TTAB Affirms Genericness Refusal of THE SKIN COACH for . . . . Guess What?

The Board upheld a genericness refusal of the proposed mark THE SKIN COACH for, inter alia, "Professional coaching services in the field of health and wellness," "Providing on-line training in the form of courses, workshops, seminars, and private coaching in the field of health and wellness," and "Holistic health services," rejecting the application for a Supplemental Registration under Sections 23(c) and 45 of the Trademark Act. Applicant acknowledged the considerable third-party evidence of use of "skin coach" "in connection with skincare, wellness, or esthetics," but contended that the term is at most descriptive, not generic. In re The Skin Coach LLC, Serial No. 98351505 (May 11, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christopher C. Larkin).

The Board determines the issue of genericness as a question of fact, based on the preponderance of evidence. ["Clear evidence" is not required]. The Office bears the ultimate burden of proof. "Determining whether a mark is generic . . . involves a two-step inquiry: First, what is the genus of goods or services at issue? Second, is the term sought to be registered . . . understood by the relevant public primarily to refer to that genus of goods or services?"

The Board observed that "A term is generic if it refers to the class or category of goods or services on which it is used," citing Marvin Ginn and Dial-A-Mattress, or to "part of the claimed genus of goods or services, even if the public does not understand the term to refer to the broad genus," citing Royal Crown and Cordua. [Emphasis by the Board].

The Board found the genus of the respective two classes of services to be “Professional coaching services in the field of health and wellness” and “Providing on-line training in the form of courses, workshops, seminars, and private coaching in the field of health and wellness” in Class 41, and “Holistic health services” in Class 44. Applicant conceded that “‘skin coach’ may describe a niche focus within Applicant’s broader wellness services.” The question for the Board was whether the evidence showed "that the primary significance of THE SKIN COACH is to refer to that sub-genus of the involved services."

Turning to the public's understanding of the term THE SKIN COACH, Examining Attorney Janice McMorrow submitted dictionary definitions of "skin" and "coach," applicant's own specimen website pages (using “skin coach” generically in lowercase letters to identify the provider of the services, applicant’s principal “Malia,” as “your new skin coach & BFF”), and numerous third-party websites. After a detailed analysis of those websites, the Board concluded:

On balance, the third-party website evidence shows that the primary significance of the phrase “skin coach” is to refer to the sub-genuses of “professional coaching services in the field of health and wellness,” “on-line training in the form of courses, workshops, seminars, and private coaching in the field of health and wellness,” and “holistic health services” regarding skin care.

A number of LEXIS/NEXIS articles use "skin coach" and variants "generically to identified multiple instructors who provide services falling within" the sub-genuses listed above.

The Board found, from this evidence, that "the primary significance of THE SKIN COACH to the relevant consuming public is to refer to the sub-genuses of 'Professional coaching services in the field of health and wellness' and 'Providing on-line training in the form of courses, workshops, seminars, and private coaching in the field of health and wellness' in Class 41, and 'Holistic health services' in Class 44, regarding skin care."

And so, the Board affirmed the refusal.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: I'm a bit confused. Is THE SKIN COACH a sub-genus of the sub-genuses? Anyway, the term seems merely descriptive to me. If you looked for a phone book listing of health or fitness providers, would you find a sub-heading, "skin coaches?" But then, a mere descriptiveness rejection that would still allow a Supplemental Registration. The Board didn't want that to happen.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.

TTABlog Test: Which of These Three Section 2(d) Refusals Was/Were Reversed?

TTAB affirmances of Section 2(d) refusals continue to run at about 90% this year. Here are three recent decisions. At least one of them resulted in a reversal. What say you? [Answer in first comment].

