The Skin Coach LLC

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB

Mailed: May 11, 2026

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

In re The Skin Coach LLC

Serial No. 98351505

Carmel Imani of Imani Law LLP for The Skin Coach LLC.

Janice McMorrow, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 115,
Daniel Brody, Managing Attorney.

Before Wellington, Larkin, and O’Connor,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Larkin, Administrative Trademark Judge:

The Skin Coach LLC (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Supplemental
Register of the proposed standard-character mark THE SKIN COACH for the
following services:

e “Education services, namely, providing classes, seminars, conferences, and
courses in the fields of health and wellness and distribution of course
material in connection therewith; Professional coaching services in the field
of health and wellness; Providing on-line courses of instruction in the field
of health and wellness via a website; Providing on-line training in the form
of courses, workshops, seminars, and private coaching in the field of health
and wellness; Providing education courses in the field of health and
wellness offered through online, non-downloadable videos and instructor
assistance,” in International Class 41; and

Serial No. 98351505
- 2 -
• “Holistic health services,” in International Class 44.1
The Examining Attorney has refused registration of Applicant’s proposed mark on
the Supplemental Register under Sections 23(c) and 45 of the Trademark Act, 15
U.S.C. §§ 1091(c), 1127, on the ground that it is the generic name for one or more of
the Class 41 services identified in the application, and for the Class 44 services
identified in the application.
When the Examining Attorney made the refusal final, Applicant appealed and
requested reconsideration, which was denied. The appeal is fully briefed.2 We affirm
the refusal to register as to both Classes 41 and 44.
I. Prosecution History and Record on Appeal3
We briefly summarize below the prosecution history of the application because it
provides useful background to our disposition of the appeal.
1 Application Serial No. 98351505 was filed on January 10, 2024 under Section 1(a) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a), based on Applicant’s claimed first use of the mark and
first use of the mark in commerce at least as early as June 12, 2017 in both classes. Applicant
originally sought registration on the Principal Register, but amended its application during
prosecution on January 22, 2025 to seek registration on the Supplemental Register.
2 Citations in this opinion to the briefs and other materials in the case docket refer to
TTABVUE, the Board’s online docketing system. The number preceding TTABVUE
corresponds to the docket entry number, and any numbers following TTABVUE refer to the
page(s) of the docket entry where the cited materials appear. Applicant’s appeal brief appears
at 6 TTABVUE and its reply brief appears at 9 TTABVUE. The Examining Attorney’s brief
appears at 8 TTABVUE.
Applicant’s reply brief is 19 pages in length, which violates Trademark Rule 2.142(b)(2), 37
C.F.R. § 2.142(b)(2), which provides that a reply brief “shall not exceed ten pages in length in
its entirety.” We have exercised our discretion to consider the first ten pages of Applicant’s
overlong reply brief. There are other issues with Applicant’s briefs that we discuss below.
3 Citations in this opinion to the application record are to pages in the downloadable .pdf
version of the Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (“TSDR”) database of the United
States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).

Serial No. 98351505
- 3 -
Applicant applied to register the proposed mark in both classes based on the same
specimen of use consisting of multiple pages from Applicant’s website at
theskincoach.net. We reproduce relevant portions of several pages below:
4
5
4 January 10, 2024 Application at TSDR 9.
5 Id. at TSDR 10.

Serial No. 98351505

LIFE CHANGING RESULTS

Students healing transformations, in their own words...

nKnwKKne
“My skin has never been this clear,
even on acne medication. These 8
weeks of learn will be
something that I will carry with me
throughout the rest of my life. |
can’t thank you enough.”
_ Tabitha G.

Tabitha G.

Hi Beautiful Malia

What a quick journey! I can’t thank you
enough for what you have taught me in
these 8 weeks. | feel so empowered to heal
my body from the inside out. You have
given me the education to fuel my body so
that | can flourish. These 8 weeks of
learnings will be something that | will carry
with me throughout the rest of my life.

Get started with a Healthy skin starts with
FREE video lesson! the proper foods.

That's right! | am so confident you will love ee cies pune ave ULE
my course, that | want you to try it before
you buy it! This is my at-home micro-
rolling tutorial so many ask for!

Heal Balance Glow
Smoothie

ome wee | a Se

6 Id. at TSDR 11.
7 Id. at TSDR 12.

Serial No. 98351505
- 5 -
8
The Examining Attorney issued an Office Action refusing registration under
Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), based on a registration of the
mark THERAPEUTIC SKIN COACH for “Online blog in the field of skin care, skin
treatments, beauty, health and wellness, and holistic health. Facial services,” and
under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), on the ground that
Applicant’s proposed mark was merely descriptive of the identified services.9 The
Examining Attorney made of record third-party webpages displaying the phrases
“Skincare Coach,” “Skincare Coaching,” “Skincare Coaches,” “Skin Coach,”
“Therapeutic Skin Coach,” and “the Skin Coach.”10 The Examining Attorney also
advised Applicant that “[i]n addition to being merely descriptive, the applied-for mark
8 Id. at TSDR 12.
9 August 6, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 1-4. As discussed below, the Examining Attorney
subsequently withdrew the Section 2(d) refusal because the cited registration was not
renewed, and we will not summarize evidence that is relevant only to that withdrawn refusal.
10 Id. at TSDR 5-39.

