Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA577269
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`12/18/2013
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`85075017
`Pedifix, Inc.
`DEXTERITY BY PEDIFIX
`DAVID B KIRSCHSTEIN
`KIRSCHSTEIN ISRAEL SCHIFFMILLER & PIERON
`425 5TH AVE FL 5
`NEW YORK, NY 10016-2223
`UNITED STATES
`dbk@kirschsteinlaw.com
`Appeal Brief
`DEXTERITY BY PEDIFIX Bri_20131218115239.pdf(2671492 bytes )
`David B. Kirschstein
`dbk@kirschsteinlaw.com
`/David B. Kirschstein/
`12/18/2013
`
`Proceeding
`Applicant
`Applied for Mark
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Attachments
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In Re:
`Ser. No.:
`
`Trademark Application of Pedifix, Inc.
`85-075,017
`
`Filing Dt.:
`Trademark:
`
`June 30, 2010
`DEXTERITY BY PEDIFIX
`
`TM Atty.:
`
`Sara N. Benjamin, Law Office 110
`
`BRIEF ON APPEAL
`
`Prepared by:
`
`David B. Kirschstein, Esq.
`Kirschstein Israel Schiffmiller & Pieroni, P.C.
`425 Fifth Avenue, 5”‘ Floor
`~
`New York, NY l00l6—2223
`
`(212) 697-3750
`
`

`
`$33
`
`(‘D
`
`O\U‘:-BL:
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`ISSUE
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Point 1 -
`
`Comparison of Applicant’s Goods as listed to Those
`of Reg. No. 4,273,785 - DEXTERITE
`
`Point 2 -
`
`Comparison of App1icant’s Goods as listed to Those
`of Reg. No. 3,994,623 — DEXTERITY
`
`Point 3 -
`
`The Applicable Law Supports Applicant’s
`Position that Confusion is Not Likely
`
`Point 4 —
`
`All Three Marks Involved in This Case
`
`Have a Suggestive Aspect
`
`Point 5 -
`
`The Inclusion of the Phrase “BY PEDIFIX” Does
`
`Not Add to the Likelihood of Confusion
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Appendix A
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CASES
`
`
`Astra Pharmaceutical Products Inc. V. Beckman Instruments Inc.,
`718 F.2d 1201, 110 USPQ 786 (1“ Cir. 1983)
`
`Bongrain International {American ) Corp. V. Delice de France, Inc.,
`811 F.2d 1479, 1 USPQ2d 1775, 1779 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
`
`Electronic Design and Sales Inc. V. Electronic Data Systems,
`954 F.2d 713, 21 USPQ2d 1388, 1392-93 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
`
`General Electric Comgany V. Graham Magnetics Coggoration,
`197 USPQ 690 (TTAB 1997)
`
`Harvey Hubbell Incorgorated V. Tokyo Seimitsu Co., Ltd.
`188 USPQ 517 (TTAB 197)
`
`In re Cotter, 179 USPQ 828 (TTAB 1973)
`
`In re Dennison Mfg. Co., 229 USPQ 141, 144 (TTAB 1986)
`
`
`In re E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co.
`
`476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973)
`
`Key West Fragrance & Cosmetic Factory, Inc. V. Mennen Co.,
`216 USPQ 168, 170 (TTAB 1982)
`
`10
`
`10
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`

`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`Applicant, Pedifix, Inc. has appealed the refusal to register its mark DEXTERITY BY
`
`PEDIFIX. Said refusal was made under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act. It is the Examining
`
`Attorney’s position that the use of the mark DEXTERITY BY PEDIFIX by applicant on its
`
`goods is likely to cause confusion as to source with the use of the marks of cited Registration
`
`Nos. 3,994,623 for the mark DEXTERITY and 4,273,785 for DEXTERITE on said registrants’
`
`goods.
