Set the rules for similar trade marks

It is often worth considering when two businesses have marks that are similar enough to create friction, but not necessarily so incompatible that one side must stop using its brand altogether. The agreement can be useful where both parties want a practical path forward and need written rules around how the marks will appear in the market. Without that document, the same issues can keep resurfacing through objections, complaint letters, customer confusion, marketplace disputes, or arguments about who crossed the line first.

It commonly sets out the marks involved, the parties' agreed areas of use, and any limits on products, services, territories, branding style, logos, domain names, social handles, or marketing channels. It may also deal with how each side presents the mark, whether disclaimers or distinguishing features are required, and what happens if confusion is reported. In some matters, the agreement also addresses future applications, opposition conduct, consent positions, and steps to take before either party expands into a new category or market.

The drafting usually turns on how close the marks are, how each party actually uses them, and where the commercial overlap sits. For example, the agreement may need different boundaries if the issue is word marks only, a logo plus name combination, or a brand used heavily online. We also look at whether the parties sell to the same customers, whether there are existing registrations or applications in play, and whether one side wants room to expand later. Those facts shape how tight or flexible the restrictions should be.

A template may state broad principles, but these agreements usually work or fail on detail. If the wording is too general, it may not say enough about product categories, online advertising, search terms, social media naming, visual presentation, or what counts as unacceptable confusion. That can leave both sides arguing about interpretation later. A tailored agreement is more likely to reflect the actual pressure points between the brands and to record practical rules that each party can follow in day-to-day trading, not just in theory.

The fixed-fee is for the legal drafting and advice connected with the coexistence agreement itself. If the other party or their lawyers are actively negotiating terms, or if separate filing, objection, or registry-related work is needed, that is usually outside this service unless we agree an expanded scope. We can still explain where those extra steps may arise. Keeping that distinction clear helps you know whether you need a document drafted, a negotiation strategy, or broader trade mark support beyond the agreement.

Just submit an enquiry via this page or click the 'get started' button on our website to submit an enquiry. After you've submitted an enquiry, one of our legal consultants will review your enquiry within 1 business day and get in touch to get a better idea of exactly what you are looking for.

Then your legal consultant will send through an email with a bit more information about the services you need, along with a fixed fee quote setting out costs, scope of the service and timing. Have a read through it, and if you're happy with the scope, you can accept and sign our engagement letter online - easy!

Once you've formally accepted, we'll connect you with a specialist lawyer and they will work with you to complete your project. They will contact you by email or phone if they need to get in touch.

Sprintlaw works on fixed-fee pricing wherever possible, so you can review the scope and cost before you decide whether to proceed. For the Trade Mark Coexistence Agreement service, pricing starts from $900.00.

After you enquire, a legal consultant will confirm what is included, the expected timing and whether any extra work is needed before you engage us.

We operate completely online, which means we can help you wherever you are in New Zealand. We have office spaces in Sydney, and in Melbourne, but our use of technology allows our team members to work remotely from around the world. Our legal team are mostly based in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth. We also have a London office for Sprintlaw UK.

Our legal team is made up of experienced lawyers, who are specialists in various areas of law and hold an Australian legal practising certificate. None of our Sprintlaw lawyers are New Zealand qualified lawyers and they do not currently hold a New Zealand practising certificate.

They provide legal services working remotely from Australia via our 'legal consultancy' model, through which (under section 6 and section 35 of the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006) our Australian legal team are permitted to provide legal services to New Zealand businesses provided they do not provide services in certain 'reserved' areas of law. You can read our FAQ page to learn a bit more about our 'legal consultancy' model.

Given the strong similarities between Australian and New Zealand law, and the areas of law in which we practice (being small business and startup law), we do not view the fact that our lawyers have not qualified in New Zealand as having any substantive impact on the quality of our service. We are committed to ensuring that we provide high quality, affordable legal services to all our New Zealand clients.

Our legal team have all trained at leading firms, but have left the traditional corporate law world to join us on our mission to create a new and better way of delivering legal services. They have specialist expertise in technology law, intellectual property law, contract drafting and review, corporate law and commercial law.