< Back to latest news & events

News

Co-Existence Agreements – The importance of getting them right

June 2020

A co-existence agreement allows businesses to trade using the same (or similar) mark, but with certain agreed restrictions, such as geographical constraints where a mark can be used. For example – one party may be able to sell under the mark in Europe, and another can sell under the mark in the USA. The need for this may arise for example where two parties have unknowingly adopted the same mark at the same time.

The recent case of Merck KGaA v Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp and Ors [2020] EWHC 1273 (Ch) concerned a long running trade mark dispute between Merck KGaA (Merck Global) and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation (Merck US) and illustrates the importance of making sure co-existence agreements are fit for purpose.

Background

Merck Global was founded in 1688 in Germany. A US subsidiary was established that subsequently became an independent company. A co-existence agreement was entered into in 1955 and then updated in 1970, which set out the parties use of the mark ‘Merck’. This agreement provided that Merck US were fine to use this mark in the US and Canada, however in other countries they would use ‘Merck Sharp & Dohme’ (the company’s full name).

Infringement

Merck Global claimed that online and offline uses of ‘Merck’ in the UK by Merck US breached the co-existence agreement between the parties. In 2016, the High Court found that Merck US’ use of the mark in the UK constituted a breach of the co-existence agreement. Merck US appealed, and the Court of Appeal found in 2017 that Merck US had breached the agreement. The issues of whether these breaches constituted trade mark infringement were referred back to the High Court.

The judge found that Merck US’ use of the mark on websites, email addresses and social media targeted at the UK could constitute “use in the course of trade” (i.e. – physical goods do not actually have to be available, given the fact that Merck US had used a different mark on products actually sold in the UK) and accordingly use in this way constituted trade mark infringement. An injunction was granted against Merck US to prevent it from infringing the mark in the UK.

How can a business get this right?

Ensuring that a co-existence agreement will adequately deal with every eventuality that may arise in the future is obviously impossible. However, the co-existence agreement in this instance appeared to be very simple and had not been updated since 1970 (and consequently could never deal with issues such as whether use on social media constituted infringement). Parties to such an agreement should therefore think about the following;

  • What effect could rapidly evolving technology have on the use of a mark in future. Could this widen the use of a mark, sometimes inadvertently beyond the scope of what was originally intended?
  • Where do you realistically intend to sell products? Basing an agreement on current markets and ignoring potential markets could cause problems down the line.
  • Include adequate dispute resolution processes (for example a requirement to mediate a dispute) in order to hopefully avoid costly and lengthy litigation.
  • Given this case and the effects of the internet and other technology, it may be worthwhile introducing requirements for the agreement to be reviewed (for example every ten years) to make sure it adequately provides for such advancements or changes to the parties’ businesses
  • Don’t just consider geography – consider all elements of hard copy and electronic use including social media, websites, physical marketing brochures and other advertising materials.

This article was prepared by HGF Senior IP Solicitor Chris Robinson. If you would like further advice on this or any other matter, please contact Chris.  Alternatively, you can contact your usual HGF representative or visit our Contact page to get in touch with your nearest HGF office.

Latest updates

The EPO Board of Appeal comments on the scope of the morality exclusion from patentability

The recent decision, T1553/22 of the Board of Appeal required the Board to consider the scope of the exclusions from patentability under Article 53(a) EPC. The invention in this case …

Read article

Can intellectual property and foreign investment save struggling European eVTOL companies?

With the ongoing funding difficulties in the European eVTOL sector, we look at the role that intellectual property is likely to play in the prospects for the survival of Lilium …

Read article

Managing IP EMEA Awards 2025

The shortlist for the 20th annual Managing IP EMEA Awards 2025 has been announced, and it is a record-breaking year for HGF’s European team with an incredible 23 nominations! This …

Read article

Designation of a technical standard as a trademark

EUTMR Article 7 (1) (c) and Article 7 (1) (b) – DASH The designation “DASH” of the technical standard/protocol/format for streaming data on the Internet constitutes a descriptive indication in …

Read article

HGF ranked band 4 in Chambers and Partners Global Guide for Germany in 2025

Chambers and Partners Global Guide 2025 is now live. HGF is proud to be ranked as a firm in Germany. HGF is ranked band 4 for: Germany: Intellectual Property: Patent …

Read article

HGF ranked in The Legal 500 Germany 2025

HGF is proud to be ranked in The Legal 500 Germany 2025 guide. The Legal 500 provides the most comprehensive worldwide coverage on recommended Law firms, Lawyers, Attorneys, Advocates, Solicitors, …

Read article

T 1847/22: Procedural considerations in appeal: Re-ordering of requests and the impact on admissibility

Background This case concerned EP 3 085 344 B1, which relates to a wound pad, a self-adhesive member comprising a wound pad. The patent was opposed by two opponents. During …

Read article