`
`In the final refusal issued on September 17, 2013, the Examining Attorney reiterated her
`
`previous refusals under Section 2(d) and objected to the identification of goods. When applicant
`
`filed its Notice of Appeal, it included an amended identification of goods which reads as follows:
`
`Silicone gel sheeting for the treatment of scars; support bandages, namely, wearable pads
`for the hands for use in cushioning and protecting the metacarpal heads and to protect the
`thumb and other digits from forceful trauma, pressure, shock and shear; support bandages
`used to cushion the base of the thumb and reduce tenderness over palmar incisions, finger
`support bandages, finger guards for medical purposes; exercise articles for rehabilitation
`and therapeutic purposes, namely, polymer gel spheres for muscular rehabilitation; pads
`for preventing pressure sores; compression sleeve for treating swelling and circulatory
`disorders, anti-inflammatory gel pad for treating sports injuries and tissue trauma;
`gel-based joint protector sleeves for the hands, thumb and wrists for medical purposes;
`carpal tunnel relief sleeves, terrycloth gloves and mittens with gel inserts for use in heat
`therapy for the hands
`
`The Board treated this as a Request for Reconsideration and returned the file to the Examining
`
`Attorney for further action. She, in turn, denied the Request for Consideration, repeating her
`
`rejection under Section 2(d). Inasmuch as no comment was made with respect to the newly
`
`submitted identification of goods, it is believed that it has been accepted and, in fact, applicant’s
`
`

`
`goods as set forth above are what are listed in the TESS database.
`
`The goods set forth in Reg. No. 4,273,785 for the mark DEXTERITE read as follows:
`
`Class 9 - Equipment for camera image processing for surgical manipulation, namely,
`computers; computer software for surgical manipulation systems, namely, operating
`software for surgical devices
`
`Class 10 — Articulated and motor driven instruments for use in urology, gynecology,
`vascular, cardiac and gastrointestinal laparoscopic surgery; artificial limbs, eyes and
`teeth; orthopaedic articles, namely, orthopedic braces; robotic surgical apparatus and
`instruments, namely, surgical articulated and motor driven instruments; computerized
`apparatus and instruments for surgical manipulation, namely, surgical articulated and
`motor driven instruments; articulated and motor driven arms for surgical manipulation;
`electrical surgical apparatus and instruments, namely, surgical articulated and motor
`driven instruments; jointed and motorised surgical apparatus and instruments for
`endoscopic and laproscopic surgery
`
`The goods set forth in Reg. No. 3,994,623 for the mark DEXTERITY read as follows:
`
`Medical examination and surgical gloves; disposable medical gloves
`
`ISSUE
`
`The issue is whether applicant’s mark as applied to its goods is confusingly similar to the
`
`marks set forth in the cited registrations. Applicant does not dispute the Examining Attorney’s
`
`statement that the marks themselves are either identical or close. What applicant does dispute is
`
`the Examining Attorney’s holding that the goods to which it applies its mark are so closely
`
`related to those of the cited registrations that there is likely to be confusion as to source.
`
`

`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Point 1 -
`
`Comparison of Applicant’s Goods as listed to Those
`of Reg. No. 4,273,785 - DEXTERITE
`
`The pertinent goods in Reg. No. 4,273,785 are those of Class 10.
`
`It is immediately
`
`apparent from the description and listing of these goods that they are entirely different from those
`
`to which applicant applies its marks. Goods such as “articulated and motor driven instruments
`
`for use in urology, gynecology, vascular, cardiac and gastrointestinal laporoscopic surgery”
`
`would certainly be purchased only by medical professionals such as doctors and surgeons and the
`
`channels of trade for such goods would be medical supply houses, hospitals and the like.
`
`“Artificial limbs, eyes and teeth” are not sold over the counter but, rather, by professionals and
`
`institutions in the field of medicine for use by their patients. Orthopedic braces would be
`
`purchased from a medical supply store under a doctor’s prescription. As to the remainder of the
`
`goods in this registration, they are surgical goods used by medical professionals sold through the
`
`appropriate channels and would not be purchased by the everyday purchasing public.