In re Grandvision France, Serial No. 79389236 (May 12, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christopher C. Larkin). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark shown below left, for "“Spectacles; spectacle frames; eyeglasses; sunglasses; masks for sports in the nature of sports goggles, with the exception of fencing masks; spectacle lenses; optical lenses; lenses for sunglasses; correcting lenses being optical lenses; contact lenses; eyeglass lenses; ophthalmic lenses; corrective lenses being optical lenses; spectacle cases; eye glass cases; carrying cases for contact lenses; headbands, cords, chains and ties for holding spectacles, namely, eye glass cords and eye glass chains; binoculars; optic magnifiers being magnifying glasses” in view of the registered mark below right, for "Beauty masks; Cleaning preparations; Cosmetic preparations for eyelashes; Cosmetic products in the form of aerosols for skin care; Cosmetics; Cotton sticks for cosmetic purposes; Cotton wool for cosmetic purposes; Facial cleansing milk; Lotions for cosmetic purposes; Make up removing preparations.”]

In re Destiladora del Valle de Tequila SA de CV, Serial No. 98588895 (May 12, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Robert Lavache) [Section 2(d) refusal of AI for "Distilled agave liquor" in view of the identical mark registered for "Wine."]

In re TDI Novus Inc., Serial No. 98593408 (May 12, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Thomas W. Wellington). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark shown below, for "A voice communication system for an autonomous vehicle in maritime comprised of an apparatus to record, transcribe, translate, and parse voice communications over the radio frequency spectrum and autonomously providing a system generated voice transmission response that is appropriate and in context of the transmission and any earlier transmissions," in view of the registered mark MERMADE for, inter alia, "apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound and images."].

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: How did you do? See any WYHA?s ? 

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.

TTAB Affirms Refusals to Register Restaurant Interior Designs: Distinctiveness Neither Inherent Nor Acquired

The Board affirmed refusals to register the two restaurant interior designs shown below, for "restaurant services," finding that the proposed marks lacked inherent distinctiveness and were not shown to have acquired distinctiveness. In re ETLC Trademarks, LLC, Serial Nos. 98166506 and 98120339 (May 5, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Jessica B. Bradley).

Applicant's trade dress comprised the interior design of a restaurant consisting of the combination of the following elements:  

• One or more Chicago style brick walls; 
• A bar counter with either a Chicago brick facade or an abstract wood accent facade;  
• A finishing counter connected to the bar; 
• A prep table; and 
• A rotisserie grill that includes a wheel on the upper left side that adjusts the grills with chains to create movement of the metal structure that sits on top of the grill.

The Board applied the CAFC's Seabrook factors and found that the proposed marks satisfy both the second and third Seabrook factors, and accordingly are not inherently distinctive. Chippendales, 622 F.3d at 1351 (Where “a mark satisfies any of the first three [Seabrook] tests, it is not inherently distinctive.”).

The Proposed Marks would be perceived by patrons of Applicant’s restaurant services simply as part of the overall decor or ambiance of Applicant’s restaurants. Given the common use of the claimed elements and the common arrangement of the elements in other restaurants, customers are not likely to view this decor or ambience as identifying and distinguishing the source of Applicant’s restaurant services.

Turning to the issue of acquired distinctiveness, the Board considered the Converse factors and found that Applicant's evidence fell far short.

And so, the Board affirmed the refusals.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: Ran into a brick wall?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.

Are These Two Logo Marks Confusable for Candy?

Candy Dynamics, Inc. opposed an application to register the mark below left, for candy, claiming likely confusion with its registered mark shown below right, also for candy. The Board found the first DuPont factor, the similarity or dissimilarity of the marks, to be dispositive. How do you think this came out? Candy Dynamics, Inc. v. Aurox Distributors LLC, Opposition No. 91292159 (May 7, 2027) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Marth B. Allard).

The Board acknowledged that Applicant’s mark includes a large design element, but it found the literal element SOUR CITY to be its dominant element. "Moreover, the exaggerated expression on the character’s face, i.e., its wide-eyes and outstretched tongue, suggests it has just eaten something extremely sour. Thus, the image reinforces the literal elements of the mark and, for that reason, further supports our finding that the literal elements SOUR CITY are the dominant portion of Applicant’s mark. This is so, despite the fact that, as Opposer argues, the image is larger in size compared to the size of the literal elements."

Comparing the marks for similarity in sight and sound, the Board found that "the marks share no common literal elements and are dissimilar in sight and sound."