Serial No. 98351505
- 6 -
appears to be generic in connection with the identified goods and/or services,” and
that she “cannot recommend that applicant amend the application to proceed under
Trademark Act Section 2(f) or on the Supplemental Register as possible response
options to this refusal.”11
Applicant responded by arguing against both refusals to register. Applicant made
of record third-party webpages showing use of “Skin” and “Coach,” including “Skin
Coach,”12 and USPTO electronic records regarding third-party registrations of
various COACH-formative marks.13 Applicant also amended its application to seek
registration on the Supplemental Register.14
The Examining Attorney then issued a second non-final Office Action
withdrawing the Section 2(d) refusal, but refusing registration of Applicant’s
proposed mark on the Supplemental Register on the ground that it is the generic
name for services identified in the application.15 The Examining Attorney made of
record third-party webpages displaying the words “skin coach” and “skin coaches,”16
and dictionary definitions of the word “skin” and “coach.”17 Applicant filed a response
11 Id. at TSDR 3.
12 January 22, 2025 Response to Office Action at TSDR 58-94.
13 Id. at TSDR 18-57.
14 Id. at TSDR 165.
15 February 5, 2025 Office Action at TSDR 1-3.
16 Id. at TSDR 4-50.
17 Id. at TSDR 51-70 (MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY).

Serial No. 98351505
- 7 -
arguing against the new genericness refusal, but did not make any evidence of
record.18
The Examining Attorney then issued an Office Action making final the refusal to
register on the ground of genericness.19 The Examining Attorney made of record
third-party webpages displaying phrases containing the words “skin” and “coach” or
“coaching,” including the phrases “skin coach,” “skin coaches,” and “skin coaching,”20
and a dictionary definition of the word “genus.”21
Applicant appealed and simultaneously requested reconsideration. In its Request
for Reconsideration, Applicant made of record pages from Dictionary.com, naics.com,
OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY, and MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY indicating no
entry for the phrase “skin coach.”22
The Examining Attorney denied Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration, making
of record excerpts of stories from the LexisNexis database in response to the search
command “skin coach,”23 and third-party webpages displaying the phrases “skin
coach,” “skin coaches,” and “skin coaching.”24 The appeal was resumed, and is now
ready for decision.
18 May 4, 2025 Response to Office Action at TSDR 1-14.
19 May 15, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 1-5.
20 Id. at TSDR 6-95.
21 Id. at TSDR 96-103 (MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY).
22 August 13, 2025 Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 5-9.
23 August 20, 2025 Denial of Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 3-65.
24 Id. at TSDR 67-89.

Serial No. 98351505
- 8 -
II. Analysis of Genericness Refusal
A mark proposed for registration on the Supplemental Register must be capable
of distinguishing the applicant’s goods or services. 15 U.S.C. § 1091(c). “Generic terms
do not so qualify.” In re Emergency Alert Sols. Grp., LLC, No. 86890565, 2017 WL
1684179, at *1 (TTAB 2017). “A generic name--the name of a class of products or
services--is ineligible for federal trademark registration.” In re Uman Diagnostics AB,
No. 88960633, 2023 WL 2039689, at *1 (TTAB 2021) (quoting U.S. Pat. & Trademark
Off. v. Booking.com B.V., 140 S. Ct. 2298, at *2 (2020)). “A generic mark, being the
‘ultimate in descriptiveness, cannot acquire distinctiveness,’ and is not entitled to
registration on either the Principal or Supplemental Register under any
circumstances.” Id. (quoting In re La. Fish Fry Prods., Ltd., 797 F.3d 1332, 1336 (Fed.
Cir. 2015) (quoting H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. Int’l Ass’n of Fire Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d
987, 989 (Fed. Cir. 1982)). “A term is generic if it refers to the class or category of
goods or services on which it is used.” Id. (citing In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating
Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (internal citation omitted)).
“To refuse registration based on a proposed mark being generic, the examining
attorney must ‘establish a prima facie case that the term is generic.’” In re PT
Medisafe Techs., 134 F.4th 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (quoting TRADEMARK MANUAL
OF EXAMINING PROCEDURE (“TMEP”) Section 1209.01(c)(1) (2022)).25 “Thereafter, the
25 Applicant argues in its appeal brief that the Examining Attorney must provide “clear
evidence that the relevant public primarily understands ‘skin coach’ to refer to a genus of
services,” 6 TTABVUE 6 (emphasis added), that “[g]enericness must be proven by clear
evidence that the relevant public uses or understands the term as a class name,” id. at 7
(emphasis added), and that the Examining Attorney’s evidence “cannot meet the ‘clear

