La Maria LLC

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: January 23, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re La Maria LLC
_____
Serial No. 88452882
_____
Jackson MacDonald of The Barnett Firm LLC,
for La Maria LLC.
Jeffrey Oakes, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 128,
Colleen Cassidy, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Larkin, Dunn, and Lavache,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Dunn, Administrative Trademark Judge:
La Maria LLC (Applicant) seeks registration on the Principal Register of the mark
HOT MAMA SALSA (in standard characters, SALSA disclaimed) for “Chili oil for use
as a seasoning or condiment; Hot sauce; Salsa,” in International Class 30.1
1 Application Serial No. 88452882 filed May 30, 2019 under Section 1(a) of the Trademark
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), based upon Applicant’s claim of first use anywhere since at least as
early as May 23, 2008 and use in commerce since at least as early as June 5, 2015.
References to the application file history are to the downloadable .pdf version of documents
available from the USPTO’s TSDR (Trademark Status and Document Retrieval) database.
The TTABVUE citations refer to the Board’s electronic docket, with the first number
referring to the docket entry and the second number, if applicable, referring to the page
within the entry.

Serial No. 88452882
- 2 -
The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration under Section 2(d) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), on the ground that Applicant’s mark, as applied
to the goods identified in the application, so resembles the marks summarized below,
both registered on the Principal Register, as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause
mistake, or to deceive.
ONE HOT MAMA’S
(in standard
characters)2
Barbecue sauce, rib sauce, chicken wing sauce,
marinades, salad dressings, salsas, spices; and dry
rubs, wet rubs and jerk rubs, namely, seasoned
coatings for meat, fish and poultry, in International
Class 30.
Restaurant and bar services, in International Class
43.
HOT MAMA
(in standard
characters 3
Pickles, in International Class 9.
After the Trademark Examining Attorney made the refusal final, the application
was abandoned. Applicant filed its appeal to this Board and a petition to revive the
application. Following the grant of the petition, the appeal was instituted, and
Applicant and the Examining Attorney filed briefs.
We affirm the refusal.
I. Evidentiary Matter
The Examining Attorney objects to consideration of factual assertions in
Applicant’s brief which are unsupported by evidence or supported by citation of
2 Registration No. 2893925 issued October 12, 2004, renewed.
3 Registration No. 4941117 issued April 19, 2016, renewed.

Serial No. 88452882
- 3 -
website links to webpages that are not in evidence.4 On the first point, Applicant
contends the term SALSA in its mark is distinctive “because it is a term people enjoy
saying (see, for example, the NBC sitcom Seinfeld, Season 4, Episode 3).” 5 On the
second point, Applicant contends that there exists a connoisseur group of “spice
lords,” who are discerning about salsa, making its consumers sophisticated, citing
links to news articles and social media posts which are not in the record.6
We give no consideration to Applicant’s unsupported contentions, see Cai v.
Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Mr. Cai's Main Brief
contains numerous assertions of fact. … This information is not evidence under any
of the relevant rules, as the TTAB recognized.”) (internal citation omitted), or to
whatever materials may be accessed through the links. In re Weiss, No. 88621608,
2024 TTAB LEXIS 277, at *3-4 (“We have made clear that providing hyperlinks to
internet materials is insufficient to make such materials of record.”).7
II. Likelihood of Confusion
Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act prohibits the registration of a mark that
“[c]onsists of or comprises a mark which so resembles a mark registered in the Patent
4 7 TTABVUE 9, 23-24.
5 4 TTABVUE 7.
6 4 TTABVUE 15.
7 Had the webpages themselves been attached to the brief, they would have been untimely.
Trademark Rule 2.142(d), 37 C.F.R. § 2.142(d) (“The record in the application should be
complete prior to the filing of the appeal. Evidence should not be filed with the Board after
the filing of a notice of appeal.”); In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, No. 87075988, 2018 TTAB
LEXIS 170, at *4 (“The evidence submitted with Applicant’s appeal brief that Applicant did
not previously submit during prosecution ... is untimely and will not be considered.”), aff’d
mem., 777 F. App’x 516 (Fed. Cir. 2019).

