Frontier Communications Files Trademark Opposition Over “VoIPVantage” Application

On Monday, Frontier Communications Corporation filed a notice of opposition before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board against Unlimited Office Solutions LLC, doing business as Green Technology Services, for its application for the VOIPVANTAGE mark, asserting that it will be damaged if the applicant’s mark is registered.

According to the filing, the applicant applied to register the VOIPVANTAGE mark in International Class 38, covering “Voice over internet protocol (voip) services; internet protocol (ip) communication services, namely, voice over internet protocol (voip) peer-to-peer communications and instant messaging services over a global computer network.”

As grounds for opposition, telecommunications provider Frontier noted that it uses the VANTAGE mark in International Classes 9, 38, 41, and 42 to offer “a wide array of telecommunications goods and services, including internet, voice, and television products and services.” Frontier asserted that its VANTAGE mark has been continuously used in interstate commerce since at least February 2016 and “is known and widely used in the telecommunications and business industries and widely recognized by the general public.” 

Frontier added that its mark has garnered extensive goodwill and recognition with consumers, and has been used in advertising and other promotions. As a result, the opposer proffered that the public associates the VANTAGE mark with Frontier Communications and its goods and services.

The plaintiff averred that it used its VANTAGE mark “in U.S. commerce, in connection with goods and services that are closely related to and offered in connection with the goods and services identified in Applicant’s VOIPVANTAGE Application.” It claimed that its use predated the applicant’s application and actual use or its use in commerce. 

Additionally, Frontier contended that the applicant’s mark “is visually, aurally, and connotatively similar to Opposer’s VANTAGE mark” and their goods and services are purportedly similar. As a result, the opposer argued that this similarity is likely to cause consumer confusion, and consumers may believe that “Frontier is the origin, source or sponsor of Applicant’s goods and services” or vice versa. Frontier asserted that there is no association, endorsement, or connection between it and the applicant, but the alleged similarity could cause consumers to falsely assume a connection.

Frontier Communications asked that the registration of the applicant’s mark be refused and that its opposition be sustained. It is represented by Lutzker & Lutzker LLP.