It is a pity that the applicant did not challenge this decision before the Bundesgerichtshof. This could have been an additional opportunity for the federal circuit to really realize how non-naked consent agreements should be handled and to address the dynamics between restrictions in an approval agreement and the absence of restrictions in a registration subject to an approval agreement. In future articles (I don`t know how much I`ll write about this topic), I will continue to write about different aspects of the approval agreements. The L3Harris agreement aims to remind companies involved in the production or export of defence products that their export compliance programs should be holistic and cover all potential rules governing the trade of the relevant agencies, including, but not limited to, DoD, DDTC, BIS, the Department of the Office of Foreign Assets , which manages US sanctions rules. , and the United States-S. Sn This office. U.S. foreign trade rules. Often, the approved ITAR agreement is not signed immediately by all parties. In this case, the U.S. applicant generally does not know that he or she does not meet the annual status update requirement for outstanding agreements. The L3Harris Approval Agreement demonstrates the importance of a strong compliance program to prevent export violations and act as a mitigating factor in cases where an accidental error occurs, although there is a well-maintained compliance program.
As the L3Harris agreement makes clear, VODs alone cannot mitigate alleged offences in all circumstances. Companies must take the necessary steps to comply with the rules in force and be scrupulously competent to report errors or errors. TTAB decision: Should approval agreements contain provisions to avoid confusion? American Cruise Lines appealed the decision to the TTAB, which reversed the rejection, and stated that “the inclusion of provisions to avoid potential confusion is preferred and denied in approval agreements, but they are not mandatory.” This decision confirms that TTAB respects the parties in an approval agreement and that there is no need for these parties to include provisions on what steps to be taken to avoid confusion in order for consent to be accepted. A recent decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) highlights how the TTAB evaluates approval agreements between potentially conflicting parties. In In re American Cruise Lines, Inc., TTAB found that the AMERICAN CONSTELLATION brand for cruise ships should not be confused with the pre-registered CONSTELLATION brand for the same services. To Re Am. Cruise Lines, Inc., 128 U.S.P.Q.2d 1157 (T.T.A.B. Oct 3, 2018). Again, the TTAB went through the Bridge factors and found that the resemblance of brands, goods and trade routes was offset by a risk of confusion before turning to the approval agreement. To avoid a so-called “naked” approval agreement, parties must be sure to indicate why they believe there is no risk of confusion between the sources of the marks. In addition, the parties must describe the measures taken to avoid consumer confusion.
Naked consent will have little weight. Conversely, a detailed agreement should have considerable weight.