`
`All of the above is in complete contrast to applicant’s goods which are over-the-counter
`
`items for sale in drug stores, department stores and the like.
`
`It is hard to see how any purchaser
`
`would attribute applicant’s goods such as terry cloth gloves containing a gel sold under its
`
`trademark with those of the registrant sold under the trademark DEXTERITE no matter how the
`
`latter mark is pronounced. Catalog pages showing typical products sold by applicant under the
`
`mark DEXTERITY BY PEDIFIX are attached hereto as Appendix A. They were submitted to
`
`the Examining Attorney with applicant’s response dated August 27, 2013 to the Office Action of
`
`February 27, 2013 and are part of the record.
`
`

`
`To the foregoing should be added that the purchasers of goods such as those set forth in
`
`Reg. No. 4,273,785 are surely not ordinary consumers, and it would be expected that these
`
`purchasers would be careful and sophisticated purchasers, a fact that materially decreases the
`
`likelihood that there would be confusion. Astra Pharmaceutical Products Inc. v. Beckman
`
`Instruments, Inc., 718 F.2d 1201, 1l0 USPQ 786 (lS‘ Cir. 1983).
`
`The Examining Attorney takes issue with applicant’s contention that the goods of Reg.
`
`No. 4,273,785 for the mark DEXTERITE as set forth above would be sold to medical
`
`professionals. She focuses on the word “orthopedic” which according to her attached definition
`
`from the Macmillan Dictionary means “relating to the medical treatment of injuries and diseases
`
`affected bones and muscles.” She states that applicant’s identified goods include orthopedic
`
`support bandages as well as finger support bandages and the like.” However, the word
`
`“orthopedic” does not appear in applicant’s current identification of goods. Applicant’s support
`
`bandages, finger guards and the like are not orthopedic articles. One does not consider an anti-
`
`inflammatory gel pad for treating sport injuries as an orthopedic device. Indeed, Dictionary. com,
`
`which is based on The Random House Dictionary defines “orthopedics” as “the medical specialty
`
`concerned with correction of deformities or functional impairment of the skeletal system,
`
`especially the extremities and the spine, and associated structures, as muscles and ligaments.”
`
`(Emphasis supplied)
`
`To conclude on this point, all of applicant’s listed goods are entirely different from those
`
`set forth in cited Reg. No. 4,273,785 and are sold through entirely different channels and
`
`purchased by entirely different classes of purchasers, in the case of the registrant’s goods by,
`
`careful, knowledgeable medical professionals as opposed to the ordinary public which purchases
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`applicant’s over-the—counter products.
`
`One fiirther point with respect to cited Reg. No. 4,273,785: although applicant concedes
`
`that the translation of the French word “dexterite” is “dexterity,” it is submitted that the ordinary
`
`English-speaking person in this country would surely pronounce the mark with the hard “I” as in
`
`“dexteright.” The French pronunciation would be “dexteree.” It is submitted that this is an
`
`additional reason why confusion should not be likely.
`
`Point 2 -
`
`Comparison of Applicant’s Goods as listed to Those
`of Reg. No. 3,994,623 - DEXTERITY
`
`With respect to the goods in this registration, the Examiner’s position is that the
`
`“disposable medical gloves” listed in this registration do not have a special or particular function
`
`other than being of medical use and include disposable medical gloves used for any medical
`
`purpose. The Examining Attorney then concludes that the goods of the registration include
`
`applicant’s “terrycloth gloves and mittens with gel inserts for use in heat therapy for the hands”
`
`and may be used for the same purposes as those goods of applicant’s and applicant’s other
`
`medical hand treatment products. The difficulty with this position is that applicant’s goods are
`
`not medical products. They are the products designed to provide comfort and relief to some
`
`common pains and irritations and the like. Moreover, as applicant urged repeatedly in its
`
`responses to the Office Actions during prosecution of this case, applicant’s glove products are
`
`not disposable at all. To the contrary, its terry cloth gloves and mittens and other such products
`
`are designed to be used repeatedly until they wear out or deteriorate. They are not of the nature
`
`that would be considered disposable.
