[E-trademarks] Registration of Same Mark by Sister Companies

[Paul Supnik]

It is more complicated.  I would think that the only way to deal with this is a coexistence agreement, if you can reasonably show that there is no likelihood of consumer confusion in that document.  I do not think licensing will work.  If one company is the licensee of another company, then, possibly one of the two companies cannot have their own registration.  I believe you can find that in the TMEP regarding sister companies.



[Paul D. Supnik 9454 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 550 Beverly Hills, CA 90212]<https://supnik.com/>



This message, including any attachments, may include privileged or confidential material.  Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.

________________________________
From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> on behalf of Scott Landsbaum via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 9:46 AM
To: for trademark practitioners <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Scott Landsbaum <scott at scottlandsbaum.com>
Subject: [E-trademarks] Registration of Same Mark by Sister Companies

Hello Listmates, I am a little puzzled about the correct document to file with the examiner in the following situation:

Client directly owns two sister companies A and B.  Each company registered Mark in different but related classes.  Unfortunately, company A allowed its registration to expire and had to apply for a new registration for Mark.  The examiner is citing company B's registration in refusing company A's re-application.  To overcome this refusal, is it enough to file a document stating that company A and B are under common control, or do I need to state that one company is the licensee of the other, or even file a co-existence agreement?

Client has its reasons for setting it up this way, so reorganizing the ownership of each registration isn't on the table.

Thanks.

Regards,
Scott

Scott Landsbaum, Inc.
323-314-7881<tel:323-314-7881> / f 323-714-2454
8306 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 420, Beverly Hills, CA  90211
www.scottlandsbaum.com<http://www.scottlandsbaum.com/> / www.linkedin.com/in/scottlandsbaum/<https://www.linkedin.com/in/scottlandsbaum/>

NOTICE: This e-mail is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, forward, print, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains.  Please delete it immediately and notify us by return email or by telephone at (323) 314-7881<tel:%28323%29%20314-7881>.

IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Any discussion of tax matters contained in this or any email (including any attachments) or in any oral or other written communication is not intended to be used and cannot be used for the purpose of avoiding U.S. tax related penalties or in connection with the promotion, marketing or recommendation of any of the matters addressed in the communication.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241029/d4e187bc/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Outlook-Paul D. Su.png
Type: image/png
Size: 108429 bytes
Desc: Outlook-Paul D. Su.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241029/d4e187bc/attachment.png>