Serial No. 98351505
- 9 -
‘burden shifts to the applicant to come forward with evidence to rebut the prima facie
case.’” Id. (quoting In re Pacer Tech., 338 F.3d 1348, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). “Then the
Board, in reviewing an examining attorney’s refusal to register a mark, considers the
full record.” Id. The Board determines registrability “on the totality of the record, by
a preponderance of evidence with due consideration to persuasiveness of argument”
on contested issues. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
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?
PT Medisafe, 134 F.4th at 1374 (quoting Marvin Ginn, 782 F.2d at 990). A
“registration is properly refused if the word is the generic name of any of the goods or
services for which registration is sought.” In re Cordua Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d 594, 605
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (quotation and quotation marks omitted). “Whether a mark is generic
is a question of fact.” Bullshine Distillery LLC v. Sazerac Brands, LLC, 130 F.4th
1025, 1030 (Fed. Cir. 2025).
evidence’ standard for genericness.” Id. at 9 (emphasis added). These are incorrect
statements of the evidentiary standard. In PT Medisafe, which issued many months before
Applicant filed its appeal brief, the Federal Circuit clarified that it has “never held that the
examining attorney must find genericness by clear and convincing evidence.” PT Medisafe,
134 F.4th at 1373 n.4. The court explained that “[a] potentially confusing reference to ‘clear
evidence’ in the TMEP, which we referenced in In re Hotels.com, [L.P., 573 F.3d 1300, 1302
(Fed. Cir. 2009)], has recently been clarified and no longer suggests a clear and convincing
evidence burden . . . .” Id. We will determine whether Applicant’s proposed mark is generic
based on the preponderance of the record evidence.

Serial No. 98351505
- 10 -
A. What is the Genus of Services in Each Class?
Applicant argues that “[t]he Examining Attorney misapplied the H. Marvin Ginn
test by defining the genus to include the mark itself.” 6 TTABVUE 4. Applicant
argues specifically that “[t]he Examining Attorney erred by defining the genus as
‘skin coach’ itself, rather than identifying it from the actual services, education and
holistic health coaching, listed in the application,” id. at 5, and that “[t]his circular
reasoning collapses the analysis into a tautology, using the mark itself to define the
category it supposedly names.” Id. (citation omitted). Applicant concludes that “[t]he
genus must be drawn from the application’s identification or from independent
evidence of consumer understanding, not from the mark.” Id. (citation omitted).
The Examining Attorney responds by listing the identifications of services in
Classes 41 and 44, and arguing that “[t]he genus of the services is healthcare and
healthcare education.” 8 TTABVUE 8.
In the portion of Applicant’s overlong reply brief that we have reviewed, see note
2, supra, Applicant argues that it “does not provide healthcare services or healthcare
education,” 9 TTABVUE 3 (emphasis supplied by Applicant), and that its
“identification contains no medical, dermatological, or clinical services.” Id. at 4.
Applicant describes its services as “educational and coaching/training services
in the field of health and wellness,” id. (emphasis supplied by Applicant), and
identifies the “correct genus” as “wellness coaching and educational services.” Id.
Applicant concludes that “[b]y defining the genus as ‘healthcare and healthcare
education,’ the Examining Attorney improperly expanded the scope of the services

Serial No. 98351505
- 11 -
beyond the identification, rendering the genericness analysis legally flawed at the
outset.” Id. at 5.
Consistent with Applicant’s own characterization of its services as “wellness
coaching and educational services,” we will focus in Class 41 on the genus of services
identified as “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 44, the genus is defined by the
identification of services, “Holistic health services.”
“The determination of whether a mark is generic must be made in relation to the
goods or services for which registration is sought, not in the abstract.” In re Virtual
Indep. Paralegals, LLC, No. 86947786, 2019 WL 1453034, at *3 (TTAB 2019) (finding
that the proposed mark VIRTUAL INDEPENDENT PARALEGALS was generic for
“paralegal services; providing medical record summaries, deposition summaries and
document review; litigation support services” in Class 45). “[A] term can be generic
for a genus of goods or services if the relevant public . . . understands the term to refer
to a key aspect of that genus,” Royal Crown Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 892 F.3d 1358,
1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (emphasis in bold here in italics in Royal Crown) (quoting
Cordua Rests., 823 F.3d at 603), 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

Serial No. 98351505
- 12 -
as a whole.” Id. (emphasis in bold here in italics in Royal Crown) (quoting Cordua
Rests., 823 F.3d at 605).26
Applicant concedes that “‘skin coach’ may describe a niche focus within Applicant’s
broader wellness services,” 6 TTABVUE 6, and Applicant’s website makes clear that
Applicant provides services within a sub-genus of “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” that Applicant self-describes as including “skincare &
nutrition.”27 We will assess the record evidence to determine whether it shows that
the primary significance of THE SKIN COACH is to refer to that sub-genus of the
involved services.
B. Does the Record Show That “The Skin Coach” is Understood by
the Relevant Public Primarily to Refer to a Sub-Genus of
“Professional coaching services in the field of health and
wellness” or “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 a Sub-Genus of “Holistic Health
Services” in Class 44?
1. Applicable Law
Evidence regarding the relevant purchasing public’s understanding of a term
“may be obtained from any competent source, such as purchaser testimony, consumer
surveys, listings in dictionaries, trade journals, newspapers, and other publications.”
26 In Royal Crown, the sub-genus of beverages was “specialty beverage categories of drinks
with few or no calories or few or no carbohydrates,” Royal Crown, 892 F.3d at 1368, while in
Cordua Rests., the sub-genus of restaurant services was “churrasco restaurants.” Cordua
Rests., 823 F.3d at 604.
27 January 10, 2024 Application at TSDR 12.