`
`

`
`To the foregoing it is added that the common understanding of “disposable medical
`
`gloves” would be gloves used by doctors, surgeons, nurses or aides for various medical purposes
`
`such as examinations, surgery, applications of topical medications and disposed of thereafter.
`
`Every television program that shows an operating room shows such gloves, not terrycloth gloves
`
`and mittens filled with gel.
`
`All of the foregoing applies also to the medical examination and surgical gloves set forth
`
`in Reg. No. 3,994,623. The purpose of such products is to avoid contamination and the threat of
`
`disease as applicant contends, a purpose which is a far cry from the purpose and use of
`
`applicant’s products.
`
`Point 3 -
`
`The Applicable Law Supports Applicant’s
`Position that Confusion is Not Likely
`
`It is to be emphasized that as the Board has repeatedly stated it is likelihood of confusion,
`
`not a mere possibility of confusion that constitutes a basis for a refusal to register under Section
`
`2(d). For example, see Electronic Design and Sales Inc. v. Electronic Data Systems, 954 F.2d
`
`713, 21 USPQ2d 1388, 1392-93 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[O]pposer urges that persons who use
`
`opposer’s data processing and telecommunications services at work and who buy batteries at
`
`retail stores would be confused as to source ...[T]he potential for confusion appears a mere
`
`possibility not a probability”). See also Bongrain International (American) Corp. V. Delice de
`
`France, Inc., 811 F.2d 1479, 1 USPQ2d 1775, 1779 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (The “statute refers to
`
`likelihood, not the mere possibility, of confusion”).
`
`

`
`Another principle directly applicable to this case is that it is incumbent upon the
`
`Examining Attorney to submit evidence to establish that applicant’s goods and those of the cited
`
`registrant are sufficiently related so that confusion as to source would result when such goods are
`
`marketed even under very similar marks. The Examining Attorney has submitted no such
`
`evidence at all on this issue. The third party registrations relied on by the Examining Attorney
`
`surely are not a substitute for actual evidence establishing the required relationship. Companies
`
`sell a variety of goods both related and unrelated and are entitled to register a trademark for such
`
`goods if they have been sold in interstate or foreign commerce. However, the fact that a company
`
`may sell a variety of goods does not make the goods they sell related. For example, Bic Pen
`
`Corporation has registered its famous trademark BIC for pens and razors. Surely this does not
`
`make pens and razors related goods coming within the requirements of In re E.I. duPont de
`
`Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 177 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1973). In addition, it is pointed out that
`
`The Gillette Company at one time sold and had registrations of the mark GILLETTE for cigarette
`
`lighters and shaving products with which its mark is always associated. Again, that does not
`
`make cigarette lighters and shaving products related products within the requirements of duPont.
`
`See General Electric Company V. Graham Magnetics Copporation, 197 USPQ 690 (TTAB
`
`1977); Harvey Hubbell Incogporated V. Tokyo Seimitsu Co., Ltd., 188 USPQ 517 (TTAB 1975);
`
`and In re Cotter, 179 USPQ 828 (TTAB 1973).
`
`Referring now to the Examining Attorney’s efforts to find a term in the description of
`
`goods of the cited registration that may generally describe applicant’s goods, the Board has held
`
`that this is not sufficient to establish applicant’s and the registrants’ goods are related. See
`
`General Electric Company, supra [It is not enough to find one term that may generally describe
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`the goods.].