Serial No. 88452882
- 4 -
and Trademark Office … as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods
of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive ….”15 U.S.C.
§ 1052(d). Our determination under Section 2(d) is based on an analysis of all of the
probative evidence of record bearing on a likelihood of confusion. In re E.I. Du Pont
de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361 (CCPA 1973) (DuPont). We consider each
DuPont factor for which there is evidence and argument. In re Guild Mortg. Co., 912
F.3d 1376, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Varying weights may be assigned to each DuPont
factor depending on the evidence presented. See Citigroup Inc. v. Cap. City Bank Grp.,
Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
We focus our analysis on cited Registration No. 2893925 for the mark ONE HOT
MAMA’S, and will refer to its owner as “Registrant.” As shown below, the record
supports the refusal to register with respect to that registration, and so it is
unnecessary to consider the second cited registration. See In re St. Julian Wine Co.,
No. 87834973, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 196, at *7-8.
A. Similarity or Dissimilarity and Nature of the Goods, Channels of
Trade and Classes of Purchasers, and Conditions of Sale
We turn first to the second DuPont factor, “[t]he similarity or dissimilarity and
nature of the goods or services as described in an application or registration.” Detroit
Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361).
Our analysis under this factor is based on the identifications of goods in the
application and the cited registration. Id. It is sufficient for finding a likelihood of
confusion if relatedness is established between Registrant’s goods and any item
encompassed by the identification of goods within a particular class in the

Serial No. 88452882
- 5 -
application. Tuxedo Monopoly, Inc. v. Gen. Mills Fun Grp., 648 F.2d 1335, 1336
(CCPA 1981).
Applicant “does not dispute that Applicant’s goods are related to those goods
covered by the first-cited mark ONE HOT MAMA’S.”8 Both the application and the
cited registration include the identical goods “salsa.” The identity of certain goods
within the identifications means that no more is necessary to find similarity of the
goods to support a likelihood of confusion. See SquirtCo v. Tomy Corp., 697 F.2d 1038,
1041 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[T]he opposition must be sustained if Tomy's use of SQUIRT
SQUAD is so similar to use of SQUIRT for a single product with respect to which
SquirtCo has established prior rights that there is likely to be confusion as to their
source.”).
The third and fourth DuPont factors assess “the similarity or dissimilarity of
established, likely-to-continue trade channels” and “the conditions under which and
buyers to whom sales are made, i.e., ‘impulse’ vs. careful, sophisticated purchasing.”
Where, as here, the goods are identical in part, and there are no limitations in the
involved identifications regarding trade channels or classes of consumers, we
presume the channels of trade and classes of purchasers are the same for such goods.
See Cai, 901 F.3d at 1372 (“With respect to similarity of the established trade
channels through which the goods reach customers, the TTAB properly followed our
case law and ‘presume[d] that the identical goods move in the same channels of trade
8 4 TTABVUE 14.

Serial No. 88452882
- 6 -
and are available to the same classes of customers for such goods—here, general
consumers who consume or purchase tea.’”) (internal citation omitted).
As to the conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are made, “[p]urchaser
sophistication may tend to minimize likelihood of confusion. Conversely, impulse
purchases of inexpensive items may tend to have the opposite effect.” Palm Bay Imps.,
Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed.
Cir. 2005). The record shows salsa priced from $2.89-- $11.99 for 16 oz. jars, or 14.99-
18.99 for a gallon.9 Such inexpensive food items may be chosen quickly. See Gen’l
Mills, Inc. v. Fage Dairy Processing Indus. S.A., No. 91118482, 2011 TTAB LEXIS
280, *43-44 (TTAB 2011) (“As to the conditions of purchase, groceries are generally
purchased on impulse at the shelf and the consumer decision is made fairly quickly.
… Generally, purchasers of casual, low-cost ordinary consumer items exercise less
care in their purchasing decisions and are more likely to be confused as to the source
of the goods.”), judgment set aside pursuant to settlement, 2014 TTAB LEXIS 5.10
Accordingly, the identity of the goods, channels of trade and classes of purchasers,
and the inexpensive price point for the goods are all factors that weigh in favor of a
conclusion that confusion is likely.
9 August 21, 2019 Office Action TSDR 16; October 7, 2024 Office Action TSDR 32-33, 40-41,
80-81, 86, 94-95, 101, 103-104.
10 As set forth earlier, we give no consideration to Applicant’s unsupported contentions that
the popularity of spicy foods has created “a dedicated, connoisseur consumer base” which is
sophisticated (4 TTABVUE 16) except to note that Applicant’s identification of goods is not
limited to spicy salsa, and its specimens show salsa available in hot, medium, and mild
varieties. May 30, 2019 Specimen.

