The difference between Aventa and Advanta seems significant enough — in terms of their phonetics, construction and meaning — that the USPTO will likely approve the application for Aventa. There are two other companies using the Aventa name with trademarks on file with the USPTO, but they are both in other industries (there are almost no truly unique names that no one is using somewhere in the world). From the USPTO’s perspective, only trademarks in the financial services category (International Class 036) have any bearing in their evaluation.

The USPTO has approved trademarks for Advantage, Advanta and other similar names, which gives some insight into their examination criteria. There are also other companies who have trademarked the Advanta name in other industries.

It’s important to note that Aventa’s trademark application is for the full phrase “Aventa Credit Union” and not just the word “Aventa.” It may not seem important, but to the USPTO it is — there are technicalities that matter.

It’s also interesting that the Advanta vs. Avanta case never went to court. It sounds like Advanta fired off a cease and desist, and that Avanta chose not to challenge their request.

Disclaimer: I’m not an attorney, and none of this should be construed as legal advice. Anyone with trademark questions is encouraged to seek the counsel of an experienced trademark attorney.

Here’s a link to the article about Montana-based Avanta:

http://tinyurl.com/mbvbxn

It’s somewhat surprising and discouraging to see that a financial institution would adopt a ‘coined’ name – which we usually see developed as means to help differentiate an institution – that only differs by one letter from an already established institution.

For Aventa’s sake, hopefully the trademark process goes well – especially after a two year process.