Co-existence agreements can be a simpler and less costly solution for trademark disputes between the parties, not disputes in appropriate circumstances. A party that is clearly a disciple brand user (not the first party to use a trademark) may have no choice but to seek an acceptance agreement from the older user of the mark (the first party that usually uses and registers a trademark in the trade). However, if the bargaining power between the parties is more regular, a co-existence agreement detailing the issues important to both parties is probably in the interest of all. The bargaining power for the use of the trademark can be created by the status of an older user, by a known or known brand, or by the ownership of additional trademarks that the other party may be interested in limiting. A trademark co-existence agreement is an agreement between two parties to use a similar trademark for marketing purposes without interfering with the other party`s businesses. Such agreements are often concluded because the parties require only the regional use of their trademarks and, therefore, the use of a trademark by other companies will not harm their activities. Co-existence agreements may also include designs, copyrights and even patents. [Citation required] A trademark agreement is usually a simple contract by which a party agrees to authorize the use and/or registration of a trademark that overlaps with another party. The parties also state that their brands are not confusing to consumers. Often, this type of agreement is used when a company has received or is anticipating a refusal to register by the USPTO (U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office). The potential benefits of a co-existence agreement are as follows: co-existence agreements generally act to limit the extension and use of similar trademarks to certain geographical areas or to certain types of goods or services. A co-existence agreement probably also contains provisions for trademarks that are not yet used. When registering a trademark, one of the essential rules is not to choose a mark that resembles an earlier mark. However, in the business and commercial world, two parties may use similar or identical brands to market their goods and services through coexistence agreements. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of the typical benefits and potential pitfalls of coexistence agreements. Companies should also be aware of competition and cartel rules: courts may find that their brands of similar products, which are confusingly congruent, are harming competition in the market. An agreement on the coexistence of trademarks should clearly include: all parties to the agreement, the trademarks or logos indicated to co-exist, an agreement on the domain names used by each party, a list of the areas and geographical areas that contain the trademarks or logos in which coexistence is permitted and prohibited, as well as all relevant plans for the expansion of the company. In addition, the co-existence agreement should include the start and end date of the agreement, a clause relating to the jurisdiction of the agreement and a dispute settlement clause. Brand co-existence describes a situation in which two different companies use a similar or identical brand to market one product or service without necessarily interfering with the activities of the other.
This is not unusual. Brands are often used by small businesses in a limited geographic area or with a regional clientele. Almost all French cities with a train station, for example, have their own buffet restaurant at the station. Often, trademarks are made up of the name of the person who started a business, and where that name is common, it is not uncommon to find similar companies under the same name or name.