Serial No. 98351505
- 13 -
In re Hikari Sales USA, Inc., No. 86439012, 2019 WL 1453259, at *3 (TTAB 2019)
(quoting In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., 828 F.2d 1567, 1570 (Fed.
Cir. 1987)). As discussed below, the record contains evidence from several such
sources.
2. Summary of Arguments
Applicant acknowledges that there is considerable third-party evidence of the use
of “skin coach” “in connection with skincare, wellness, or esthetics,” 6 TTABVUE 5,
but argues that virtually all of it is defective because the examples “[c]ome from
individual practitioners’ websites,” “[u]se ‘Skin Coach’ as a title or brand
name,” and “[l]ack any dictionary or trade definition showing generic use.” Id.
(emphasis supplied by Applicant). Applicant further argues that “[t]he Examining
Attorney also failed the second step of Marvin Ginn because the record lacks clear
evidence that the relevant public primarily understands ‘skin coach’ to refer to a
genus of services. That means the evidence supports, at most, descriptiveness, not
genericness.” Id. at 6 (emphasis in bold here in italics in the original).
According to Applicant, “[a]t most, ‘skin coach’ may describe a niche focus within
Applicant’s broader wellness services,” but “[d]escriptiveness . . . is not genericness.”
Id. (citation omitted). Applicant concludes that “[w]hen properly analyzed under
Marvin Ginn and its progeny, the record shows that ‘THE SKIN COACH identifies a
single source of educational and holistic wellness coaching services rather than a
generic class of providers” and “functions as a distinctive personal brand, further
reinforced by the definite article ‘THE,’ which signals singular source identification .
. . .” Id.

Serial No. 98351505
- 14 -
Applicant argues specifically that its “Merriam-Webster and NAICS searches
show no entry or classification for ‘skin coach’,” that “[c]ourts regard dictionary
definitions as ‘the most persuasive evidence of public perception,’” id. at 7 (quoting In
re Northland Aluminum Prods., 777 F.2d 1556, 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1985)),28 and that
“[t]he absence of any such definition confirms the term’s non-generic status.” Id.
Applicant further argues that “the Examining Attorney’s fourteen (14) exhibits in
the Final Office Action do not show generic usage; they show proprietary and
brand-level usage. Every exhibit in the Examining Attorney’s Final Office Action
appears capitalized or contextualized as a title, program name, or marketing phrase,
not a class designation.” Id. (emphasis supplied by Applicant). Applicant proceeds to
discuss each of the 14 websites, id. at 7-9, concluding that “[c]ollectively, these
examples demonstrate that “skin coach” functions as a metaphoric or descriptive
title, and is not the name of a class of services.” Id. at 9 (emphasis supplied by
Applicant).
The Examining Attorney responds that she “has attached a variety of evidence
demonstrating the public is acquainted with skin coaches as a type of healthcare and
health educational service, and accustomed to seeing skin coaches in various contexts
28 We are troubled by Applicant’s quotation of the Federal Circuit’s Northland Aluminum
decision for the proposition that “[c]ourts regard dictionary definitions as ‘the most
persuasive evidence of public perception.’” 6 TTABVUE 7 (quoting Northland Aluminum, 777
F.2d at 1559). The Northland Aluminum case contains no language regarding “the most
persuasive evidence of public perception” on the cited page or elsewhere, and mentions
“dictionaries” only once, in a list of competent sources of evidence of genericness. Northland
Aluminum, 777 F.2d at 1559. As discussed below, it appears that Applicant’s briefs were
prepared using generative artificial intelligence (“AI”), but misquotation of this sort is
unacceptable whether it is the result of the use of AI or mere sloppiness.

