Conduct recognizing the existence of a transaction and intended to permit the transaction to be carried into effect; a tacit agreement; consent inferred from silence.
For example, a new beer company is concerned that the proposed label for its beer might
infringe on the TRADEMARK of its competitor. It submits the label to its competitor's general counsel, who does not object to its use. The new company files an application in the PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE to register the label as its trademark and starts to use the label on the market. The competitor does not file any objection in the Patent Office. Several years later, the competitor sues the new company for infringing on its trademark and demands an accounting of the new company's profits for the years it has been using the label. A court will refuse the accounting, since by its acquiescence the competitor tacitly approved the use of the label. The competitor, however, might be entitled to an INJUNCTION barring the new company from further use of its trademark if it is so similar to the competitor's label as to amount to an infringement.
Similarly, the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (IRS) may acquiesce or refuse to acquiesce to an adverse ruling by the U.S. TAX COURT or another lower federal court. The IRS is not bound to change its policies due to an adverse ruling by a federal court with the exception of the U.S. Supreme Court. The chief counsel of the IRS may determine that the commissioner of the IRS should acquiesce to an adverse decision, however, thus adopting the ruling...