On Friday before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, opposer Instagram, LLC filed an opposition against the registration of applicant Thriftagram.com’s THRIFTAGRAM mark, claiming that it will be damaged by the registration of the applicant’s mark.
According to the opposition, the applicant seeks to register the THRIFTAGRAM mark in International Class 35, covering “On-line retail store services featuring clothing, household goods, electronics, and books.” Instagram asserted that since 2010 is has continuously used the INSTAGRAM mark in connection with its “photo sharing and social networking service and software application.” Moreover, Instagram owns a variety of INSTAGRAM and INSTAGRAM-related registered trademarks. The INSTAGRAM mark covers goods and services, such as “Shopping and payment services,” “Providing use of online temporary non-downloadable software for enabling transmission of images and audiovisual video content,” among other goods and services.
Furthermore, Instagram asserted that the INSTAGRAM mark is “highly distinctive” and that its mark has priority over the applicant’s THRIFTAGRAM mark, which was filed in February 2020 and was allegedly first used in commerce in December 2018. Additionally, Instagram contended that the THRIFTAGRAM mark “creates a similar commercial impression to the INSTAGRAM Mark.” Instagram also alleged that the goods and services covered in the applicant’s mark are related to the goods and services covered in Instagram’s mark. Moreover, Instagram averred that the applicant’s THRIFTAGRAM mark “is deceptively similar” to Instagram’s INSTAGRAM mark, as a result, it is likely to cause public and consumer confusion, mistake, or deception specifically in regards to the origin of the offered goods or services. Additionally, the opposer argued that the applicant’s mark is likely to cause consumers to incorrectly assume an association, connection, affiliation, authorization, sponsorship or other connection between Instagram and Thriftagram and their associated marks, goods, and services. Consequently, Instagram claimed that the applicant’s mark will harm it.
Instagram also claimed that its widespread use of the INSTAGRAM mark and its use in media coverage has garnered a high degree of consumer recognition. As a result, Instagram contended that the INSTAGRAM mark is famous. Moreover, Instagram averred that the applicant’s THRIFTAGRAM mark will dilute the INSTAGRAM mark’s distinctive quality and harm the reputation of the mark, as well as cause harm and damage to Instagram and the public. However, Instagram also noted that “[u]pon information and belief, Applicant Thriftagram.com has been voluntarily dissolved as of June 3, 2020 as shown…from the Colorado Secretary of State’s website.” Therefore, Instagram claimed that the applicant’s website “is inactive, does not exist, or is not available and does not show usage of Applicant’s Mark,” consequently, Instagram proffered that the applicant’s registration of the THRIFTAGRAM mark should be refused.
Instagram has sought for the opposition to be sustained and for the registration of the applicant’s mark to be refused. Instagram is represented by Kilpatrick, Townsend & Stockton LLP.
