Unlike Bay State Brewing, however, KTM-Sportmotorcycle`s approval agreement was suitable for the anniversary. Indeed, beyond the recitals, it consisted of only three paragraphs: a well-developed approval agreement should establish the differences between the marks concerned. 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. The agreement may also indicate specific uses that must be respected by each party (for example. B each party would only use a specific mark with specific words and/or a logo only for certain products or services). The reason for a detailed agreement is that entrepreneurs and value brand rights holders have no interest in confusing public opinion. Trademark holders will generally make efforts to protect their intellectual property rights and will only accept the registration of a similar trademark if they do not harm the company. DuPont believes that an approval agreement is another factor in the likelihood of a confusion analysis and may or may not tip the balance in favour of registration. All evidence must be verified and verified as part of a potential for confusion. On February 25, 2016, TTAB issued its final decision to In re Bay State Brewing Co. 117 USPQ2d 1958, 2016 TTAB LEXIS 46 (TTAB 2016).
In The Bay State Brewing speech, the TTAB confirmed the lawyer`s refusal to register Bay State Brewing`s TIME TRAVELER BLONDE brand for “beer” and relies on the prior registration of A-S Brewing Collaborative for TIME TRAVELER for “beer, ale and warehouse” despite an agreement between the applicant and the registrant. This decision is instructive because it confirms that the TTAB will pay great tribute to the contracting parties who have entered into an approval agreement and that the parties to an approval agreement do not necessarily have to contain provisions on what steps to be taken to avoid confusion in order for approval to be accepted. However, given the TTAB`s indications that such provisions are privileged and probative, it is always desirable to include such provisions. Finally, the TTAB found that the parties` acceptance agreement contained no language on the fact that the marks had coexisted without any real confusion. This is because the applicant`s application was an application of intent to use. The language of the TTAB in this section gives the impression that it will be more difficult to obtain an approval agreement blessed by an audit lawyer or the TTAB if the marks are not used or if the parties do not contain language on co-existence without confusion. 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. The TTAB decided that an approval agreement in which “competitors clearly conceived their business interests” was very important and that the examiner should not replace his judgment on the risk of confusion between two brands with the assessment of the parties of real interests. As a result, TTAB rescinded the refusal to register the AMERICAN CONSTELLATION trademark.
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. Trademark agreement agreements generally refer to an agreement between the parties, in which a party (for example. B a previous registrant) accepts the registration of a trademark by the other party (. For example, an applicant or a similar mark) or by which each party accepts the registration of an identical or similar mark by the other party. (see TMEP 1207.01 (d) (viii)).