Monitoring co-existence in a crowded market

Unlike trademark registration systems, which are national or regional by nature, the internet offers a global and potentially limitless market. Businesses with the same or confusingly similar company or product names can face a considerable challenge to mitigate the risks of brand confusion online. Markus Rouvinen explains how Novagraaf’s tailored approach to online brand protection was able to help a multinational life sciences conglomerate to enforce its rights and protect customers on the web.

The internet has given companies and their consumers access to a global market, but this can pose challenges for companies from different jurisdictions or industries that share the same or similar name. Trademark co-existence agreements enable companies with conflicting trademarks to agree and record terms for their co-existence; for example, an agreement not to move into the other party’s industry sector or market. While such agreements can keep a potential trademark dispute out of the courts, saving both businesses considerable time and money, they do not come without risks. The terms agreed upon can become outdated over time, particularly online, where geographic borders tend to fade away and technological change happens at a fast pace.

Through our bespoke online brand protection solution, Novagraaf was able to design a cost-effective monitoring and enforcement solution for a multinational life science and chemicals conglomerate.

Key areas of focus include: supervision online of a crucial co-existence agreement; safeguarding against potential genericide of trademark-protected chemical ingredients; and regulatory compliance in relation to the illicit sale of pharmaceutical products.

Discover more about our tailored solution by downloading the case study below.

Online brand protection case study

Monitoring co-existence terms for a multinational life science and chemicals conglomerate.

Latest news

Hot topics

Battle of the eagles: Trademark infringement and ‘indirect’ confusion

If a likelihood of direct confusion between two trademarks cannot be established, the courts may still be prepared to find infringement on the basis of a likelihood of indirect confusion. A decision by the England and Wales Court of Appeal over the ‘American Eagle’ trademark provides some insight into the circumstances necessary for indirect confusion to apply.

By Laura Morrish,
Battle of the eagles: Trademark infringement and ‘indirect’ confusion

For more information, please contact us

Cookie policy

To provide the best possible experience for website visitors, Novagraaf uses cookies. By clicking "Accept" or continuing using the site, you agree to our privacy policy, including our cookie policy.