TTABlog Test: Is LA PACHANGA MARGARITAS Y FIESTA Confusable with PACHANGA MEXICAN GRILL for Restaurant Services?

The USPTO refused to register the proposed mark LA PACHANGA MARGARITAS Y FIESTA in the word-and-design form shown below, for "providing of food and drink via a mobile truck; restaurant services" [MARGARITAS disclaimed], finding confusion likely with the registered mark PACHANGA MEXICAN GRILL (in standard characters with a disclaimer of MEXICAN GRILL) for “restaurant services." Applicant argued that the term PACHANGA, which means "a (lively) party" in Spanish, is a weak formative, further evidenced by third-party use of that word and of the English word PARTY in connection with restaurant services. How do you think this appeal came out? In re O&R Franchise Group LLC, Serial No. 98134084 (December 30, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Thomas W. Wellington).

The Board first considered the strength of the cited mark. Applicant submitted four third-party registrations for marks containing the word PACHANGA, but none were for restaurant services. It also provided seven third-party websites showing use of PACHANGA in connection with restaurant services, but those were "not so plentiful to make a meaningful impact in terms of demonstrating commercial weakness."

Finally, Applicant pointed to 10 third-party registrations for marks incorporating the term PARTY in connection with food and restaurant services, arguing that these marks are relevant because, under the doctrine of foreign equivalents, PACHANGA is "the Spanish equivalent of PARTY and [thus is] similarly weak." The Board was unmoved: "Applicant does not cite to any authority to support the application of the doctrine of foreign equivalents in the manner it seeks, i.e., for purposes of using third-party registrations containing the English equivalent of an allegedly weak foreign term." Nonetheless, the third-party registrations and uses of PACHANGA-formative marks confirmed the suggestive connotation of the word.

The Board concluded that PACHANGA is "somewhat conceptually weak in that it is plainly suggestive in connection with restaurant services" [i.e., a "festive dining atmosphere."] "But the fact that it is suggestive does not mean its scope of protection shrinks substantially," and so this sixth DuPont factor weighed "somewhat" in applicant's favor.

Turning to the marks, the Board found them to be "quite similar in appearance and sound because the dominant element of each mark is the term PACHANGA," attributing no significance to the word "LA." Both marks "are suggestive of a festive Mexican-themed or cuisine establishment."

In sum, we conclude that the marks are overall very similar. Consumers are likely to call for the respective services by using the nearly identical terms LA PACHANGA or PACHANGA. The marks also have similar connotations and convey similar commercial impressions. Accordingly, the first DuPont factor weighs in favor of a conclusion that confusion is likely.

Since the involved services are identical, the Board must presume that they are offered in the same trade channels to the same classes of consumers, and so the second and third DuPont factors weighed "heavily" in favor of affirmance of the refusal.

Though the shared term, PACHANGA, is plainly suggestive and thus has some conceptual weakness and a minimal showing of third-party use, which tend to favor a finding that confusion is not likely, this is far outweighed by the other aforementioned factors. We thus conclude on this record that Applicant’s mark is likely to cause confusion with the registered mark.

Ands so, the Board affirmed the refusal.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: How did you do? Would you dub this a WYHA? What do you think about the doctrine of equivalents issue?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.