A trademark coexistence agreement may be used where the owners of distinct, similar or identical marks that are likely to cause confusion agree to clarify the circumstances in which the respective marks may be used and/or registered in order to reduce the likelihood of confusion, settle disputes between them and/or avoid future disputes. Therefore, the reason for this agreement is that both parties set out the conditions under which their trademarks can “coexist” peacefully, without either party claiming that their respective trademark rights are infringed. A concordation or coexistence agreement is often concluded when a party has difficulty registering its trademark. When obtaining authorization for such registration, the parties should carefully consider whether consent should relate only to the registration of competing marks or to the use of such marks. If the parties agree to the use, they are in fact granting a license under their own trademarks. This decision should not be taken lightly, especially if the agreement is concluded only because a party is experiencing technical difficulties in registering a trademark. The conclusion of a trademark coexistence agreement always carries a certain risk. Perhaps in the future you would like to expand into new territories and markets and see yourself limited by an agreement you signed many years ago. A coexistence agreement may also restrict your right to the transmission of your trademark or impair your ability to enforce it. Finally, if the other company produces low-quality products or offers insufficient service, your reputation could suffer. We see many agreements that contain clauses that state that the agreement is “beneficial to the assignees and the beneficiaries of the assignment” or something like that. While this type of clause may have legal effect in some jurisdictions, in most common law countries (New Zealand, Australia, United Kingdom), the legal impact of this clause is questionable at best. .

. .