Coexistence Agreements

In this way, both sides remain aware of the coexistence and potential problems that can arise if they do not respect the conditions on which they have agreed on trade. The case of Apple Corps, a label founded by the Beatles, and Apple Computer2 illustrate the difficulties (see WIPO 3/2006 magazine). The two companies entered into a brand coexistence agreement in 1991. This provided that Apple Computer had the exclusive right to use its Apple trademarks „in or in combination with electronic products, computer software, computer and data transmission services“; while Apple Corps would have the exclusive right to use its own Apple trademarks „on or in connection with current or future creative works, the principal content of which was music and/or musical performances, regardless of the means used to record or communicate them, whether material or immaterial.“ So while both companies had confusing brand marks, they identified one area in which they stood out — the fields of use — and that became the basis of their coexistence agreement. The agreement allowed both companies to continue doing business and build on their reputations, without infringing on the rights of the other. A simple consent agreement is usually less expensive because it requires less time and resources for development. However, you get what you pay for and a coexistence agreement certainly offers more protection. A trademark coexistence agreement should contain the following elements: coexistence agreements may be useful in resolving current or future uncertainties and difficulties between the parties regarding the use of similar marks. However, it is not recommended to use such agreements when the trademark owner: many coexistence agreements, once concluded, are abandoned and forgotten, while the companies that concluded them move forward and return from the negotiating table to their normal business activities.

.