On Monday, Lyft, Inc. filed a notice of opposition before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board against Last Call’s application for the GIFT A LIFT mark alleging that a likelihood of consumer confusion would exist if the trademark is approved.
According to the filing, the applicant filed the GIFT A LIFT mark in Class 009, covering “Downloadable computer application software for mobile phones for providing safe rides home in the event of impairment, intoxication, or handicap by connecting passengers with a ride share or taxi ride.”
Lyft noted that it has registered trademarks for LYFT, LYFT (stylized) and other LYFT-formative marks, which it has used since as early as 2012 in connection with its goods and services, specifically, “its rideshare platform and transportation services.” Additionally, Lyft’s marks are filed in Class 009, among others, and are similarly related to transportation and ridesharing services. Lyft contended that it has priority over Last Call’s mark because it has an earlier first use date and its widespread and continuous use of the LYFT marks also gives it extensive common rights. Lyft argued that it is entitled to the sole and exclusive use of the LYFT marks in connection with its goods and services and other “confusingly similar marks for related goods and services,” such as the applicant’s.
Lyft claimed that its marks are valuable assets and have garnered goodwill for the company. Additionally, press coverage, as well as advertising and marketing efforts, have led to widespread consumer recognition of the LYFT marks with Lyft. Lyft claimed that the applicant’s GIFT A LIFT mark “so resembles the LYFT Marks as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the highly similar goods and services of the Application, to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.” Lyft pointed to the identical pronunciation of LYFT and LIFT in the respective marks and the similarity of their transportation offerings.
Moreover, Lyft noted that the company and its partners “already use( ) the slogan GIFT OF LYFT for similar, government-sponsored rideshare programs.” As a result, Lyft averred that because of this purported similarity, consumers are likely to create a false connection between the marks, companies, and products. Consequently, Lyft claimed it would be harmed by the registration of the applicant’s mark.
Lyft has sought for the opposition to be sustained and the application to be rejected. Lyft is represented by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.
