Dallas Trademark Consent Agreements

A consent agreement is a contract where one party agrees to allow the use and/or registration of an overlapping trademark by another party.

TRADEMARK CONSENT AGREEMENT IN TEXAS

What Is A Consent Agreement?

A consent agreement is a written document that two parties enter into when one party agrees to the registration of a second party's trademark within the United States Patent and Trademark Office. If the application is denied registration under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act due to the likelihood of confusion, a consent agreement can then be submitted to overcome the refusal. However, the examining Attorney could still refuse registration because of confusion even if one party agrees to the other party registering a similar mark.

Will A Consent Agreement Be Enough?

 Recently there was a case brought before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, in reference to A-Plant 2000 ApS, Serial No. 79162833 (August 25, 2017); the Board affirmed the refusal due to the likelihood of confusion even though both parties entered into a consent agreement. The Board stated these factors must be considered when weighing a consent agreement: (1) an agreement between two parties; (2) does the consent agreement set forth that the goods must travel in separate trade channels; (3) did the parties agree to restrict fields of use; (4) did the parties detail how the likelihood of confusion will be avoided in the agreement and (5) has the mark been used in commerce for some time without evidence of confusion.

A Detailed Consent Is Best 

To avoid what can be known as a "naked" consent agreement, both parties must make sure to detail the reasons they believe there will not be any confusion between the sources of the mark. In addition, the steps that will be taken to avoid confusion must be written as well. A naked consent doesn't carry much weight, but a detailed consent could.

 

A detailed consent can carry significant weight because the owners of the mark do not want to cause any public confusion. In most cases, the owners typically strive to protect their intellectual property in any way they can. In addition, these owners don't want to damage their business in any way. Overall, all evidence must be examined to determine the likelihood of confusion.

 

The consent agreement in re A-Plant 2000 ApS was found to have several defects. First, even though there was an agreement to restrict the applicant's use, the restriction was not reflected in the identification. Second, there was also no statement in the consent agreement to restrict separate trade channels and consumers. Moreover, the agreement showed, in fact, that the parties' goods would be sold in the same market and probably to the same buyers.

 

Lastly, both parties failed to set forth specific measures preventing consumer confusion. A way in which preventative measures could have been taken would be detailing how they could use distinctive packaging for the goods or requiring different signage to be displayed for the sale of the goods. Just by stating that both parties will cooperate in avoiding confusion is simply not enough. The Board decided the consent agreement was not enough to avoid confusion. They determined the mark was a neutral factor. Trademark counsel must review an agreement before submission to the USPTO is made to prevent refusal. If you need guidance concerning a consent agreement, please contact our office for a complimentary consultation.

We Are Here To Help

If you have found yourself questioning whether a consent agreement is best for you, please contact our firm for a free consultation. Our attorneys are prepared to guide you through the process and help you decide the best route to take to protect your trademark.

a blue and orange check mark with the letter w on it as the Wilson Legal Group Logo

CLIENT MATTERS


5,000+


YEARS OF SERVICE

 25+

Award Winning

Recognized in the legal industry as dedicated board-certified lawyers and Rising Stars.

Expert Team

Your project will be handled by legal experts every time. You will have the most experienced attorneys working for you. 

Quality Representation

You’ll find the support you need to ensure that things run smoothly. We’re here to help with all your legal needs.

