IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Dental implant trademark denied over near-identical medical device mark, (Apr 16, 2026)

By George Basharis, J.D.

Nearly identical marks and overlapping product markets supported a likelihood of confusion, despite arguments that dental professionals are sophisticated purchasers.

A proposed mark for dental implants failed to overcome its close similarity to an existing registration for medical devices, with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) concluding that minor spelling differences do not distinguish otherwise identical commercial impressions where the goods are related and sold through overlapping channels. In a nonprecedential decision, the Board affirmed a refusal to register TRIACTIVE for dental implants and implant abutments, finding it likely to cause confusion with the registered mark TRIACTIV for medical instruments, including syringes and catheters (In re Paragon Implant LLC, No. 98745742 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 2026)).

Paragon Implant LLC sought to register TRIACTIVE in standard characters for dental implants and implant abutments in International Class 10. The examining attorney refused registration under Section 2(d) based on two prior registrations owned by the same registrant, including the standard character mark TRIACTIV, covering medical instruments such as needles, syringes, catheters, and related accessories.

Mark similarity. The Board’s analysis centered on the first DuPont factor, which examines similarity in appearance, sound, meaning, and overall commercial impression. It found the marks “highly similar,” emphasizing that the entirety of the cited mark TRIACTIV is incorporated into the applied-for mark TRIACTIVE, differing only by the addition of a final “e.”

That minor variation did not alter the overall impression of the marks. The Board noted that consumers typically retain a general, rather than specific, recollection of marks and may not encounter them side by side. Even small differences are insufficient where the dominant portions are identical.

The Board also rejected arguments that differences in pronunciation would avoid confusion. There is no single correct pronunciation of a mark, it explained, and consumers could easily pronounce TRIACTIVE and TRIACTIV the same way. Even if slight differences exist, they do not preclude confusion where the marks are otherwise nearly identical.

Because both marks are presented in standard characters, the Board further assumed they could be displayed in identical fonts, styles, or colors, increasing the likelihood that consumers would perceive them as related. Taken together, these considerations led the Board to conclude that the similarity factor strongly favored a finding of likelihood of confusion.

Related goods. The second DuPont factor, the relatedness of the goods, also weighed in favor of refusal. The application covered dental implants and implant abutments, while the cited registration included a range of medical instruments such as syringes, needles, and catheters. Although the goods are not identical, the Board emphasized that they need not be competitive to support a finding of likelihood of confusion. It is sufficient that they are related in a manner that could lead consumers to believe they originate from a common source.

To support that connection, the examining attorney submitted evidence from multiple medical and dental supply websites showing that the same companies offer both dental implants and products such as syringes or catheters. That evidence demonstrated that relevant consumers are accustomed to encountering these types of products from a single source, even if they are not sold under the same mark. The Board found this marketplace context probative of relatedness.

The Board also pointed to the functional relationship between the goods. Dental professionals commonly use syringes and needles to administer anesthetics in procedures involving dental implants. This complementary use reinforced the conclusion that the goods are sufficiently related for purposes of the likelihood-of-confusion analysis.

Trade channels and purchasers. The Board next considered trade channels and classes of purchasers. Because neither the application nor the cited registration contained limitations on how the goods are marketed or to whom they are sold, the Board presumed that the goods travel through all normal channels for such products and are available to all typical purchasers.

Paragon argued that its products are limited to dental professionals, while the registrant’s products are medical devices not used in dentistry. It also asserted that the registrant does not sell its goods in the United States.

The Board rejected those arguments, explaining the analysis must be based on the identifications of goods in the application and registration, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use. Because the cited registration broadly covers medical devices without restriction, it encompasses products that could be used in dental settings and marketed to dental professionals. The Board also noted that a registration carries a presumption of nationwide rights, regardless of the registrant’s current geographic scope of use.

Evidence of third-party websites further showed that dental implants and related medical instruments are offered through the same online marketplaces to overlapping purchasers. On that record, the Board found that the trade channels and customer bases overlap, weighing in favor of likely confusion.

Consumer sophistication. Paragon argued that its customers are dental professionals who exercise a high degree of care in purchasing specialized medical products. The Board acknowledged that the relevant purchasers may be sophisticated and discriminating. Even so, it found that this factor only slightly favored Paragon. The Board reiterated that sophistication does not eliminate the possibility of confusion, particularly where the marks are highly similar, and the goods are related.

Moreover, the Board noted that expertise in a technical field does not necessarily translate into heightened sensitivity to trademark distinctions. Even careful purchasers may assume a connection between similar marks used on related goods.

Lack of actual confusion. Paragon also pointed to the absence of evidence of actual confusion. The Board gave that argument little weight. In an ex parte proceeding, there is typically no opportunity for the registrant to submit evidence of confusion, and the absence of such evidence is meaningful only where the record shows significant, overlapping use in the marketplace. Here, the record contained no information about the extent of use, sales, or advertising for either party’s goods. As a result, the Board treated the absence of actual confusion as neutral.

Weighing the relevant DuPont factors, the Board found that the similarity of the marks, the relatedness of the goods, and the overlap in trade channels and purchasers all supported a likelihood of confusion. Although purchaser sophistication weighed slightly against confusion, it was insufficient to overcome the other factors. Even careful professionals could mistakenly assume that TRIACTIVE dental implants and TRIACTIV medical instruments originate from the same source. The absence of evidence of actual confusion did not alter that conclusion, given the limited record on marketplace use.

The Case is Serial No. 98745742.

Judge: Pologeorgis, G.

Attorneys: Patrick F. Bright (Wagner Anderson & Bright PC) for Paragon Implant LLC. Rebekah Richardson for the USPTO.

Companies: Paragon Implant LLC

Cases: Trademark USPTO