Pan American Properties, Corp.

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 20, 2018

No. 86968080 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2018)

This Opinion is not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Oral Hearing: June 7, 2018 Mailed: July 20, 2018

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Pan American Properties, Corp.
_____
Serial No. 86968080
_____

Aileen E. Vazquez-Jimenez and Samuel Pamias of Hoglund & Pamias, P.S.C.,
for Pan American Properties, Corp.

Lauren E. Burke, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 106,
Mary I. Sparrow, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Mermelstein, Adlin, and Lynch,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Lynch, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Pan American Properties, Corp. (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal
Register of the mark EL DÍA MUNDIAL DE LA SALSA for the following services:
Advertising, marketing and promotion services in
International Class 35
Serial No. 86968080
- 2 -
Entertainment services in the nature of arranging social
entertainment events; Entertainment services in the
nature of organizing social entertainment events;
Organization of events for cultural purposes in
International Class 41.1
Applicant included in its application the following statement: “The English
translation of ‘El Día Mundial de la Salsa’ in the mark is ‘The World Day of Salsa.’”
The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration of Applicant’s mark
under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), as merely
descriptive of the recited services. After the Examining Attorney made the refusal
final, Applicant requested reconsideration and appealed. Following the Examining
Attorney’s denial of the Request for Reconsideration, the appeal resumed. Applicant
and the Examining Attorney filed briefs and appeared at an oral hearing. We affirm
the refusal to register.
Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act precludes registration on the Principal
Register of “a mark which, (1) when used on or in connection with the goods [or
services] of the applicant is merely descriptive . . . of them,” unless the mark has
acquired distinctiveness. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1052(e)(1) and (f). A term is merely
descriptive within the meaning of the statute “if it immediately conveys knowledge
of a quality, feature, function, or characteristic of the goods or services with which it
is used.” In re Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 102 USPQ2d 1217,
1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Bayer AG, 488 F.3d 960, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831

1 Application Serial No. 86968080 has a filing date of April 7, 2016, and is based on
Applicant’s assertion of a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce under Section 1(b)
of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b).
Serial No. 86968080
- 3 -
(Fed. Cir. 2007)); see also In re TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 114 USPQ2d 1574, 1575
(Fed. Cir. 2015).
Descriptiveness of a proposed mark must be assessed “in relation to the goods [or
services] for which registration is sought, the context in which it is being used, and
the possible significance that the term would have to the average purchaser of the
goods [or services] because of the manner of its use or intended use.” Bayer AG, 82
USPQ2d at 1831 (citing In re Abcor Dev., 588 F.2d 811, 200 USPQ 215, 218 (CCPA
1978)); see also In re Cordua Rests., Inc. 823 F.3d 594, 118 USPQ2d 1632, 1636
(Fed. Cir. 2016). If a mark is descriptive of any of the services in a class for which
registration is sought, it is proper to refuse registration as to the entire class.
Chamber of Commerce, 102 USPQ2d at 1219.
“Under the doctrine of foreign equivalents, foreign words from common, modern
languages are translated into English to determine … descriptiveness….” Palm Bay
Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 73
USPQ2d 1689, 1696 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Thomas, 79 USPQ2d 1021, 1024 (TTAB
2006). The doctrine applies when it is likely that “the ordinary American purchaser
would ‘stop and translate [the mark] into its English equivalent.’” Palm Bay, 73
USPQ2d at 1696 (quoting In re Pan Tex Hotel Corp., 190 USPQ 109, 110 (TTAB
1976)). Although neither the Examining Attorney nor Applicant directly addressed
the elements of the doctrine of foreign equivalents in this case, there appears to be
no dispute that Spanish is a common, modern language, or that consumers would
stop and translate the mark. See In re Highlights for Children, Inc., 118 USPQ2d
Serial No. 86968080
- 4 -
1268, 1271 (TTAB 2016) (“Spanish is a modern language that is widely spoken in
the United States.”).
Rather, the dispute focuses on whether the translated phrase “The World Day of
Salsa” is merely descriptive. In response to an information requirement made
during prosecution of the application, Applicant stated that the mark “will probably
be used for a festival, which will not be celebrated on a specific date, relating to
musical performances where the salsa genre will be celebrated.”2 According to the
Examining Attorney, the mark merely describes that Applicant’s “advertising and
entertainment services featur[e] a day where the world celebrates salsa.”3 Applicant
counters that “salsa” has various meanings, rendering the mark indirect or vague
when applied to Applicant’s services, and therefore suggestive rather than
descriptive.
The Examining Attorney introduced definitions of the relevant terms, including
a dictionary entry for “salsa,” recognizing its meanings as a spicy sauce, “a type of
popular Latin-American music,” and “dancing that is done to salsa music.”4
Applicant’s response to the information request clarified that the services recited in
its intent-to-use application “probably” will relate to a festival of salsa music.