`
`Point 4 -
`
`All Three Marks Involved in This Case
`
`Have a Suggestive Aspect
`
`Dictionary.com defines “dexterity” as “skill or adroitness in using the hands or body;
`
`agility.” Broadly speaking, the mark DEXTERITE of Reg. No. 4,273,785 as applied to the listed
`
`goods therein is somewhat suggestive, particularly when referring to the robotic arms and the
`
`desired results of using them. Likewise, the mark DEXTERITY of Reg. No. 3,994,623 suggests
`
`that the nature of the goods is such that they can be used with a reasonable amount of skill for
`
`their intended purpose. Accordingly, the marks of the two cited registrations should not be
`
`granted such a broad scope as to preclude registration of applicant’s mark which also has a
`
`suggestive aspect in some respects.
`
`Point 5 -
`
`The Inclusion of the Phrase “BY PEDIFIX” Does
`
`Not Add to the Likelihood of Confusion
`
`The Examining Attorney contends that the use of the housemark PEDIFIX is more likely
`
`to add to the likelihood of confusion than to distinguish the marks citing In re Dennison Mfg.
`
`Q, 229 USPQ 141, 144 (TTAB 1986) and Key West Fragrance & Cosmetic Factog, Inc. v.
`
`Mennen Co., 216 USPQ 168, 170 (TTAB 1982). The cases cited do not support the Examining
`
`Attorney’s position. At issue in the Key West case was the mark SKIN SAVERS owned by the
`
`Petitioner Key West as applied to face and throat lotion. The mark sought to be cancelled was
`
`MENNEN SKIN SAVER owned by The Mennen Company. MENNEN was and is a famous
`
`registered trademark so that the conclusion that that word in a mark might well lead a member of
`
`the consuming public to believe that Petitioner’s mark SKIN SAVERS emanated from the same
`
`-11-
`
`

`
`source as the MENNEN SKIN SAVER product was fully justified.
`
`In contrast to the foregoing,
`
`app1icant’s registered mark PEDIFIX is a coined word, and the inclusion thereof in the mark
`
`sought to be registered, DEXTERITY BY PEDIFIX, would surely be a factor in avoiding a
`
`likelihood of confusion rather than a factor contributing to likelihood of confusion.
`
`The case of In re Dennison Mfg. Co. does not support the Examining Attorney’s position
`
`either. The District Court simply held that the addition of extra matter such as a housemark
`
`would not serve to avoid a likelihood of confusion between two otherwise confusingly similar
`
`marks and that in the particular case the addition of the term “UHU” was not sufficient to
`
`preclude likelihood of confusion between the marks GLUE STIC and UHU GLUE STIC, both of
`
`which were applied to adhesives and were identical.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`It is respectfully submitted that in view of the vastly different goods to which the cited
`
`registrations are applied and the goods to which applicant applies the mark sought to be
`
`registered, one of the critical requirements of duPont for a 2(d) rejection has not been met by the
`
`Examining Attorney. Accordingly, it is urged that confusion is not likely in this case.
`
`Wherefore, it is respectfully submitted that the refusal to register should be reversed.
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`APPENDIX A
`
`

`
`Winfer 201
`
`1/20
`
`12
`
`./O6.42A
`
`V Silicofie '
`
`

`
`
`
`
`Targeted Heat
`
`-
`" " ’
`
`'
`
`.
`
`F
`
`’
`
`'
`
`'
`
`Red .s‘tczz'bI1r.s‘t indicates ”Cautiorz”
`who;-*2 mitten is heated.
`
`
` Iefofe Hearing
`A fi‘&'r
`I:1'r.=aI:in§,
`
`
`
`Pain anagemenl-l\/loblllly
`EASE PAlN * EXPAND RANGE OF l\/lOTlON * INCREASE CIRCULATION
`
`TIl(?1‘i‘7’2:1 I
`
`irrzaging
`Phom after
`I 1/2 mizizzlm
`
`vwzarimz
`I\fatmCzu'e
`mi: ns.