Serial No. 88452882
- 7 -
B. Similarity or Dissimilarity of the Marks
The first DuPont factor assesses the similarity or dissimilarity of Applicant’s and
Registrant’s marks. DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361. We analyze the marks in their
entireties, considering their appearance, sound, meaning and commercial impression.
Detroit Athletic, 903 F.3d at 1303. “When the goods are identical, the appearance of
a mark of similar sound, appearance, or connotation is more likely to cause confusion
than if the goods are significantly different.” See Bridgestone Americas Tire
Operations, LLC v. Fed. Corp., 673 F.3d 1330, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
The test is not whether the marks can be distinguished in a side -by-side
comparison, but rather whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their
overall commercial impression that confusion as to the source of the goods offered
under the respective marks is likely to result. Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe
des Produits Nestle S.A., 685 F.3d 1046, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “The proper
perspective on which the analysis must focus is on the recollection of the average
customer, who retains a general rather than specific impression of marks.” In re
i.am.symbolic, llc, No. 85916778, 2018 TTAB LEXIS 281, at *11. Here, the average
customer is a member of the general public.
We compare Applicant’s standard-character mark HOT MAMA SALSA to the
standard-character registered mark ONE HOT MAMA’S. “There is nothing improper
in stating that, for rational reasons, more or less weight has been given to a particular
feature of a mark, provided the ultimate conclusion rests on consideration of the
marks in their entireties.” The record includes evidence that the term “hot mama” is

Serial No. 88452882
- 8 -
a slang term for “an older attractive woman, usually sexually attractive.”11 Where a
mark comprises or contains a dictionary term, the definition generally supplies its
connotation. Stratus Networks, Inc. v. UBTA-UBET Commc’ns Inc., 955 F.3d 994, 998
(Fed. Cir. 2020) (“The Board relied on dictionary definitions of the terms ‘stratus’ and
‘strata’ to evaluate similarities in the connotation of each mark.”); Bourns, Inc. v. Gen.
Sci. Corp., 361 F.2d 482, 483 (CCPA 1966) (“The dictionaries which are available to
us do not indicate that the terms ‘quick’ and ‘easy’ are synonyms or even have similar
suggestive connotations.”). We find the term HOT MAMA is the dominant element of
both marks.
Applicant disputes that the term HOT MAMA would be recognized in its HOT
MAMA SALSA mark, contending that HOT will be perceived as modifying SALSA,
and MAMA will evoke “a motherly figure.”12 Applicant cites no support why its mark
would be so perceived; in ordinary English usage, adjective modifiers are adjacent to
the noun they modify, and the dictionary definition shows that HOT MAMA would
be regarded as a unitary phrase.
We address whether the differences between the marks HOT MAMA SALSA and
ONE HOT MAMA’S are sufficient to alter the same commercial impression created
by the common term HOT MAMA. With respect to Applicant’s mark, the addition of
the term SALSA does not alter the commercial impression because it merely names
the goods and has been disclaimed. See Detroit Athletic, 903 at 1305 (“[N]on-source
11 March 2, 2020 Suspension TSDR 3 (citing Collins Dictionary).
12 4 TTABVUE 9.