2 TSDR January 30, 2017 Response to Office Action at 8.
3 9 TTABVUE 6 (Examining Attorney’s Brief).
4 July 28, 2016 Office Action at 4 (merriam-webster.com); see also id. at 2-3 (merriam-
webster.com definitions of “world” and “day”).
Serial No. 86968080
- 5 -
To show that consumers are familiar with similarly structured terms that
describe analogous events,5 the Examining Attorney introduced articles on the
“National Day of Salsa”6 in Puerto Rico and on the United Nations “World Day of
Social Justice,” which includes the name of the event in Spanish, “Dia Mundial de la
Justicia Social.”7 The Examining Attorney also submitted a website promoting “The
World Day of Theatre,” when participants “around the globe deliver activities
ranging from conferences, performances, workshops and special media events…,”8
and Arigatou International’s website promoting “The World Day of Prayer and
Action for Children,” stating that since 2008 “it has mobilized over 300 activities in
over 85 countries to improve the lives of children worldwide.”9 Thus, according to
the Examining Attorney, consumers would understand “‘El Día Mundial de la Salsa’
as a day where the world celebrates salsa music and dance.”10
We agree that because, as Applicant concedes, its services will involve a salsa
music festival, EL DÍA MUNDIAL DE LA SALSA merely describes a feature of the
services. Applicant’s identification of services is broad enough to encompass
organizing and promoting “world”11 events held on a particular “day” or days that

5 The website evidence that appears to be foreign lacks probative value in this context to
show U.S. consumer exposure to such terms, so we do not rely on it.
6 Id. at 5 (globalvoices.org).
7 TSDR March 1, 2017 Office Action at 2 (timeanddate.com).
8 Id. at 3 (assitej-international.org).
9 Id. at 4 (prayerandactionforchildren.org).
10 9 TTABVUE 5-6 (Examining Attorney’s Brief).
11 TSDR July 28, 2016 Office Action at 2 (Merriam-Webster definitions of “world” include “a
part of the world and the people and things that exist there”).
Serial No. 86968080
- 6 -
focus on “salsa” music. Thus, the plain meaning of the wording in Applicant’s mark
leads to the conclusion that it merely describes a feature of the services. Moreover,
the evidence that other event promoters and organizers refer to or describe their
services using “Dia Mundial de” or “World Day of” in conjunction with a reference to
the subject matter of the event shows that consumers would perceive EL DÍA
MUNDIAL DE LA SALSA as merely descriptive. This type of terminology should
remain available to competitors in the field. See In re Boston Beer Co., 198 F.3d
1370, 53 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (affirming TTAB decision that held
descriptive terms “‘should be freely available to all competitors in any given field to
refer to their products or services.’”); Abcor Development, 200 USPQ at 217 (“The
major reasons for not protecting [merely descriptive] marks are … to maintain
freedom of the public to use the language involved, thus avoiding the possibility of
harassing infringement suits by the registrant against others who use the mark
when advertising or describing their own products.”).
Applicant argues that it “requires imagination, thought and perception to reach
any conclusion as to the nature of the services.”12 However, we must analyze
descriptiveness from the perspective of someone familiar with the identified
services. See DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247,
103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Abcor Dev., 200 USPQ at 218; In re
Remacle, 66 USPQ2d 1222, 1224 (TTAB 2002). Here, those who know that