Serial No. 98351505
- 15 -
within the healthcare sector.” 8 TTABVUE 6. She discusses 30 third-party websites
displaying the phrase “skin coach” or a similar phrase, dictionary definitions of the
words “skin” and “coach,” and LEXIS/NEXIS articles, id. at 7-9, and concludes that
“[a]s the evidence of record shows, the wording ‘skin coach’ names a category of
healthcare and healthcare information services.” Id. at 9.
In the portion of its overlong reply brief that we have reviewed, Applicant argues
that the Examining Attorney’s brief “has the following major legal flaws:
1. Examining attorney used the wrong genus (fatal error).
2. Examining Attorney provided zero consumer-perception evidence
(legally fatal under Booking.com).
3. Examining Attorney’s evidence is entirely proprietary, inconsistent,
and irrelevant (fatal under Princeton Vanguard).
4. Examining Attorney conflates descriptiveness with genericness (fatal
under Marvin Ginn).
5. Examining Attorney misapplies the subgenus rule from Royal Crown.
6. Examining Attorney ignores USPTO registration history of analogous
COACH marks (it is true that the Office is not bound by prior registrations, but the
examining attorney fails to address why THE SKIN COACH should be the lone
exception.).”
9 TTABVUE 2 (emphasis supplied by Applicant).
Applicant further argues that “the Examining Attorney provides:
• No dictionary definition of ‘skin coach,’

Serial No. 98351505
- 16 -
• No evidence that consumers recognize ‘skin coach’ as a professional
category,
• No use indicating that consumers request “a skin coach” the way they
request ‘nutritionist’ or ‘personal trainer,’ and
• No studies, surveys, or expert sources showing generic significance.”
Id. at 5 (emphasis supplied by Applicant).
With respect to the 30 specific third-party websites, Applicant argues that “the
record shows:
• Foreign sites irrelevant to U.S. consumer perception
• AI tools and software products (not coaching services)
• Niche practitioner-brand names (Therapeutic Skin Coach, Holistic
Skin Coach)
• Trademark-style usage with modifiers (Clear Skin Coaches, Mobile
Skin Coach)
• Internal job titles and program names
• Product bundles and cosmetic marketing slogans
• Podcast titles, which are categorically incapable of representing a genus.”
Id. at 6 (emphasis supplied by Applicant).
Applicant concludes in the portion of its reply brief that we have reviewed that
[t]his evidence demonstrates exactly the opposite of
genericness. It shows that “skin coach” is used by different
entities in different ways, with modifications, stylization,
and source-identifying context.

Serial No. 98351505
- 17 -
Under Princeton Vanguard, inconsistent, scattered, brand-
specific use cannot establish genericness as a matter of
law. The Examining Attorney’s reliance on this evidence
reveals a complete misunderstanding of what is required
to meet the USPTO’s burden.
Because the evidence shows branding and descriptive use,
not a genus name, the Examining Attorney has failed to
meet the heavy burden required for a generic refusal.
Id. at 7 (emphasis supplied by Applicant).
3. Analysis
a. Dictionary Evidence
The Examining Attorney made of record definitions of “skin” as “the external
limiting tissue layer of an animal body,”29 and “coach” as “one who instructs or
trains.”30 Applicant made of record pages from Dictionary.com, naics.com, OXFORD
ENGLISH DICTIONARY, and MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY indicating no entry for the
phrase “skin coach.”31 As discussed above, Applicant makes much of the absence of a
definition of the phrase “skin coach,” 6 TTABVUE 5, but “the presence or absence of
[a term] in dictionaries is not controlling on the question of whether a term is generic.”
Hikari Sales, 2019 WL 1453259, at *10.
b. Applicant’s Website Specimens
As noted above, Applicant’s specimen of use in both classes consists of the same
pages from its website. “[A]n applicant’s own website or marketing materials may be
29 February 5, 2025 Office Action at TSDR 52 (MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY).
30 Id. at TSDR 64 (MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY) (giving as examples “an acting coach”
and “a birth coach.”).
31 August 13, 2025 Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 5-9.

Serial No. 98351505
- 18 -
probative, or even, as in [In re Gould Paper Corp., 834 F.2d 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1987)],
‘the most damaging evidence,’ in indicating how the relevant public perceives a term.”
In re Mecca Grade Growers, LLC, No. 86358219, 2018 WL 1314995, at *11 (TTAB
2018) (citations omitted).
Applicant’s website uses “skin coach” generically in lowercase letters to identify
the provider of the services, Applicant’s principal “Malia,” as “your new skin coach &
BFF”:
Malia further identifies herself as a “certified holistic IIN health + nutrition coach”
who “has been testing and researching skincare & nutrition for over 25 years now!”
She references her experience with skin care professionals “in top LA medical spas,”
states that she has “literally tried everything over the last 25 years” and that “I now
teach women which of those are total bull$hit and which are completely worth it,”
and concludes that she is “never not learning, trying, and sharing with my students.”

