The process of selecting a brand should be conducted with caution and foresight, with as comprehensive a search as possible, preferably with the help of a specialist. If, despite these efforts, a conflict arises with the same or a similar brand on the market, a coexistence agreement may be less costly than a legal confrontation. While this does not mean that it is always better to capitulate and accept coexistence in the face of litigation, litigation may be the only appropriate reaction in certain situations. It is for the proprietors of the trade mark to assess, on a case-by-case basis, what the appropriate reaction would be in the light of their particular situation. A brand coexistence agreement is an agreement between two parties for a similar brand to be used for marketing purposes, without interfering with each other in each other`s businesses. Agreements of this type are often concluded, as the parties only request the regional use of their trademarks and, therefore, the use of a trademark by other companies does not harm their activities. Coexistence agreements can include designs, copyrights, and even patents. [Citation required] 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.  Coexistence agreements operate in the same way as consent agreements with respect to their weight under 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, particularly in sectors closely related to the public interest, such as.B. in the health sector. .