Serial No. 88452882
- 9 -
identifying nature of the words and the disclaimers thereof constitute rational
reasons for giving those terms less weight in the analysis.”); Monster Energy Co. v.
Lo, No. 91225050, 2023 TTAB LEXIS 14, at *48 (“In coming to this conclusion [that
the term MONSTER contributes the most to the overall commercial impression], we
find that the term ICE in Applicant's mark [] appears in the recitation of services,
and is descriptive and disclaimed.”).
In the registered mark, the prefatory term ONE does not alter the commercial
impression because it merely emphasizes the term HOT MAMA’S. We take judicial
notice that the term ONE is defined as ‘being preeminently what is indicated.”13
Compare In re Thor Tech Inc., No. 78634024, 2009 TTAB LEXIS 253, at *3 (“[A]s used
in the registered mark THE WAVE, the word ‘The’ simply emphasizes the word
‘Wave.’”).
Registrant’s use of HOT MAMA in the possessive (ONE HOT MAMA’S) also fails
to alter the commercial impression created by HOT MAMA. See In re Binion, No.
76590702, 2009 TTAB LEXIS 701, at *8 (“The absence of the possessive form in
applicant’s mark BINION has little, if any, significance for consumers in
distinguishing it from the cited mark”); Hess’s of Allentown, Inc. v. Nat’l Bellas Hess,
Inc., No. 72171371, 1971 TTAB LEXIS 48, at *15-16 (“It is apparent that no
distinction for legal or practical purposes can be made between a name and the
13 Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/one.
Accessed 22 Jan. 2026. The Board may take judicial notice of dictionary definitions, including
online dictionaries that exist in printed format or have regular fixed editions. In re Cordua
Rests. LP, No. 85214191, 2014 TTAB LEXIS 94, *6 n.4, aff’d, 823 F.3d 594 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

Serial No. 88452882
- 10 -
possessive form thereof, and the record indicates that petitioner adopted the term
‘HESS’S’ to reflect the manner in which the purchasing public had come to refer to
and identify its store and operations. It is our opinion therefore that ‘HESS’ and
‘HESS’S’ are and would be recognized as one and the same designation…”).
In sum, neither the additional words ONE and SALSA nor Registrant’s use of
HOT MAMA in the possessive form is sufficient to alter to distinguish the substantial
similarity of the marks.
Accordingly, the similarity of the marks is a factor that weighs in favor of a
conclusion that confusion is likely.
C. The length of time during and conditions under which there has
been concurrent use without evidence of actual confusion.
The eighth DuPont factor addresses “the length of time during and the conditions
under which there has been concurrent use without evidence of actual confusion.”
DuPont, 476 F.2d at 1361. The factor requires the Board “to look at actual market
conditions, to the extent there is evidence of such conditions of record.” In re Guild
Mortg. Co., 2020 TTAB LEXIS 17, at *19. “Generally, this factor is not that important
in ex parte cases unless the applicant provides us with contextual evidence that
allows us to meaningfully assess the length of time and degree to which the
applicant's and registrant's commercial activities would have provided an
opportunity for confusion to have manifested itself if it were likely.” In re Embiid, No.
88202890, 2021 TTAB LEXIS 168, at *53-54.

Serial No. 88452882
- 11 -
Here, Applicant contends “Applicant’s mark and the cited marks have been in
concurrent use in commerce for more than ten years without evidence of actual
confusion.”14 Unsurprisingly, because Applicant submitted no evidence during
examination, Applicant cites no facts supporting a finding of any overlap between its
own or Registrant’s markets, or conditions of use. “The absence of any reported
instances of confusion is meaningful only if the record indicates appreciable and
continuous use by applicant of its mark for a significant period of time in the same
markets as those served by [the prior user] under its marks.” Citigroup Inc. v. Cap.
City Bank Grp., Inc., No. 91177415, 2010 TTAB LEXIS 40, *50.
We find that the eighth DuPont factor is neutral in our analysis of the likelihood
of confusion.
D. Summary
We have considered all of the arguments and evidence of record, and all relevant
DuPont factors. In sum, we find that, because Applicant’s mark HOT MAMA SALSA
and the registered mark ONE HOT MAMA’S create highly similar commercial
impressions, and are applied to the identical low-priced goods that travel in identical
trade channels to identical consumers, we conclude that Applicant’s mark is likely to
create confusion with the registered mark.
III. Decision
The refusal to register Applicant’s mark HOT MAMA SALSA is affirmed.
14 4 TTABVUE 17.