Trademark Consent Agreement Template

A consent agreement only allows current use without addressing the inevitable development of trademarks. Before agreeing, the parties should take into account possible collateral effects. For example, the agreement will likely appear in a subsequent dispute regarding the disputed marks or related marks. Registrants should understand that if they pull a line into the sand that allows the marking of a party, third parties will undoubtedly expect the same treatment. It is therefore essential to ensure the proper linguistic conditioning of consent to the goods/services/marks in question. Similarly, a registrant`s ability to prevent third parties from using similar marks is necessarily compromised where the registrant needs the agreement of another party to obtain its registration. Despite those restrictions, it is still necessary, in some cases, to continue the registration and use of the mark at issue, while in other cases it is preferable for the applicant to pursue an entirely different mark. A consent agreement is an agreement by which one party accepts the registration of a mark by the other or in which each party accepts the registration by the other party of an identical or similar mark. TMEP 1207.01 (d) (viii).

The correct form of a consent agreement varies from country to country. In the United States, brand verifiers give less weight to approval agreements that do not detail the reasons why there is no likelihood of confusion than those that do. Consent agreements can be signed by both parties or only by the registrant, depending on whether the agreement contains commitments/assurances to both parties. Consent agreements must be signed by persons legally entitled to bind the parties concerned and must not be signed perjury. (2) A trademark application has not been filed carefully: it has been filed without an instruction from a lawyer or, even worse, by a filing company. The subsequent plaintiff did not consider choosing or avoiding certain terms or themes in the description of the goods or services in order to reduce the risk of a finding of conflict by the USPTO. The USPTO considers many relevant factors and evidence before concluding whether a trademark should be registered. In situations where the USPTO believes that the trademark is likely to cause confusion between the consumer and a previously registered trademark, the USPTO will have significant weight for a consent agreement between the applicant and the trademark owner. However, the consent agreement should be sufficiently detailed and contain specific reasons and evidence why the parties concerned do not expect consumers to be confused and to take explicit measures to minimise them. “Naked” consent agreements (which contain only permission to register the trademark and a brief statement that confusion is unlikely) are far less convincing to the USPTO.

Ultimately, even the most detailed consent agreement can be voided by a high risk of confusion due to extremely similar trademarks. Naked Trademark Consent Agreements are agreements that contain little more than the consent of a former registrant to the registration of a trademark and perhaps a simple statement that source confusion is considered unlikely and is generally considered less convincing than agreements indicating the specific reasons why the parties think: that there is no likelihood of confusion and identify the particular measures taken by the parties so as not to confuse public opinion. . . .