As to connotation and commercial impression, "nothing in Applicant’s mark suggests that the character has tasted something toxic; rather, the literal elements SOUR CITY suggest the character has eaten something sour." This is in contrast to Opposer’s mark, in which "the mushroom cloud image and the resulting toxic connotation is completely missing from Applicant’s mark. As a result, the marks when considered in their entireties are different in connotation and commercial impression."

When comparing the parties’ marks in their entireties, we agree with Opposer that the parties’ design portions share some general, thematic similarities, i.e., each character has (i) a sort of rounded head; (ii) bloodshot eyes, with the right eye slightly larger than the left; and (iii) a fully extended tongue extending from the left-center of their mouth. However, the record shows that the shared elements of a character with a rounded head, wide-eyes and outstretched tongue are relatively weak, and not “unique” as Opposer argues. Moreover, the presence of the wording SOUR CITY in the Applicant’s mark suffices to distinguish the marks aurally and further distinguishes them visually.

And so, the Board dismissed the opposition.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: WYHO?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.

TTAB Judge Elizabeth A. Dunn Has Retired

Administrative Trademark Judge Elizabeth A. Dunn has retired from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. She was appointed to the Board in 2019. Judge Dunn is, by my count, the tenth TTAB judge to leave the Board since January 2025. A current roster of the TTAB judges may be found here.

Read comments and post your comment here.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.

TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Section 2(d) Appeals Turn Out?

Here are three recent TTAB decisions in Section 2(d) appeals. Remembering that a TTAB Judge (now retired) once said that one can predict the outcome of a Section 2(d) appeal 95% of the time just by considering the marks and the goods/services, how do you think these came out? [Answer in first comment].

In re Studio Mir Co., Ltd., Serial No. 90310822 (April 24, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Lawrence T. Stanley, Jr.). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark KOJI for, inter alia, comic or picture books and toys "relating to fictional character from anime series" in view of the identical mark registered for "stickers."]

In re Natures Generator, Inc., Serial No. 97519777 (April 28, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Robert Lavache). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark shown below, for "Solar-powered electricity generators; Wind-powered electricity generators" in view of the registered mark POWERHOUSE for "Portable electric generators."]

In re Marx Brothers, Inc., Serial No. 98455354 (May 1, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Robert Lavache). [Section 2(d) refusal of the mark PALM ISLE for "Coconut milk; Coconut oil for food; Desiccated coconut; Flaked coconut; Processed coconut" in view of the registered mark PALM ISLAND for "Gourmet sea salt for cooking and spices."]

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: How did you do? See any WYHA?s ?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.

Recommended Reading: Prof. Lisa P. Ramsey: Trademarks and Free Speech - Conflicts and Resolutions

Cambridge University Press has just published Trademarks and Free Speech: Conflicts and Resolutions, by Lisa P. Ramsey, Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law.  Professor Ramsey has given presentations throughout the United States and around the world about how certain trademark laws may conflict with the right to freedom of expression.

This book explores how trademark laws can conflict with the right to freedom of expression and proposes a framework for evaluating free speech challenges to trademark registration and enforcement laws. It also explains why granting trademark rights in informational terms, political messages, widely used phrases, decorative product features, and other language and designs with substantial pre-existing communicative value can harm free expression and fair competition. Lisa P. Ramsey encourages governments to not register or protect broad trademark rights in these types of inherently valuable expression. She also recommends that trademark statutes explicitly allow certain informational, expressive, and decorative fair uses of another’s trademark, and proposes other speech-protective and pro-competitive reforms of trademark law for consideration by legislatures, courts, and trademark offices in the United States, Europe, and other countries.

There will be a book launch on May 7, 2026, 2:30 PM to 4:00 PM, at UCL Laws, Bentham House, Endsleigh Gardens, London WC1H 0EG. Book ticket here.

Read comments and post your comment here.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.

