CONNEX(T) Clash: Ventris Medical vs. Nexxt Spine Trademark Dispute

CONNEX(T) Clash: Ventris Medical vs. Nexxt Spine Trademark Dispute

Source Node: 2468209

Pic-300x282In a recent legal action, California-based Plaintiff Secada Medical LLC, doing business as Ventris Medical, LLC, has filed a complaint against Defendant Nexxt Spine, LLC alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition under the federal Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.

Court documents state that Ventris has expertise in creating, promoting, and distributing advanced tissue and bone healing solutions tailored to meet the specific requirements of different surgical fields. Ventris claims to have actively advertised and sold items bearing the CONNEXT® brand for numerous years. They allege that Nexxt Spine, and Indiana company, is violating Ventris’ trademark by using a similar mark, CONNEXX, for their own surgical implant kits.

The crux of Ventris’ complaint lies in the similarity between the CONNEXT® mark and Nexxt Spine’s CONNEXX mark, with the only difference being the final letter (“T” vs. “X”). Ventris asserts that both marks are used in connection with highly related surgical products and are targeted at the same consumers within the medical community, thus increasing the likelihood of confusion among consumers regarding the source or affiliation of the products.

Ventris contends that Nexxt Spine’s adoption and use of the CONNEXX mark infringe upon its rights in the CONNEXT® mark, leading to false designation of origin and unfair competition. Despite Ventris’ efforts to address its concerns with Nexxt Spine, including filing an extension of time to oppose the CONNEXX application, Nexxt Spine has persisted in its use of the infringing mark.

In seeking legal recourse, Ventris aims to halt Nexxt Spine’s infringing activities through injunctive relief, to recover damages incurred as a result of the infringement, and to obtain reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the litigation. Ventris argues that Nexxt Spine’s deliberate and willful infringement warrants enhanced damages under the Lanham Act, including three times the amount of actual damages and attorneys’ fees.

The case has been assigned to Judge James R Sweeney II and Magistrate Judge M. Kendra Klump, in the U.S. District Court of Southern Indiana, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-01960-JRS-MKK.

Complaint

Time Stamp:

More from Indiana IP Law