Serial No. 98351505
- 19 -
This page, and the others shown above that discuss Malia’s specific instructional
offerings, use “skin coach” to refer to an instructor who provides “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,” with respect to skincare.
c. Third-Party Websites32
There are numerous third-party websites in the record. In another context, the
Board has stated, with respect to similar Internet evidence, that
in determining exactly what services are offered through
the respective websites, we acknowledge that services may
not be explicitly described at all, or may be described in
32 As discussed above, one of Applicant’s bullet-point-list criticisms of the third-party website
evidence is that the record includes “Foreign sites irrelevant to U.S. consumer perception.”
6 TTABVUE 6 (emphasis supplied by Applicant). There is no absolute prohibition on reliance
on foreign websites, which “may have probative value on the meaning of a term in the United
States under certain circumstances if it is likely that ‘U.S. consumers will encounter foreign
websites in the field in question.’” In re Korn Ferry, No. 90890949, 2024 WL 3219482, at *11
n.28 (TTAB 2024) (quoting In re Well Living Lab. Inc., No. 86440401, 2017 WL 2876809, at
*4 n.10 (TTAB 2017)). “Various factors may inform the probative value of a foreign website
in any given case, such as whether the website is in English (or has an optional English
language version), and whether the nature of the goods or services make it more or less likely
that U.S. consumers will encounter foreign websites in the field in question.” Well Living
Lab., 2017 WL 2876809, at *4 n.10. There are six English-language websites in the record
that appear to be those of foreign companies or individuals, four of which were made of record
by Applicant itself. They are (1) theskincoach.se, which identifies a Swedish skin therapist,
January 22, 2025 Response to Office Action at TSDR 63-64; (2) probeauty.co.nz, which
discusses a New Zealand “Skin Coach Academy,” id. at TSDR 65-68; (3) skincarecoach.co.uk,
which discusses various beauty products and offers a Beauty Blog, id. at TSDR 71-73; (4)
theskincoaches.com, which discusses an Australian skin salon, id. at TSDR 74-80; (5)
jaredijncpt.com, whose owner is identified as a South African Travel Journalist, February 5,
2025 Office Action at TSDR 20-23; and (6) liolacosmetics.com, which is “dedicated to the
revolutionary concept of Skin Coach by Liolà’s Cosmetics,” and discusses a “Skin coach team”
consisting of foreign athletes, artists, and celebrities. Id. at TSDR 41-50. The record shows
that there are many United States providers of the services identified in the application, and
there is no evidence that United States consumers seeking those services are likely to
encounter the websites of foreign providers. Accordingly, we have not considered the
referenced foreign websites.

Serial No. 98351505
- 20 -
colloquial language that does not track the technical
language of acceptable identifications of goods and services
in applications and registrations, including those involved
here. . . . In such instances, we must determine the nature
of the services that are offered, and decide whether they
fall within the full scope of the language in the involved
identifications.
In re OSF Healthcare Sys., No. 88706809, 2023 WL 6140427, at *10 (TTAB 2023)
(assessing the relatedness of services for purposes of likelihood of confusion under
Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act (citations omitted)). We will apply these principles
to the third-party Internet evidence to the extent necessary to determine the nature
of the services provided by the respective website owners.
The website of the International Coaching Association at skincarecoach.org
discusses “Skincare Coaching” and becoming a “Skincare Coach.”33 As shown below,
the website offers a “Professional Skincare Coach Certification” that “can start you
on the road to success!”:
34
33 August 6, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 5-16.
34 Id. at TSDR 5.

Serial No. 98351505
- 21 -
It asks the question “What is a Skincare Coach?” and answers it as follows: “If you
have a specific skincare challenge or are in the situation where you just want
information and a path forward to figure out which skin care regimen might work
best for you, finding a coach with skincare experience can be highly efficient and cost-
effective.”35 The website discusses what “Skincare Coaches” do and the “Basic Process
of Skincare Coaching,”36 and identifies the type of people who may become “Skincare
Coaches.”37 The website distinguishes between medical professionals and a “Skincare
Coach,” the latter of which is “a virtual or in-person coach for your skin,”38 who
“look[s] at the body’s largest organ in a holistic way.”39 This website educates visitors
to understand that a “skincare coach,” a linguistically close relative to a “skin coach,”
is a person who provides services that fall within 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 skincare.
The website of Beauty By Alicia at beautybyalicia.guru.com/skin-coach identifies
the business’s principal Alicia Neal as a “Skin Coach”:
35 Id. at TSDR 5-6.
36 Id. at TSDR 6.
37 Id. at TSDR 7.
38 Id. at TSDR 9.
39 Id. at TSDR 10.

Serial No. 98351505
- 22 -
40
The website goes on to state that “[i[f you are struggling or just have no idea where
to start, my Skin Coach Program will take out the guesswork,”41 and offers an initial
online consultation, personalized product and goal evaluations, and monthly “cheer
calls” where “as your coach, I’ll be cheering you on!”42 This website educates visitors
to understand that a “skin coach” is an instructor like Ms. Neal who provides services
that fall within 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.
40 Id. at TSDR 17.
41 Id.
42 Id. at TSDR 18.

Serial No. 98351505
- 23 -
The masthead of the website at skinauthority.com offers access to a “LIVE SKIN
COACH. Talk, chat or email! LET’S CONNECT.”43 We reproduce the body of the
webpage below:
44
There are additional pages from the Skin Authority website in the record, one of
which we reproduce below:
45
43 Id. at TSDR 35.
44 Id.
45 February 5, 2025 Office Action at TSDR 8.