Meet Our Team

View All
A bartender is pouring whiskey into a glass at a bar.
By John Wilson May 6, 2025
TABC Administrative Proceedings in Texas 
A person is holding a cell phone in front of a book titled artificial intelligence
By John Wilson February 19, 2025
Copyright and Translated Content: Who Owns the Creative Rights? Understanding Copyright Law and Translation Copyright law protects creative work and bestows sole authority over the work upon the creators. For example, the owner of the work of a novel has the right over the work under the concept of the right under the copyright. Courts have found that “the degree of protection afforded by the copyright is measured by what is actually copyrightable in the publication and not by the entire publication.” See, e.g., Dorsey v. Old Sur. Life Ins. Co., 98 F.2d 872, 873 (10th Cir. 1938) (emphasis added). For translations, the situation is not very clear. Translations involve creative judgments over word translation and not the translation of mere words. Hence the knowledge about the applicability of the concept of the right over the work is essential for establishing the right over the work. For example, a Court in the Northern District of California stated that: “ the determinative question is whether Plaintiff holds a valid copyright. ” Signo Trading Intern. Ltd. v. Gordon, 535 F. Supp. 362, 363 (N.D. Cal. 1981). The Signo Trading Court dismissed Plaintiff’s infringement claims because plaintiff did not have a valid copyright as a matter of law in the translations and transliterations at issue because they lacked the “requisite originality.” Id. at 365. Can Translation Be Considered a Creative Process? The Practice of Translating Translation goes beyond the replacement of one word by the equivalent word from the source text. Translating literary work, poetry, and fiction with deeper meanings beyond the surface text is a complex, artistic process. Translating books like The Iliad, for instance, requires the practice of artistic translation to translate the emotions, thoughts, and the culture correctly. Technical Translations and Legal Translations Conversely, technical writing and texts for the law need less creativity and instead value correctness over all else. These writing forms require strict adherence to the original sense, leaving very little room for artistic interpretation. Translations for these writing forms thus typically involve less creative contribution and less potential for the work being protected by copyright. Why Is Creativity Important for Translations for Copyright? Originality when translating For a work to be subject to copyright, some creativity, however slight, is essential. Even when the translation is taken from the work, the translation also includes some creative work by the translator. This creativity can make the translation subject to copyright. A derivative work must “recast, transform[], or adapt[]” a preexisting work and “consist[] of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship.” Id. In other words, it must change or alter the pre-existing work’s content and must itself be an original work of authorship. The Supreme Court stated that “ [t]he sine qua non of copyright is originality ” and that “ [t]o qualify for copyright protection, a work must be original to the author. ” Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991) at 345. “Original, as the term is used in copyright, means only that the work was independently created by the author (as opposed to copied from other works), and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity.” Id. (citing 1 M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Copyright §§ 2.01[A], [B] (1990)). In granting a Rule 12 motion to dismiss, the Signo Trading Court held that: " It is inconceivable that anyone could copyright a single word or a commonly used short phrase, in any language. It is also inconceivable that a valid copyright could be obtained for a phonetic spelling, using standard Roman letters, of such words or phrases. Although lists of words and translations of larger works may be copyrightable, Plaintiff cannot claim credit for any of the elements which make those things copyrightable. For these reasons, Plaintiff does not hold a valid copyright on the translations or transliterations ... " Signo Trading, 535 F. Supp. at 365. The Problem of the Derivative Work However, translations are generally "derivative works" - derived from the work of another. Because of this, the owner or author of the work is generally required to agree to the translation. Translations made illegally can be held under the classification of copyright violations, even when the translator has added creative elements. Who Has the Right over the Translated Work? Employer-Commissioned Translations Ownership of the copyright for the translation work varies. If the translation is commissioned by the owner of the original work, the owner will retain the right. Even when the translator adds creativity by passing over the original emotions and thoughts, the owner will not necessarily lose the right over the translation work. In some circumstances, the translation work can be accredited by the translator without them holding the right over the work. Independent Translations If a translation is performed independently by the translator, the translator can even be identified as the co-author of the translation. Nevertheless, the author typically has the underlying copyright, restricting the translator’s right over the work. Creative Translations from the Public Domain In certain cases, a translation may be creative enough to warrant its own copyright. For example, a translator adapting a classic work or a book in the public domain into modern language may introduce enough originality to qualify for copyright protection. However, direct, word-for-word translations are typically not considered original enough to receive new copyright protection. What About Machine Translations? The Human Creativity Copyright Requirement Machine-generated translations, including those produced by platforms like OpenAI , operate through advanced algorithms that replicate language patterns rather than capture the human touch. Unlike translations crafted by human translators who often infuse cultural insight and genuine emotion into the work, OpenAI's output is rooted in statistical patterns and data. Consequently, while these translations are impressively efficient and accurate, they typically fall short of the originality required for copyright protection. This distinction underscores the human creativity requirement needed to secure a valid copyright . Ultimately, although machine-generated translations serve as powerful tools, they do not offer the same legal and creative protections as those provided by human translators. The Bottom Line: Navigating Copyright in Translations Translations occupy the middle ground under the law of the copyright. Albeit the right of the original author generally has the right under the copyright, the right under the copyright can also be claimed by the translator provided the translation is creative enough. Central considerations here include the creativity the translator has added, the nature of the work being translated, and whether the work is under the public domain. These considerations establish the right of the owner under the copyright for the translation. Why Wilson Whitaker Rynell for Your Copyright Work? At Wilson Whitaker Rynell, our professional lawyers specialize in the practice of copyright law and copyright litigation , including the complex subject matter of translation work. We can provide you with advice about the ownership of your work under the provisions of the copyright, and protect your creative property. If you are the author, the publisher, or the translator, you can rely upon the advice from our firm. Copyright Translation FAQS
A building with a sign that says law offices on it
By John Wilson February 12, 2025
Strategic Legal Representation for Complex Business Litigation
Show More