TTAB Finds NO SHAVE FUE to be Generic for . . . . Guess What?

The Board upheld a refusal to register the proposed mark NO SHAVE FUE for "Performing non invasive cosmetic medical procedures; Medical services rendered in relation to hair restoration, hair treatments and hair transplants" [FUE disclaimed] on the ground of genericness. Applicant argued that third party uses of NO SHAVE FUE were infringements of its mark, and that there are other names for this procedure. The Board said "phooey." In re Advanced Hair Restoration LLC, Serial No. 97676476 (November 9, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Mark A. Thurmon).

FUE is an acronym for "follicular unit extraction," a hair restoration procedure that involves harvesting hair follicles from an area where they remain healthy, and then transplanting those healthy follicles in an area where the patient has few or no healthy follicles. "The 'no shave' or 'unshaven' FUE procedure does not require shaving a patient’s head, and therefore, enables patients to return to normal activities sooner."

The Board found the genus of the services to be defined by applicant's recitation of services. The relevant consumers are "individuals seeking cosmetic medical procedures or hair restoration services of the type identified in the application."

The third-party website evidence submitted by Trademark Examiner Amy E. Thomas was "compelling." It established that both providers and patients understand No Shave FUE as the generic name of a widely-available medical procedure. Moreover, applicant used the term generically at its own website.

The evidence shows that the No Shave FUE procedure falls within both services identified in the application. No Shave FUE is a non-invasive cosmetic medical procedure. It is used to treat hair loss, which is a cosmetic issue. No Shave FUE is also a medical service rendered in relation to hair restoration, hair treatments and hair transplants. The applied-for mark is generic for a specific procedure that falls within the scope of the genus.

Applicant's assertion that the third-party users are infringers got short shrift from the Board: "our inquiry does not depend upon what legal actions Applicant takes against third parties."

The Board agreed that there are other names for this procedure: unshaven FUE, nonshaven FUE, long-hair FUE, shave-less FUE, or hair transplantation without shaving. "[T]hat fact is of no consequence. The sole question before us is whether No Shave FUE is generic. The existence of other generic terms for the same service is both unsurprising and irrelevant."

Observing that "a term is generic and cannot be protected as a trademark if the term is the generic name of a subcategory of the full genus," the Board conclude that "No Shave FUE is a particular medical procedure performed by hair restoration clinics throughout the United States. This phrase is generic for a subgenus of the services identified in the application."

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: You don't have to be a sub-genius to reach the same conclusion as the Board.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.