Serial No. 98351505
- 24 -
A customer review captioned “Coaching” states as follows:
46
An article in Forbes about Skin Authority entitled “Do You Need a Skin Coach”?
contains the following text:
47
The articles goes on to discuss the role of a “skin coach” as follows:
48
46 Id. at TSDR 9.
47 Id. at TSDR 4 (emphasis supplied by the Examining Attorney). The Examining Attorney
separately made the Forbes article of record. August 20, 2025 Denial of Request for
Reconsideration at TSDR 76-78.
48 February 5, 2025 Office Action at TSDR 5.

Serial No. 98351505
- 25 -
The webpages and articles regarding Skin Authority use “skin coach” generically
to refer to an instructor who provides services falling within 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.
The website at belladonnaskin.com displays a “Skin Coach Questionnaire,” which
allows the website owner “Cat” to “fully understand your skin, your lifestyle and your
health,” and offers a “Virtual Consult” button to “pick your day and time to speak
with Cat.”49 This website educates visitors to understand that a “skin coach” is an
instructor like “Cat” who provides services falling within 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.
The website at theholisticskincoach.com touts “Skin Wellness From the Inside
Out,”50 and identifies the proprietor as follows:
51
The website also claims that
49 Id. at TSDR 27-30.
50 Id. at TSDR 31. Applicant also made this website of record. January 22, 2025 Response to
Office Action at TSDR 88-94.
51 February 5, 2025 Office Action at TSDR 33.

Serial No. 98351505
- 26 -
52
This website uses “skin coach” generically to refer to an instructor like Ms. Coulibaly
who provides services falling within 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.
The website at abbymason.com identifies Ms. Mason as a “Certified Holistic Skin
and Health Coach.”53 The website asks “What is Skin Wellness Coaching?,”54 and
answers that it is “[i]t’s a health odyssey with your skin at center stage.”55 Ms. Mason
states that “[a]s your Flawless Skin Coach, I see you as a constellation of mind, body,
and soul,” and that “[w]e’ll explore the intricate connections between your lifestyle,
emotion, and skin health.”56 She describes her “toolkit” as “[t]wice monthly sessions,
email support, easy and scrumptious recipes, enlightening handouts, and access to
my monthly newsletter full of skin health tips,”57 and asks “[i]s your heart singing a
yes to skin wellness coaching?”58 This website uses “skin coach” generically to refer
52 Id. at TSDR 35.
53 May 15, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 6.
54 Id. at TSDR 7.
55 Id. at TSDR 8.
56 Id.
57 Id. at TSDR 8-9.
58 Id. at TSDR 9.

Serial No. 98351505
- 27 -
to “coaching” by instructors like Ms. Mason who provide services falling within 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.
The website at advancedskincare.com contains pages captioned “Skin Health
Coaching,”59 which discuss “Skin Coaching.”60 The website owner, Tina McCaffrey,
states that “I use the term ‘functional skin coach’ as my title because esthetician or
facialist seemed to really restrict me from what I do. I coach and guide women beyond
their skincare treatments to truly transform their skin.”61 She explains her holistic
approach to skin health, and states that “[a] skin care coach holds you accountable.
They select the best products for your skin, create a routine based on your lifestyle,
and serve as your partner throughout the process. Plus, you’ll save money by using a
skin care coach as you’ll no longer buy products that don’t work for you and end up
going in the trash.”62 This website uses “skin coach” and “skin care coach” generically
to refer to instructors like Ms. McCaffrey who provide services that fall within 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.
59 Id. at TSDR 10-12.
60 Id. at TSDR 10.
61 Id.
62 Id. at TSDR 11.

Serial No. 98351505
- 28 -
The website of Clinique Laboratories at clinique.com discusses Clinique
Consultants, and states that each Consultant “is a dedicated skin coach who will
guide you, inspire you, and track your progress along the way.”63 This website uses
“skin coach” generically to refer to an instructor who provides services that fall within
the sub-genuses of “professional coaching services in the field of health and wellness”
and “on-line training in the form of courses, workshops, seminars, and private
coaching in the field of health and wellness” regarding skin care.
The website of Haleigh Dename at haleighdename.com offers “Skin and Wellness
Services,” including “different options for 1:1 coaching to find the best way to reach
your goals.”64 One of those options is captioned “Skin Coach,” which allows a client to
“Review current skin care regimen” and “Discuss concerns and tailor an individual
skin protocol.”65 This website uses “skin coach” generically to refer to an instructor
like Ms. Dename who provides professional coaching services that fall within 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.
The website at hungryfitfoodie.com offers the “skin coaching” package featuring
“[o]ur top skin coaches” shown below:
63 Id. at TSDR 13. Other options are “Skin & Wellness” and “3 Month Program.”
64 Id. at TSDR 16.
65 Id.

