Active third-party registrations may be relevant to show that a mark or a portion of a mark is descriptive, suggestive, or so commonly used in a particular industry that the public will look to other elements to distinguish the source of the services. See Juice Generation, Inc. v. GS Enters. LLC, 794 F.3d 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1671, 1674-75 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. KGAA v. New Millennium Sports, S.L.U., 797 F.3d 1363, 116 USPQ2d 1129, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[E]vidence of third-party registrations is relevant to ‘show the sense in which . . . a mark is used in ordinary parlance.'”); Omaha Steaks Int'l, Inc. v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., 908 F.3d 1315, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Only if other offerings under the common mark are also directed to that relevant public is it reasonable to infer that they may have become conditioned to draw fine lines between sources of related goods or services.”); see also In re Ginc UK Ltd., 90 USPQ2d 1472, 1475 (TTAB 2007) (dictionary references and third-party registrations “demonstrate the descriptive/generic significance of ‘togs' and provide further evidence that purchasers would attribute the ordinary dictionary meaning of ‘togs' to applicant's clothing”).

“Under the doctrine of foreign equivalents, foreign words from common languages are translated into English to determine genericness, descriptiveness, as well as similarity of connotation in order to ascertain confusing similarity with English word marks.” Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondée en 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). 

The TTAB recently noted, however, that there is no authority to support the application of the doctrine of foreign equivalents “for purposes of using third-party registrations containing the English equivalent of an allegedly weak foreign term.” In re O&R Franchise Group LLC, Ser. No. 98134084 (TTAB Dec. 30, 2025). 

Here, the LA PACHANGA MARGARITAS Y FIESTA composite mark was refused registration under Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), on the ground of likelihood of confusion based on the registered mark PACHANGA MEXICAN GRILL for legally-identical “restaurant services.” The English translation of LA PACHANGA MARGARITAS Y FIESTA is “THE PARTY MARGARITAS AND PARTY.”

The Applicant submitted evidence of third-party use including 10 third-party registrations for marks incorporating the term PARTY in connection with food and restaurant services. 

The TTAB acknowledged that, in the context of restaurant services, “pachanga” or “party” evokes a festive dining atmosphere; and that the third-party registrations and uses for PACHANGA-formative marks and the third-party registrations for PARTY-formative marks, both corroborate this suggestive meaning. 

Nevertheless, to the extent that Applicant seeks to rely on the third-party registrations [of PARTY-formative marks] for purposes of showing marketplace weakness, we point out that they are not actually “evidence of third-party use of the registered marks in the marketplace, for purposes of the sixth du Pont factor.” In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., No. 77029776, 2009 TTAB LEXIS 524, at *22 (citation omitted).
                   * * *
In sum, we are not strongly persuaded by Applicant's evidence and ultimately disagree with Applicant's contention that the term PACHANGA is so weak in connection with restaurant services that the cited registered mark is only entitled to a narrow scope of protection. Rather, we find the term PACHANGA to be somewhat conceptually weak in that it is plainly suggestive in connection with restaurant services. But the fact that it is suggestive does not mean its scope of protection shrinks substantially. See In re Great Lakes Canning, Inc., No. 73365360, 1985 TTAB LEXIS 75, at *7 (“[T]he fact that a mark may be somewhat suggestive does not mean that it is a ‘weak' mark entitled to a limited scope of protection.”).
                    * * *
     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.

John Welch at TTABlog noted that “the word PACHANGA may be a weakened formative for those 15% who understand English and Spanish, but not for the 85% who don't. So why apply the doctrine of equivalents in this situation?” He also noted that “there may be an argument here that consumers would not stop and translate the word PACHANGA because of the context, as in the oft-cited TIA MARIA case.” 

The trademark attorneys at Thomas P. Howard, LLC enforce trademarks or defend against infringement nationwide including in Colorado.