Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

CeramTec GmbH v. Coorstek Bioceramics LLC

By Marty Schwimmer on January 12, 2025
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Link to PDF of Ceramtec decision

Google NotebookLM summary:

This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case of CeramTec GMBH v. COORSTEK BIOCERAMICS LLC, decided on January 3, 2024. The appeal originated from a decision of the United States Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) which canceled CeramTec’s trademarks protecting the pink color of their ceramic hip components2. The court ultimately affirmed the Board’s decision.

The case revolves around the functionality of the pink color in CeramTec’s hip components. CeramTec argued that the pink color was a distinctive trademark, while Coorstek, a competitor, contended that the pink color resulted from the addition of chromia, which was functional to the component.

The Board found in favor of Coorstek, concluding that the pink color was functional based on several factors, including:

●

CeramTec’s own patents and public communications, which disclosed the functional benefits of adding chromia to the ceramic material5.

●

The lack of evidence regarding whether different colored hip components would have equivalent mechanical properties to Biolox Delta.

●

Conflicting evidence regarding whether the addition of chromia decreased the cost of manufacturing the hip components.

The court agreed with the Board, finding substantial evidence to support its decision7. The court also addressed CeramTec’s argument that Coorstek should be barred from claiming the pink color was functional due to their previous statements that chromia provided no material benefit, an argument rooted in the doctrine of unclean hands8. The court stated that while the Board erred in suggesting that the unclean hands defense was categorically unavailable in functionality proceedings, the error was harmless in this case.

  • Posted in:
    Intellectual Property
  • Blog:
    The Trademark Blog
  • Organization:
    Martin Schwimmer
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo