[E-trademarks] Unusual Consent Agreement Situation - Will the USPTO Accept It?

[daniel at keganlaw.com]

Trademark registrations are nice, but sometimes market and organizational realities might be more important.

I wonder the age, and health, of the two principals, do they have any employees, and succession plans.
Several shorter-term possible solutions. How much of the business/marketing derives from a website.
Are goods, services, or both involved.

I’d consider, if PTO doesn’t accept the mutually consented separate applications, amending to concurrent
applications, perhaps dividing by Mississippi River states or the like, and having on their (assumed)
website some mutually consented disclaimer that they are based in West Coast/East Coast. Also a signed 
agreement that the two companies/principals won’t challenge the other trademark usage for geographic
issues etc, and will continue to take reasonable means, such as quoted web disclaimer, to notify
prospects and purchasers of the company’s location. Review all the above for truthfulness and ethics.
Might support concurrent applications and unrestricted nationwide sales.

Daniel Kegan
Keennett Sq PA


> On Dec 4, 2024, at 12:33 PM, Amanda Conley via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
> Hello Braintrust, 
> Seeking advice on how folks think the USPTO might respond to a consent agreement in a rather unusual situation.
> 
> My client previously operated a business with a partner under the name UNIQUE MARK. Several years ago, the partners agreed to go their separate ways, signing an agreement that dealt only very cursorily with the use of UNIQUE MARK. The agreement essentially stated that both partners would share equal ownership over UNIQUE MARK, but did not address registration. At the time of the agreement, no applications had been filed for UNIQUE MARK.
> 
> Fast forward to several months ago, my client learned that its former partner had filed USPTO trademark applications in its own name for three marks, let’s call them: (1) UNIQUE MARK; (2) UNIQUE MARK BROOKLYN; and (3) UNIQUE MARK ATLANTA.  
> 
> I’ll skip over the details of the dispute that ensued. The issue now is this: the partner has agreed to withdraw the application for UNIQUE MARK alone, without a geographical indicator, but wants to retain (2) and (3) in its individual name. My client is ok with this in principle, but wants to file an application for UNIQUE MARK OAKLAND in its own name. The goods are identical (many customers still assume that the partners are working together) and while the parties’ physical locations are on opposite coasts, their customers originate from all over, and they are not interested in agreeing to geographic restrictions on their use beyond physical locations. Also, each of these marks are stylized in an identical manner, making them obviously related. 
> 
> The former partner has agreed to consent to my client’s registration of UNIQUE MARK OAKLAND. But I am very concerned that the USPTO is not going to accept this consent under these unusual circumstances. The marks have identical stylization and differ only by the inclusion of geographic indicators. The goods are identical. 
> 
> I’ve proposed various solutions as a contingency in case the USPTO does not accept the former partner’s consent, (e.g., joint ownership, ownership by a jointly owned LLC, etc.) but they are not open to these. Counsel for the former partner insists that the USPTO will accept the consent agreement if the parties believe confusion isn’t likely, but I’m not convinced, and am still pushing for us to build in a contingency.
> 
> And so I’d love to hear from folks on this thread: am I being overly conservative in my expectations of the USPTO? I understand that consent agreements are often accepted as long as they have some teeth, but this is such a unique situation that it gives me serious concerns. Any insight would be much appreciated.
> 
> Thanks in advance!
> Best,
> Amanda R. Conley
> she/her/hers
> Conley Law, P.C.
> 2601 Blanding Avenue Suite C-393
> Alameda, CA 94501
> p: (510) 500-5210                           
> e: amanda at amandaconleylaw.com <mailto:amanda at amandaconleylaw.com>
> w: amandaconleylaw.com <http://www.amandaconleylaw.com/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241204/163ccba6/attachment.html>