IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Refusal to register LA PACHANGA MARGARITAS Y FIESTA mark for Mexican food truck services affirmed, (Jan 6, 2026)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

Although the shared term of PACHANGE in the respective marks was plainly suggestive and had some conceptual weakness, other factors, including the marks’ overall similarity, were sufficient to show a likelihood of confusion.

The refusal of the application of a Mexican restaurant to register the mark LA PACHANGA MARGARITAS Y FIESTA for mobile food services was proper, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has determined in a nonprecedential order. The restaurant’s mark viewed in its entirety was similar to the cited mark, the involved restaurant services were identical, and the channels of trade were presumed to be the same. Thus, the refusal to register with respect to the application was affirmed (In re O&R Franchise Group LLC, No. 98134084 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2025)).

O&R Franchise Group LLC (Applicant), an operator of a restaurant specializing in Mexican cuisine, sought to register on the Principal Register the mark LA PACHANGA MARGARITAS Y FIESTA in a word-and-design form for “providing of food and drink via a mobile truck; restaurant services,” in International Class 43. The word MARGARITAS has been disclaimed. The application contained the translation statement: “The English translation of LA PACHANGA MARGARITAS Y FIESTA in the mark is ‘THE PARTY MARGARITAS AND PARTY’”.

The examining attorney refused to register the proposed mark under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act on the ground that the Applicant’s mark was likely to cause confusion with the registered mark PACHANGA MEXICAN GRILL (in standard characters with a disclaimer of MEXICAN GRILL) for “restaurant services” in International Class 43. The registration contained the translation statement: “The English translation of PACHANGE is ‘lively party’”. After the refusal was made final, the Applicant appealed the refusal to register to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

Likelihood of confusion. Overall, the marks were very similar as they had similar connotations, conveyed similar commercial impressions, and consumers would likely call for the respective services by using the nearly identical terms of LA PACHANGA or PACHANGA as to render confusion likely, the Board determined. The Applicant argued that the shared term in the marks, PACHANGA, which means a lively party in Spanish, is widely used in the food and restaurant industry and therefore weak and entitled to a very narrow scope of protection. However, the Applicant’s evidence of third-party use and registrations was insufficient to demonstrate commercial weakness as it did not show any public exposure to the marketplace uses or the extent of the third-party uses. Thus, the probative value of the evidence was minimal, the Board noted.

Regarding the similarity or dissimilarity of the respective marks in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression, the Applicant’s mark, LA PACHANGA MARGARITAS Y FIESTA, and the cited mark, PACHANGA MEXICAN GRILL, were quite similar in appearance and sound since the dominant element in each of the marks was the term PACHANGA. In terms of meaning and in the context of restaurant services, both marks were suggestive of a festive Mexican-themed establishment. Concerning the relatedness of the services and channels of trade for the services, the Applicant’s services include “restaurant services” that were identical to the Registrant’s services and the channels of trade were presumed to be the same and offered to the same classes of consumers. The Applicant’s contention that both the Applicant and Registrant had been operating in the marketplace under their respective marks for over four years and there was no record evidence of any actual confusion was rejected as uncorroborated and of little evidentiary value. Thus, the Applicant’s mark was sufficiently similar to the Registrant’s mark to likely cause confusion, the Board concluded.

The Case is Serial No. 98134084.

Attorneys: Laura Beléndez Ferrero (Beléndez Law Offices) for O&R Franchise Group LLC. Joey Zawacki for the USPTO.

Companies: O&R Franchise Group LLC

Cases: Trademark USPTO