12 7 TTABVUE 12 (Applicant’s Brief).
Serial No. 86968080
- 7 -
Applicant provides event organization and advertising services will immediately
understand that it provides them in connection with a salsa festival.
Applicant argues that in light of the multiple meanings of “salsa,” the mark
“could refer to a variety of entertainment events and events for cultural purposes,
involving any of the meanings of the term ‘salsa.’”13 Applicant relies on In re Diet
Tabs, Inc., 231 USPQ 587 (TTAB 1986) for the proposition that a term with two
meanings should not be considered descriptive. The case is inapposite. In Diet Tabs,
although the analysis was “difficult” because of “the several meanings of the term
‘diet,’” the descriptiveness refusal was reversed simply for a lack of evidence: “[o]n
this record, however, we cannot say that the average purchaser is likely to perceive
the term DIET in applicant’s mark as a shorthand reference to ‘dietary’ – there is
simply no evidence on this point….” Id. at 588. By contrast, in this case, the record
includes evidence to support the descriptiveness of the exact term in the mark,
“salsa,” and Applicant has acknowledged that the focal point of its services will be a
“salsa” music festival. In any event, it is “settled that so long as any one of the
meanings of a term is descriptive, the term may be considered to be merely
descriptive.” In re Chopper Ind., 222 USPQ 258, 259 (TTAB 1984); see also, In re IP
Carrier Consulting Group, 84 USPQ2d 1028, 1034 (TTAB 2007); In re Bright-Crest,
Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593 (TTAB 1979). Here, the proposed mark is descriptive of
organizing and promoting a salsa festival.

13 7 TTABVUE 13 (Applicant’s Brief).
Serial No. 86968080
- 8 -
Applicant introduced six third-party Principal Register registrations of marks
including “dia de …” or “day of …” for allegedly similar services,14 and contends that
they show such formulations have not been found merely descriptive. However, we
do not consider all of these marks comparable to Applicant’s, in which “salsa”
directly refers to the subject matter of the services. For example, in the mark DAY
OF DISCOVERY, “discovery” does not directly refer to the subject matter of the
educational sessions in the field of history, literature, nature, cultures, science,
entertainment, self-improvement, art and politics, or to organizing travel tours. The
same holds true for “cross” in the mark THE DAY OF THE CROSS for conducting
religious instruction events. We also have no indication that Applicant’s proffered
third-party registrations are representative of the Office’s handling of such marks
generally, which would require evidence about any comparable marks that were
refused as merely descriptive. More importantly, notwithstanding that the Office
strives for consistency, to the extent other prior registered marks may be analogous
to Applicant’s, they cannot change our analysis in this case, as “[t]he PTO is
required to examine all trademark applications for compliance with each and every
eligibility requirement,” without regard to earlier registered marks that may have
similar or even identical features.15 Cordua Rests., 118 USPQ2d at 1635; see also In

14 TSDR September 1, 2017 Request for Reconsideration at 9-20.
15 While Applicant argues for consistent treatment with these prior registrations, Applicant
has not offered – even in the alternative – a disclaimer of SALSA, whereas several of the
prior registrations on which it relies contain such disclaimers for analogous terms. See
TSDR September 1, 2017 Request for Reconsideration at 9-10, DIA DE LAS CERVEZAS
(disclaimer of CERVEZAS, which translates to “beers”); id. at 17-18, DAY OF
PERCUSSION (disclaimer of PERCUSSION).
Serial No. 86968080
- 9 -
re Shinnecock Smoke Shop, 571 F.3d 1171, 1174 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“Applicant’s
allegations regarding similar marks are irrelevant because each application must
be considered on its own merits.”); In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 1342
(Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Even if some prior registrations had some characteristics similar
to Nett Designs’ application, the PTO’s allowance of such prior registrations does
not bind the Board or this court.”).
Considering the record as a whole, we find that consumers would immediately
understand EL DÍA MUNDIAL DE LA SALSA, when used in connection with
Applicant’s identified services, as describing the event Applicant will organize and
promote under the mark.
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s mark as merely descriptive is
affirmed.