Decisions · 85861533
In re Aquamar, Inc.
Serial No. 85861533 · Decided 2015-06-25 · Section 2(d) Ex Parte Appeal
What happened
The Board refused registration of MARAZUL for frozen and fresh processed fish, seafood, and imitation crab meat, finding that because “marazul” means “blue sea” in Spanish it is likely to be confused with the registered mark BLUE SEA for non-live and frozen fish, and it separately upheld the refusal based on Aquamar’s failure to provide the required English translation of its mark.
The marks
Applicant
MARAZUL
"Fish and seafood products, namely, frozen and fresh processed fish and seafood, and imitation crab meat" in Class 29
Cited registration
BLUE SEA
"non-live fish and frozen fish" in Class 29
How the marks compared
| Dimension | Finding | What the Board said |
|---|---|---|
| sound | Dissimilar | The Board acknowledged the marks are distinct in sound. |
| appearance | Dissimilar | The Board acknowledged the marks are distinct in appearance. |
| meaning | Similar | “Mar azul” means “blue sea” in Spanish; the Board found the marks exact equivalents in meaning with no different nuance in either language. |
| commercial impression | Similar | For identical seafood goods, the shared meaning dominated: the equivalency in meaning outweighed the differences in how the marks look and sound. |
Although the marks differ in appearance and sound, their identical meaning under the doctrine of foreign equivalents made them confusingly similar for legally identical fish products.
du Pont factors that bore on the outcome
| # | Factor | Weight | What the Board found |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Similarity of the marks | Dispositive | MARAZUL and BLUE SEA are exact equivalents in meaning because “mar azul” is Spanish for “blue sea,” and that shared meaning outweighed the differences in how the marks look and sound. |
| 2 | Relatedness of the goods or services | Dispositive | Both identifications cover frozen fish, and the registration’s non-live fish encompasses Aquamar’s fresh processed fish, so the goods are legally identical in part. |
| 3 | Similarity of trade channels | Significant | Because the goods are legally identical in part with no limitations, the Board presumed the trade channels and purchasers are the same. |
Why this decision is significant
Precedential opinion with two independent holdings — failure to comply with the translation requirement (Rule 2.32(a)(9)) is itself a ground for refusal, and exact Spanish-English equivalents (MARAZUL / BLUE SEA) are confusingly similar for identical goods under the doctrine of foreign equivalents — a clean template for foreign-equivalents 2(d) cases.
Research significance is Trademark Valet's editorial rating of how useful a decision is to practitioners. It is not a statement of precedential weight — that is the separate Precedential field, which comes from the Board.
Related decisions
Refusal affirmed
In re Robert Sulic
The Board found Robert Sulic’s BLACK SWAN vodka mark identical to the registered BLACK SWAN mark for wines, and because vodka and wine are related drinks sold through overlapping channels…
79375327 · 2026-01-07 · BLACK SWAN v. BLACK SWAN
Refusal affirmed
In re Robert Sulic
The Board found Robert Sulic’s BLACK SWAN VODKA label (castle, mountains, and swan design) confusingly similar to the registered BLACK SWAN mark for wines; the swan picture just reinforces…
79375609 · 2026-01-07 · BLACK SWAN VODKA & design v. BLACK SWAN
In re Country Oven, Inc.
The Board affirmed refusal of the identical mark COUNTRY OVEN for retail and custom bakery services because a different company already owns a decades-old registration for COUNTRY OVEN…
87354443 · 2019-11-18 · COUNTRY OVEN v. COUNTRY OVEN
In re Inn at St. John's, LLC
The Board found 5IVE STEAKHOUSE (with a fork-and-knife design) for restaurant and bar services too similar to the registered mark 5IVESTEAK for identical services, and blocked the newer…
87075988 · 2018-06-06 · 5IVE STEAKHOUSE and design (the wording "5ive" in stylized letters, set above the design of an intersecting fork and knife, all set above the word "Steakhouse"; "Steakhouse" disclaimed) v. 5IVESTEAK and design (wording 5IVESTEAK presented in the colors red and brown, with red in the number "5" and letters "IVE" and brown in the letters "STEAK"; colors red and brown claimed as a feature of the mark)
The original record
Read the opinion and every filing on the Board's own docket. The summary above is our paraphrase, not a quotation from the opinion. The opinion is the authority.
Who checked this
Not yet reviewed by an attorney. This summary is generated from coded data, and it says so until a lawyer has read it.
Provenance — Generated from database rows without re-reading the opinion.
General information about how trademark law works. It is not legal advice about your situation, and reading it does not make anyone your lawyer.