Hips Don't Lie, But Patent Specs Might: CeramTec's Color Conundrum and Trade Dress After Patenting

"CeramTec has now filed its petition for certiorari challenging the Federal Circuit's affirmance of the TTAB's cancellation of CeramTec's "pink ceramic hip" trade‑dress registrations based upon overlapping utility patent protection. In its 2001 TrafFix decision, the Supreme Court held that a utility patent constitutes "strong evidence" that the claimed features are functional, thereby creating a presumption against trademark protection for those features."

"The problem is that the pink color arises from from the addition of chromia to the ceramic compound -- an important aspect of the (now expired) utility patent (US5830816) covering its product. Although CeramTec admits that its pink product is covered by the patent -- and that the pink is caused by the 0.33 wt% chromia used in their product -- that result is not required by the patent."

CeramTec filed a petition for certiorari after the Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB's cancellation of its pink ceramic hip trade‑dress registrations due to overlapping utility patent protection. The Supreme Court's TrafFix precedent treats a utility patent as strong evidence of functionality, creating a presumption against trademark protection for patented features. CeramTec's pink color results from adding chromia (0.33 wt%) to zirconia‑toughened alumina, and the company admits the patent covers that composition. The patent does not claim or mention the pink color, and chromia concentrations within the claimed scope can yield a spectrum of colors. The patent cites chromium benefits including strengthened alumina matrix, restored hardness, and improved thermal and wear resistance.

Read at Patently-O