Precedential No. 2: TTAB Upholds USPTO Reexamination Ruling: EVERWISE CREDIT UNION Registration to be Cancelled for Nonuse

In what appears to be the first review of a reexamination decision under Section 16B of the Trademark Act, the Board affirmed the USPTO’s finding that a registration for the mark EVERWISE CREDIT UNION for various banking, credit union, and financial services should be cancelled because the registrant failed to prove that it had used the mark as of the deadline date for its Statement of Use. “In light of the overwhelming evidence showing that Registrant did not adopt EVERWISE CREDIT UNION as a mark for its financial services until after the SOU Deadline, the single use of ‘Everwise Credit Union™’ on the specimen is insufficient to demonstrate bona fide use of the mark in commerce. Rather, in view of the record, the specimen demonstrates only Registrant’s attempt to reserve rights in the mark through minimal, token use.” In re Everwise Credit Union, Reexamination No. 2023-100533R for Registration No. 7068783 (April 29, 2026) [precedential] (Opinion by Judge George C. Pologeorgis).

In a reexamination proceeding, the USPTO may cancel a registration, in whole or in part, if the evidence shows that the registered mark was not in use in commerce as of the filing date of a use-based application or, in the case of an intent-to-use application, as of the date of an amendment to allege use, or as of the deadline for filing a statement of use, including all approved extensions, as applicable.

Registrant filed its Statement of Use on April 14, 2023, and the registration issued on May 30, 2023. A third-party petitioned for reexamination on June 20, 2023. The Director of the USPTO instituted the reexamination proceeding based on the petitioner's prima facie showing of nonuse. Registrant was then required to rebut the prima facie case.

Registrant's specimen of us comprised a screenshot of its website. Petitioner submitted the results of a Wayback Machine search showing no use of the mark prior to the critical date. Google Play Store and Apple Store evidence showed that Registrant, as of the SOU Deadline, offered an app for its credit union services under the name “TCU Mobile Banking” and not EVERWISE CREDIT UNION.

In rebuttal, Registrant submitted a declaration from its Chief Marketing & Growth Officer, asserting that the mark was in use during the relevant time period. When Examiner Brittany Lee-Richardson issued a final office action finding that Registrant had failed to rebut the prima facie case of nonuse, Registrant appealed.

Registrant argued that its webpage specimen showed the mark EVERWISE CREDIT in a tagline at the top of the webpage above a section that describes what it means to be a credit union, stating that TCU is an “Everwise Credit Union." [See illustration above]. Its declaration attested that the mark has been in continuous and extensive use.

The examiner contended that, when compared to the display of the TCU or TEACHERS CREDIT UNION marks, the non-prominent use of the EVERWISE CREDIT UNION mark on the specimen of use failed to demonstrate bona fide use in commerce. Moreover, a blog post by Registrant on June 26, 2023, announced that it would be re-branding the credit union from TEACHERS CREDIT UNION to EVERWISE CREDIT UNION.

The Board first observed that, non surprisingly, the fact that the original examining attorney accepted the statement of use was not dispositive of the issue. See In re Locus Link USA, No. 2022-100137E, 2024 WL 3274709, at *6 (TTAB 2024).

Reviewing the specimen of use, the Board found that the appearance of the wording EVERWISE CREDIT UNION "buried in the text of the webpage in the same font and size as the rest of the wording in the corresponding paragraph," would not be perceived by relevant consumers as a source indictor for the recited services.

As to the use of the mark in the tagline, the Board found that "such use of the wording on the specimen does not constitute bona fide use of the mark in commerce, but is merely use made in an attempt to reserve a right in the mark until Registrant was actually using the mark in commerce in connection with its financial services."

Registrant filed a change of name from Teachers Credit Union to Everwise Credit Union with the Office on July 19, 2023. The change of name was executed on June 26, 2023, after the SOU Deadline (April 14, 2023). The fact that Registrant did not actually change its name to EVERWISE CREDIT UNION until two months after the SOU Deadline supports the finding that it added the tagline incorporating the mark to a single page on its website merely to preserve its right to make bona fide use of the mark in the future, i.e., to merely reserve a right in the mark.

