TTABlog Test: Are Dental Implants Related to Syringes Under Section 2(d)?

The USPTO refused to register the mark TRIACTIVE for dental implants, concluding that confusion is likely with the registered mark TRIACTIV (standard characters) for, inter alia, syringes for medical use. The Board found the marks to be "very similar in appearance, sound, connotation, and overall commercial impression." But what about the goods? How do you think this came out? In re Paragon Implant LLC, Serial No. 98745742 (April 8, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge George C. Pologeorgis).

Examining Attorney Rebekah Richardson submitted screenshots from nine dental and medical supply company websites offering both “dental implants” and either “syringes” or “catheters,” "but not necessarily under the same mark." [Emphasis added]. "While these websites do not demonstrate that the parties’ respective goods are sold under the same mark, they nonetheless demonstrate that relevant consumers have become accustomed to seeing both 'dental implants' and either “syringes” or “catheters” sold by the same entity."

Moreover, it is common knowledge that dental professionals employ needles and syringes, as well as intravenous catheters, to administer local anesthetics for various dental procedures, including the fitting and placement of “dental implants.” Thus, relevant consumers of the parties’ respective goods may perceive them as complementary in nature.

As to channels of trade, the third-party website evidence showed that "Applicant’s goods and Registrant’s goods are the type of goods that may be provided in the same online marketplace to similar or overlapping purchasers."

The Board acknowledged that Applicant Paragon's goods are directed to dental professionals, and the purchasers of the registrant's goods may be sophisticated and discriminating. However, that "does not necessarily mean that they are sophisticated or knowledgeable in the field of trademarks or immune from source confusion." "This is especially true here where the marks at issue are highly similar, the goods are related and the trade channels overlap." 

The Board concluded that confusion is likely, and so it affirmed the refusal.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: Compare this decision with the Board's recent DURAJECT decision [TTABlogged here], reversing a Section 2(d) refusal because the USPTO failed to show that opthalmic instruments and bone cement injectors are related goods. Both items could be found on the websites of certain large medical suppliers, but not under the same mark. Also, I think the "complementary" finding is just a makeweight. 

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.