`
`Features:
`- Microwavable, lorgeled Flox Seed warming zones
`provide deep and gentle heal ond molsl lheropy
`- l\/llcrowovoble lVl~Ge| lining moisturizes the entire hand
`0 Adlusloble lor 0 custom ill
`~ Soft ond comfortable Fleece outer cover
`«» Nolurol bomnlcols and essenllcsl oils
`
`0 Dermolologlsl—lesle(i 8: Hypoollergenlc
`
`
`
`.lm;geted flax Seed
`Heat Tlzerapy Zones
`
`

`
`& Protection continued
`
`l’vi~r2?«e! Carpal Tunnel Relief Sleeve
`Anatomically designed gel pad helps prevent and reduce shock, impact,
`pressure one viprrllion. Reduces discomfort caused by hypersensitivity.
`ldeal for kelold and hypertrophée scarring mat is a result of plastic.I‘recori~
`structive surgeri,-, injury or burns.Greol tor carpal tunnel post~ap. Mineral
`Oil gel pod helps prevent and reduce the appearance of scar tissue. 4-4
`way stretch labric allows full wrist motion. Provides wcrtrritti and mild
`compression. Supports protects, compresses. pre and post op tor Carpal
`Tunnel and CT Release Scars.
`
`802{)—Sl.
`802=3~LL
`
`$18.00
`$18.00
`
`8020-SR $18.00
`8020~LR
`$18.00
`
`
`
`Mwfief Mint Microfiber
`Elbow Sleeve
`Ulnar pair‘ protector. Hydrates sitin on con»;
`tact. {tel lining releases hydrators, \'ii(}mll‘=S
`& essential oils. Moisturézes & conditions
`dry crooked elbows. Helps prevent tiara skin
`& coiluses. ‘Cushions elbows on contact.
`Warm, gently protective, non bulky.
`lrleol
`for Lateral Epicondyiosis, Ulnar Neurtlis.
`Elbow Confusions, more.
`130
`317.85%
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(361 Inside
`
`
`
`
`
`
`170
`
`Sl'2.5O lipr.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`fartitici
`"0 padding tolprotect in ‘ullnafnerver
`A Gel .l'r2,sidc' ~~\l
`I fail pad.to‘p.olect'l.?ie elbow. Soathes as well as soliensaty craclrecijékin
`.
`'
`r'I.
`
`$10.25
` l425~,S (5 5/16‘ L X 3' W)
`$10.75
`l426~l.
`-(5 9.:‘l6" L X 3 5.-‘S’ W’)
`
`
`
`is/?«<§el Carpal Tunnel Relief Pad
`‘thin, three dimensional gel pad with adhesive backing tits in gloves, splints and braces. Provides cushioning for
`
`reduce the appearance of old and new scars. Can be incorporated into custom made or off-the
`:tt hand,/wrist
`braces. Supports, protects, compresses. pre and post op for Carpal Tunnel and CT Release Scars.
`
`
`
`r\_/7~.
`
`C<:itt8OCl—424~55(>i
`
`- Fcix:800~43l~780l
`
`- www.DexterltyHcindTher<Jpy,com
`
`
`
`
`fr/?-{3el’ Mint Microfiber Fully-Lined Gloves
`Full gel coverage for the entire mind. Soft, easily stretched fa;erlc.lvlay
`help reduce the appearance of old and new scars. Moisturizes the entire
`hand (including cuticles). Helps with eczema and psoriasis. Provides
`warmth and mild (torriprossion lo the entire hand.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
` (£2! Pm!
`
`lrrsiilc
`
`4306-3
`43064.
`
`3
`S
`
` {vt'2~Ge1 Pad with Finger Loop
`
`
`
`soft gel cushions and protects the
`Comfortable.
`54~C‘0“Vi”‘-
`4‘_3G4'S’;-
`metacarpal heads (votarly and dorsatt\,r).Absorhs
`34-G0 " ‘r/ftk
`4004's“
`shack. reduces shear and pressure tomes. will not flat-
`
` 3400 ~ lfflk ten iilre foam or felt produr;%'s. May be used to cushion
`
`
`4004-U.
`
`4()04—E..R
`3400 ~ :1
`base at tttirnil) or to reduce l’£'tl’k'lGl‘l'l(->83 over potmar iri-
`
`cisions, especially ‘when grasping firm objects. Rec-
`
`
`ommendeo for secar .third and‘ ur" fingers.