The Board found it "quite remarkable" that Registrant "could not produce a single additional document that uses the wording EVERWISE CREDIT UNION as a source indicator of its financial services as of the SOU Deadline." Moreover, none of the exhibits attached to registrant's declaration showed use of the wording EVERWISE CREDIT UNION as a source indicator for these services. Instead, the marks TCU or TEACHERS CREDIT UNION appear throughout the exhibits as the source indicator for the listed services."

[The] lack of additional evidence demonstrating use as a source identifier pre-dating the SOU Deadline, viewed in conjunction with the screenshots of Registrant’s website advising that Registrant would officially offer its registered financial services under the EVERWISE CREDIT UNION mark after the SOU Deadline, clearly shows that Registrant’s use of the EVERWISE CREDIT UNION mark on the submitted specimen was not bona fide in nature but submitted for the purpose of reserving the mark for use at a future date. This is exactly the type of use the statute was designed to avoid.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: The Board's opinion includes a lengthy and helpful discussion of how reexamination works. Note that, rather than the term "examining attorney," Section 16B of the Act uses the term "examiner." Also note that the applicant had run out of extensions of time when it filed its SOU.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.

TTAB Posts May 2026 Hearing Schedule

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Tee-Tee-Ā-Bee) has scheduled three oral hearings for the month of May 2026. In the first two cases listed below, the hearings will held virtually. In the third, the hearing will be in-person at the Madison East Building 600 Dulany Street, 9th Floor (Hearing Room C), Alexandria, VA. Briefs and other papers for each case may be found at TTABVUE via the links provided.

May 6, 2026 - 10:00 AM [Virtual]: In re Rivers IP Holdngs, LLC, Serial No. 97511850 [Section 2(d) refusal to register the mark shown immediately below, for "Fast casual take away restaurant services featuring Mexican food served to patrons in a casino" [TACO disclaimed] in view of the registered mark SUERTE for "Restaurant services; Bar services; Catering services."]

May 27, 2026 - 10:00 AM [Virtual]: NIKE, Inc. v. Gotemkicks, Opposition No. 91287908 [Section 2(d) opposition to registration of the mark GOT EM KICKS for "Retail consignment stores featuring retro sneakers and clothing," in view of the opposer's alleged common law rights in the mark GOT 'EM for retail store services featuring footwear and clothing.]

May 28, 2026 - 10:00 AM [In-Person]: Constellation Brands U.S. Operations Inc. v. The Vineyard House LLC, Opposition No. 91245800 et al. [Consolidated oppositions against twelve applications for registration of marks comprising variations of the name Henry Walker Crabb, for wine, on the grounds that (1) Applicant lacked a bona-fide intent to use nine of its marks at the time the opposed applications were filed; (2) the CRABB’S BLACK BURGUNDY trademark violates the wine and spirits provision of Section 2(a); (3) applicant’s marks misdescribe qualities and characteristics of applicant’s Goods in a way that would deceive consumers; (4) applicant’s marks are likely to cause confusion as the source of goods because they are confusingly similar to opposer’s marks; and (5) applicant’s marks create a false association with opposer and opposer’s TO KALON Vineyard.]

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: What say you? See a WYHA?

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.

The Trademark Reporter's "Annual Review of European Trademark Law"

The Trademark Reporter has published its "Annual Review of European Trademark Law," with contributions from an impressive roster of authors from across Europe. The volume may be downloaded here. Willard Knox, Staff Editor-in-Chief, comments as follows:

This annual curated compendium highlights European trademark case law decisions rendered by courts in 2025 in the European Union (“EU”) (at both the EU and national levels), the United Kingdom, and other European jurisdictions.

A big shoutout to TMR member and principal author/editor Tom Scourfield as well as TMR member and contributor Jordi Güell for their work on this issue!

Please join me as Tom, Jordi, and TMR author Alicja Zalewska-Orabona present their popular Annual Review of Leading Case Law in Europe session on Tuesday, May 5, 12:00 pm–1:00 pm.

TTABlogger comment: Once again I thank The Trademark Reporter for granting leave to provide a link to this issue, which is Copyright © 2026 the International Trademark Association and reprinted with the permission of The Trademark Reporter®, 116 TMR No. 2 (March-April 2026).

Read comments and post your comment here.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.