TTAB Finds VORSPRUNG for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Confusable with VORSPRUNG DURCH TEKNIK for Land Vehicles

The Board affirmed another Section 2(d) refusal, finding the mark VORSPRUNG for various electrical goods for vehicles, including charging stations, confusable with the registered mark VORSPRUNG DURCH TEKNIK (owned by Audi AG) for "Land vehicles and structural parts thereof." Applicant feebly argued that the word VORSPRUNG in its mark has a different meaning than the same word in the cited mark. The Board was unmoved. In re DropNet Ltd, Serial No. 97660649 (June 10, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Mark A. Thurmon).

The Marks: Noting that consumers are more likely to recall the first part of multi-part marks and tend to shorten marks, the Board found the marks to be "highly similar" in appearance and sound.

As to meaning, both marks must be translated into English. Applicant translated “Vorsprung” to “Lead” in English. Registrant, during prosecution, translated its mark as "Progress by Technology." This was the basis for applicant's argument that the marks have different meanings. The Board didn't buy it.

Despite the different translations in the records, we find these words mean the same thing in German, as they are identical words used in similar contexts. The cited mark, therefore, could have been translated as “Lead by Technology,” and the applied-for mark could be translated as “Progress.” There is no difference in the words used, and we find, there is no difference in the translated meaning of the word “Vorsprung” for the purposes of this appeal.

The inclusion of the words "by technology" in the cited mark does not create a difference in meaning because "Applicant identifies technical goods for vehicles, and thus, also offers goods that include technology." The Board found the meanings of the two marks to be "effectively identical."

Finally, the Board found no difference in the commercial impressions of the marks. "Both marks suggest forward movement, possibly leadership of that movement, within a technical field (vehicles and their parts). To 'lead' or 'progress' within a technical field suggests these parties provide technically advanced goods of high quality."

In conclusion, the marks are similar in sight, sound, meaning and commercial impression. This fact increases the likelihood of confusion and this factor weighs heavily in our analysis. [Why increases? Why heavily? - ed.]

The Goods: Registrant's "land vehicles" include electric vehicles. Examining Attorney Christine Martin submitted evidence showing that vehicle makers [e.g., Tesla, Ford, GM, VW] often use their marks on both electric vehicles and the chargers and charging stations for electric vehicles. Consumers are "accustomed to seeing electric vehicles (a subset of the “land vehicles” identified in the cited registration), vehicle chargers and charging stations for electric vehicles under a single mark. Therefore, the involved goods are related and the second DuPont factor favors an affirmance of the refusal.

Consumer Care: Applicant insisted that the relevant consumers are "sophisticated" because land vehicles are expensive, but it did not submit any evidence on either point. There was a lack of evidence regarding the price range of land vehicles nor of the pricing of applicant's various electric goods. "Given the limited evidence in the record, we cannot determine the level of customer care for all the goods."

Lack of Confusion: Applicant pointed to the lack of evidence of actual confusion, but the Board pointed out that the application at issue was filed on an intent-to-use basis, and there was no evidence that applicant's mark had been put into use.

Finding the first and second DuPont factors dispositive, the Board affirmed the refusal to register.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: WYHA?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.