IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Medical eye apparatus mark not likely confused with device mark for bones, (Mar 12, 2026)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

The applied-for mark DURAJECT was not likely to be confused with the registered mark DURO-JECT because it is for use as an ophthalmic apparatus, and the other is for bone health.

An applied-for mark was not likely to be confused with an existing mark, even though both were for use with medical equipment,since their uses were different, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) has held. The examining attorney had refused registration of DURAJECT on the grounds of the likelihood of confusing it with the already registered standard character mark DURO-JECT. However, the TTAB found that the goods and channels of trade were highly distinct because one was for ophthalmic apparatus while the other was for a bone cement injector (In re EyePoint Pharmaceuticals US, Inc., No. 98414251 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2026)).

EyePoint Pharmaceuticals US, Inc. (EyePoint) sought registration on the Principal Register of the standard character mark DURAJECT for “Medical and surgical apparatus and instruments for use in ophthalmic procedures” in International Class 10. The Examining Attorney refused registration on the ground of likelihood of confusing with the already registered standard character mark DURO-JECT, which was registered for a “Medical device, namely, a high pressure bone cement injector” in International Class 10. The board considered the DuPont factors for which there was evidence of record.

Similarity of the goods. The parties disputed whether surgical apparatus and instruments used for ophthalmic procedures were related to a high-pressure bone cement injector. The examining attorney presented website evidence showing sales of both kinds of equipment, but the board found that they were always under different headings, or that the examining attorney had, without justification, treated dental apparatus as equivalent to the goods at issue, and that the goods were never shown under the same mark. This factor weighed strongly against a likelihood of confusion.

Channels of trade. The parties agreed that medical “group purchasing organizations” made up the bulk of the purchasers of both sets of goods, but EyePoint argued that while the institutions were the same, the actual purchasers within those institutions, as well as the medical professionals actually ordering and using the products, did not overlap. The board held that the evidence showed the goods were not exposed to the same customer or purchaser within the institutional buyers, so this factor weighed against a likelihood of confusion.

Conditions of sale. The TTAB found that even the least sophisticated purchaser of medical supplies such as the ones at issue would be highly sophisticated and would exercise greater than ordinary care in purchasing. This factor weighed against a likelihood of confusion.

Balancing the factors, the board reversed the refusal to register.

The Case is Serial No. 98414251.

Attorneys: Bradley M. Ganz (Ganz Law, PC) for EyePoint Pharmaceuticals US, Inc. Sloan Taylor for the USPTO.

Companies: EyePoint Pharmaceuticals US, Inc.

Cases: Trademark USPTO