LinkedInXFacebook
Subscribe
Orthopedics This Week
  • My Feed
  • |Posts
  • |Events
  • |MSK Innovations
  • |Power Rankings
  • |Masterclasses
  • |Technology Awards
  • Press Releases
  • |Advertising
  • |Job Board
  • Spine
  • ◆Joints
  • ◆Upper Extremities
  • ◆Foot & Ankle
  • ◆Sports Medicine
  • ◆Pain Mgmt
  • ◆Trauma
  • ◆Biologics
  • ◆Technology
  • ◆People
  • ◆Company News
  • ◆Legal & Regulatory
Home/Legal & Regulatory and Reimbursement/A PINK Hip Implant Cannot be Trademarked
Legal & Regulatory and Reimbursement

A PINK Hip Implant Cannot be Trademarked

December 27, 2022 2 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

A PINK Hip Implant Cannot be Trademarked
Courtesy of CeramTec GmbH
#uspto#ceramtec#coorstec#trademarktrialandappealboard

Ok, then.

In trademark news…the United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) ruled that the color pink cannot be trademarked for a hip implant. The winning company was Grand Junction, Colorado-based CoorsTek Bioceramics LLC (formerly C5 Medical Werks, LLC) and the losing company was Plochingen, Germany based CeramTec GmbH.

For eight years CoorsTek Bioceramics (a wholly owned subsidiary of CoorsTek, Inc.) and CeramTec have been engaged in legal battles both in the United States and abroad over, per the TTAB Opinion, “whether the color pink as applied to a composition for hip joint implant parts is functional.”

CeramTec manufactures and develops advanced ceramic components. Its pink BIOLOX® delta ceramics account for most of its hip implant component sales. According to the TTAB, CeramTec claims “components made with the BIOLOX delta compound have a superior mechanical performance and lower fracture rates than components made with the BIOLOX forte compound.” The BIOLOX forte composition “features pure alumina ceramic.” It presents as cream, ivory, or beige in color.

CoorsTek Bioceramics also manufactures ceramics for the medical device industry. It too has pink ceramics. Notably, its CeraSurf®-p, “a material that contains chromium oxide, which renders it pink.” CoorsTek Bioceramics claims that almost all of its customers buy CeraSurf-p instead of CeraSurf-w because “CeraSurf-p contains chromium oxide (which Petitioner [CoorsTek Bioceramics] contends the marketplace understands to improve the performance-related properties of the material), while CeraSurf-w does not.” CeraSurf-w is white and does not contain chromium oxide.

CoorsTek Bioceramics began the legal proceedings when CeramTec tried to enforce its claimed trademark and trade dress in the color pink for its ceramic hip implant components. In the TTAB Opinion, the TTAB found “that the color pink (caused by the addition of chromia) of the compound used to make ceramic hip implant components” is functional. Thus, it held that the color pink for the identified goods in CeramTec’s trademark registrations is “functional and therefore unregistrable.”

In the press release, CoorsTek CEO Jonathan Coors commented, “Recent global events have cast a bright light on the dangers of singular or limited supply sources in key markets.”

Coors continued, “This decision will not only ensure a consistent supply of crucial components, it will foster competition, drive innovation, and enable efficiencies in the surgical marketplace—ultimately benefitting patients receiving critical medical care.”

Advertisement

CeramTec can file an appeal of the TTAB trademark cancellation order. The appeal deadline is in February 2023.

For OTW’s coverage of the ongoing dispute, see “EU Court Rules CoorsTek’s Implants Can Remain Pretty in Pink” and “Pink Hip Implant Battle: The Grand Finale.”

React:

Discussion

14
DS
Dr. Sarah MitchellOrthopedic Surgeon · Mayo Clinic

This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?

8
JT
James Thornton, MDSpine Fellow · HSS

Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.

5
RP
R. PatelSports Medicine · Stanford

We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.

Join the conversation

Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.

Subscribe

Get Full Access

Read every OTW article and join member discussions for $24.99/month.

Get Full Access

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Orthopedics This Week

The most trusted source in orthopedic industry news since 2005. Covering spine, joints, trauma, biologics, and the business of orthopedics.

A publication of RRY Publications, LLC

LinkedInXFacebook

Categories

  • Spine
  • Joints
  • Upper Extremities
  • Foot & Ankle
  • Sports Medicine
  • Pain Mgmt
  • Trauma
  • Biologics
  • Technology
  • People
  • Company News
  • Legal & Regulatory

Resources

  • Subscribe
  • Community Posts
  • Job Board
  • Press Release Opportunities
  • Power Rankings
  • About OTW
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us

Get Full Access

Unlimited articles, community posts, and Power Rankings.

Get Full Access

Plans start at $24.99/mo · Annual saves 20%

© 2026 Orthopedics This Week · RRY Publications, LLC

Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceCookie Policy