A coexistence agreement can settle trademark disputes from different owners using similar trademarks. Successful coexistence agreements generally limit each trademark owner to the use of the mark within a geographical area, with unrelated goods or within different commercial channels. The agreement must detail the rights of the respective trademark owners and how to avoid confusion in the market. Any party about to conclude a coexistence agreement must assess the advantages and disadvantages of the restrictions imposed on the use of the mark. Consent agreements are quick and easy. If trademark registration is urgent, a consent agreement is the right way to go. If time is not an issue, a coexistence agreement offers better risk management and is more likely to be upheld in court. The purpose of a trademark coexistence agreement is that trademarks are often used in good faith by several companies. The lack of a formal agreement does not undermine any company using the brand, as is the case in different global regions. However, as businesses grow, overlaps may develop and both parties may have substantial rights to the use of the trademark.
In some cases, companies that extend and use the same or a similar trademark usually enter into a coexistence agreement to avoid using the trademark in an undesirable or hurtful manner. Coexistence agreements can provide practical solutions for companies that are concerned about being sued for trademark infringement, as proactive agreements can avoid the high cost of litigation.  The potential benefits of a coexistence agreement are as follows: in many situations, coexistence agreements have commercial and financial meaning and both parties can reach a fair compromise with regard to the use of an identical or similar mark. Complications can arise if one party already has market advantages over the other in the market. In one scenario, a junior user of a trademark may attempt to use the similar or identical mark of an established or older user in a related industry. There are few things the junior user could do for the senior user to enter into a consent agreement – and the results could be detrimental to the senior user of the brand. Coexistence agreements work in the same way as consent agreements with respect to the weight given to them by the USPTO. The more detailed and restrictive the agreement, the more likely it is that the USPTO will maintain its validity while allowing the simultaneous use of the marks.
However, customer confusion can still invalidate an otherwise legitimate agreement, especially in sectors closely related to the public interest, such as for example. B in the health sector. In addition to the USPTO`s assessments of coexistence agreements, it is likely that the courts will remove a coexistence agreement that will have negative effects on competition in the market or would be contrary to anti-dominance rules. Coexistence agreements can offer legal opportunities and economic benefits that, in appropriate circumstances, could prove useful to the trade mark proprietors and consumers concerned. . . .