In order to determine whether co-ownership has been maintained as a result of the separation of a group business and whether the owner of that business still intends to use the trademarks and trade name together, it is necessary to demonstrate that the trademarks and trade name are not added to the valuation of the assets of each entity for the purpose of separation. and that companies wishing to separate continue to use the trademarks in common. (b) Any treaty changes and declaration of waiver. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the Parties and supersedes all prior agreements, arrangements or understandings between the Parties regarding the subject matter of the Contract. There are no assurances, guarantees, insurances, insurances, insurances, guarantees, representations, agreements or collusion, either orally or in writing, explicitly or implicitly, in relation to the subject matter set out above and which have not been fully expressed therein. No modification or modification of this Agreement may be made unless signed in writing by both parties. No waiver of any of the provisions and conditions of this Agreement or of the granting of any intended consent shall be valid unless it is signed in writing and signed by the party against whom such modification, modification, waiver or consent is sought. The waiver of any delay or breach of this Agreement or of any warranty, insurance, insurance or obligation contained therein shall not be construed as a waiver of any prior, simultaneous or subsequent delay or breach. The waiver by a party of the performance of a monastery, condition or promise does not lead to the invalidity of this agreement and is not considered the waiver of that party to any other agreement, condition or promise of this agreement. The renunciation of a party at the time of the demonstration of an act does not constitute a waiver of the time necessary for the performance of another act or an identical act which must be carried out subsequently by the other party.
In the United States, co-ownership of a trademark is legal. However, it is contrary to the basic trademark policy that a trademark must identify and distinguish goods and/or services from a single source. Co-ownership is only viable if the owners have common control over the nature and quality of the goods and/or services. The priority is consumer protection, which may lead a court to address the autonomous use of a common trademark. In most cases, national contract law governs the common trademark laws. Freedom of contract generally determines the extent of the rights of co-owners, subject to the interests of consumer protection. If there is no agreement, the law assumes that every owner is entitled to an equal and unshared share. Where appropriate, an action for accounting may be brought under national law in respect of a trade mark. To determine whether co-ownership exists as a principle within a group of companies, the group companies must be able to prove that they all operate with the same status, without a company being considered a parent company with full control of all other entities in the group. Some factors that can be invoked as evidence of this relationship are as follows: as a result of this decision of the Central Court of Intellectual Property and International Trade (which is the Court of First Instance for Intellectual Property Cases), a new precedent related to the trademark has been established, which may allow the registration of a trademark of more than one owner.
This is another important step in the development of Thai brand protection. However, given that this case is currently being challenged, we have to wait and see how the higher court interprets the lower court`s reasoning of this case and how the decision will in the future affect Thailand`s IP protection and marketing. . . .