Saniderm keeps DERMALIZE registered because D-Lize did not establish it could bring the case

Decision Desk · September 11, 2026 decision · Nonprecedential

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) is the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office panel that decides challenges to trademark registrations and appeals from refused applications. The Board marked this opinion nonprecedential, meaning it does not bind the Board in later cases.

The Board denied D-Lize srl’s request to cancel Saniderm Medical, LLC’s DERMALIZE registration, the government record of a mark for specified products, because D-Lize did not establish that it could bring the case. The registration covers adhesive bandages. Opinion, pp. 1–2.

Source: the Board’s complete opinion in case 92081421, with page citations below. This report describes the decision; it is not legal advice.

D-Lize alleged that DERMALIZE had gone unused for at least three consecutive years and that two assignments, transfers of the registration, were invalid. Saniderm acknowledged receiving a transfer from the original registration holder but denied D-Lize’s other main claims. Both sides submitted evidence and filed trial briefs, their main written arguments to the Board. D-Lize also filed a reply brief, its written response to Saniderm’s main argument. Opinion, p. 2.

The Board said a person seeking to remove a registration must have its own interest in the case and a reason to believe the registration could cause it harm. Saniderm argued that D-Lize had not shown a personal interest in the case or a reason to believe Saniderm’s U.S. registration could harm it. D-Lize replied that it competed in tattoo-aftercare bandages and marketed identical products under a substantially identical mark. Opinion, pp. 4, 6.

The Board wrote that “we consider the issue forfeited” because D-Lize left it out of its main written argument, meaning D-Lize had lost the chance to raise that point. The Board said a point raised for the first time in a reply comes too late because the other side cannot respond. Opinion, pp. 5, 7.

The Board also examined D-Lize’s written claim and its evidence despite that omission. D-Lize alleged that it used and had registered DERMALIZE outside the United States for protective tattoo film. The Board found that D-Lize’s written claim did not say it had used or promoted DERMALIZE in the United States, lost sales there or suffered harm to its reputation there because of Saniderm’s registration. Opinion, pp. 7–8.

The Board found that D-Lize did not sell its bandages under DERMALIZE in the United States. It also found that D-Lize had not claimed or proved lost U.S. sales due to Saniderm’s registration. The Board concluded that D-Lize had neither adequately explained nor proved why it could bring the case. The decision left the registration in place without resolving D-Lize’s claims about the mark’s use or the transfers. Judge Bradley agreed that D-Lize had not adequately stated or proved why it could bring the case, but would not decide whether omitting the issue from its main written argument also cost D-Lize the chance to raise it. Opinion, pp. 1, 10, 12.

This report describes the decision as issued; it does not follow any later appeal.

Sources

• The Board’s complete opinion; GleanMark case record.