`
`Get’ I’.'ui
` §‘s’}{‘»-£§a:s;i CMC/MP Joint Protector
`lnsitle
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’
`
`A/
`
`
`
`Soft get cushions and protects the metacarpal hearts
`(valarly and dorsally/).May be used to cushion base of
`thumb or reduce tenderness over paimar incisions.
`especially when grasping firm objectsiow cratiie design
`fits comfortably under spiints or braces, Idea: for trigger
`finger. Gel is effective in improving the appearance of
`old or new scars.
`
` $3.95 - t/pk
`$3.95 -1/;)k
` pressure. shock and shear. Aitachesto in
`design fits under splints or braces.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ml’-fie? Body Disk with Adhesive
`Adhesive Back and Mylar Top. Spot fretiet. May be
`used to off toad pressure, absorb shock or shear
`tarces, and to reduce scar tissue. 5mm thick, satt, pure
`M-Gel mineral oil moisturizes skin at point of ‘contact.
`May help improve the appaararich of aid and new A’
`scars. ?eel--and»-stick adhesive backing for secure V
`piacen .r:t in braces splints. etc. Trim to tit.
`
`
`
`t§xt~ ate? 4 ” Body Square with Adhesive
`Adhesive Back and Mylar Top. Spat Relief. May be
`used to offload pressure, absorb shock or shear tarces,
`and to reduce scar tissue. 6mm thick, soft, pure M~r}ol
`mineral oil moisturizes skin at point at contact. May
`help improve the appearance at old and new scars.
`
`Pr-,‘el~and-stick adhesive backing for secure placement
`in braces. splints, etc. Trim to ti"
`
`
`
`
`1353
`
`St I,'}’i3—2:"§)lr
`
`
`
`tkiwtztet Dots with Adhesive
`
`Spot relief. May be used to reduce abrasion, friction and pressure in a solint, cast, or
`brace liner. 3mm ll“:iCk, 25mm riiarneler M—Gel dots with pressure-serisiftve adhesive. Also
`usofut to protect honey prominences as an individual cushion. Trim to fit.
`
`sees: 2.5” Disk with I-took Backing
`Spot relief. Sati gel with track baakirig sticks to various surfaces. Easily lrirrimeri for precise
`fitting. May be used to offload pressure, absorb shock or shear forces, and to reduce scar
`tissue. 8mm thicl<, soil, pure M-Gel mineral oil rrioistarizes skin at point of coritacl. May
`help impraiza the appearance of old and new scars. trim to fit. Wasttaitle and reusable.
`
`_
`
`ti/::“<f$€“:§;4” x 6” Square with Hook Backing
`Spot relief. Soft
`with hank backing sticks to various surfaces. Easily trimmed for precise
`titting. May be used to offload pressure. absorb shock or shear forces, and to reduce scar
`tissue. Grrrrn ttiick, sail, cure M439! mineral oil moisiu ..es skin at paint of contact. May
`hetp improve the arzpeorance at old and new scars. Hook Backing attaches to splint or
`braces with fabric lining. Washable and reusable. Trim to fit.
`
`
`
`
`
`directty on the skin, Washable anri reusable. Trim to its.
`
`ppiicaiiohs
`splint, costs, or braces; Peel~an'_d
`thicir soft gel protects prominences. Adhesive properties are in
`
`I
`
`. mm .
`gel and safe for use
`
`
`
`4380
`
`3] L35 __ 15 dmypk
`
`
`_
`Bra]
`3:256 I
`' mm
`
`Q 9'93
`‘
`'
`
`,
`
`' "9
`
`
`
`
`
`$l?.."0—'/‘.!;>l<.
`
`I
`
`Coll 800-4211-556i
`
`- Fox: 80=O~z13l—78Dl
`
`- www.DexierityH<:indThercipycom
`
`5