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. 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 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).
Approval agreements are simple and fast. If trademark registration is urgent, an approval agreement has disappeared. If time is not a problem, a co-existence agreement offers greater risk management and is instead confirmed by the courts. A company that wants to expand into new regions, sectors, lines or brands should insist that a co-existence agreement be concluded instead of an approval agreement. This allows the company to address the potential risks they are likely to become visible in the future and pave the way for more favourable growth. An approval agreement merely authorizes the current use, without worrying about the inevitable development of trademarks. A simple approval agreement is generally cheaper because it includes less time and resources for the project. However, you will receive what you pay and a co-existence agreement will certainly offer more protection. An agreement on the coexistence of trademarks should include the following: in accordance with these provisions, a party with a registered (and generally registered) trademark includes a set of reciprocal obligations with a party wishing to create a new trademark allowing both parties to continue to use their trademarks.