. Lesezeichen auf den Permanentlink.