Serial No. 98351505
- 29 -
66
The website states that “[y]our personal skin coach will design a nutrition package
that addresses your concerns, is tailored to your health goals, and is easy to follow
with your busy schedule.”67 This website uses “skin coach” and “skin coaches”
generically to refer to personal instructors who provide services falling within 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.
The website at naturalskincareclinic.com offers holistic acne consultation,68 and
states that “[o]ur Clear Skin Coaches are here to take you through our Online Acne
Program and ensure your success!”69 This website uses “skin coaches” generically to
refer to instructors who provide services falling within 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.
66 Id. at TSDR 21.
67 Id.
68 Id. at TSDR 37.
69 Id. at TSDR 42 (emphasis in bold here in underscoring in the original).

Serial No. 98351505
- 30 -
The website of Skin By Gabby at skybygabby.com offers “One-on-One Skin
Coaching,” which the website describes as a “2021 International award winning
skin coaching program designed to jump start your skin care to high gear with
six (6) customized Skin Coaching sessions and a complete home care kit.”70 The
website further states that “[t]hroughout the duration of this program Gabby coaches
and guided [sic] you beyond your skin care treatments to truly help transform your
skin.”71 The website also lists the “Benefits of a Skin Coach” as follows:
72
On a page captioned “The 411 on Skin Coaching,” the website states that the program
includes six “customized skin coaching sessions.”73 This website uses “skin coach” and
“skin coaching” generically to refer to instructors like Gabby who provide services
that fall within 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.
70 Id. at TSDR 50 (emphasis in original).
71 Id. (emphasis in original).
72 Id. at TSDR 51.
73 Id. at TSDR 53.

Serial No. 98351505
- 31 -
The website at skincarebychristina.com identifies the owner, Christina Martinez,
as a “Certified Skin Coach.”74 This website uses “skin coach” generically to refer to
instructors like Ms. Martinez who may receive professional certification in connection
with providing services that fall within 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.
The website at skyfitclinics.com promises “[u]nlimited access to your skin coach”
as part of the website’s SkinFit Wellness Package, and offers “[u]nlimited skin
coaching” in the form of “[a]ccess to your Aesthetician: chat, ask questions, and
experience having your very own skincare coach.”75 This website uses “skin coach”
and “skincare coach” generically to refer to a personal instructor who provides
services falling within 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.
The website at wellylabs.com offers the following app:
74 Id. at TSDR 61.
75 Id. at TSDR 69-70.

Serial No. 98351505
- 32 -
76
This website uses “skin coach” generically to refer to a personal instructor (here in
the form of AI) who provides services falling within 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.
The website of ProMD Health at promdhealth.com contains a page captioned
“Skin Coach” that discusses “Skin Coaches” at the company’s Annapolis, Maryland
office who will provide a “free consultation and skin diagnosis” to “learn what
treatments and products are best for your individual skin type.”77 This website uses
“skin coach” and “skin coaches” generically to refer to individual instructors who
provide services that fall within 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.
76 Id. at TSDR 91.
77 August 25, 2025 Denial of Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 67.

Serial No. 98351505
- 33 -
The website at telluridefacials.com offers “Skin Coaching With Ginger” and “High-
Level Virtual Coaching For Those Who Mean Business When It Comes to Their Skin,”
as well as the benefits of “Ginger’s coaching” and her “holistic approach.”78 The
website also offers a “specialized coaching session” regarding hyperpigmentation
“lead by our seasoned skin coach, Ginger . . . .”79 The website displays a photo montage
captioned “Skin Coaching Client Results!”80 This website uses “skin coach” and “skin
coaching” generically to refer to instructors like Ginger who provide services falling
within 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.
The website of Let’s Face It MedSpa at letsfaceitmedspa.com offers “skin
coaching” and “Skin Mapping with our Certified Master Holistic Skin Coach.”81 The
website states that “[t]he services provided by our skin coach would include but aren’t
limited to monthly wellness checks, emotional support, online coaching
appointments, in person coaching appointments and skin treatments.”82 This website
uses “skin coach” and “skin coaching” generically to refer to instructors who provide
services falling within the sub-genuses of “professional coaching services in the field
78 Id. at TSDR 80-81.
79 Id. at TSDR 86.
80 Id. at TSDR 83.
81 May 15, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 26.
82 Id. at TSDR 27.

Serial No. 98351505
- 34 -
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.
The website of MudDharma at muddrama.com states that “[o]ur unique
philosophy is based on treating the whole self to holistically heal the skin from
the inside out.”83 The website goes on to state that “as your skin coach, Selby will
carefully choose which products and techniques to use in order to bring your skin to
a state of health, balance, and proper hydration.”84 This website uses “skin coach”
generically to refer to a skin care professional who provides individualized advice
regarding skin products and treatments.
Applicant itself made of record Yelp reviews of an acne treatment and skin care
provider named Angelina who does business as “The Clinical Skin Coach.”85 We
reproduce one review below stating that a “[s]kin coach is exactly what Angelina is!”:
86
83 Id. at TSDR 28 (emphasis in original).
84 Id. at TSDR 29.
85 January 22, 2025 Response to Office Action at TSDR 83-88.
86 Id. at TSDR 84.

Serial No. 98351505
- 35 -
There are some websites that display the term “Skin Coach,” alone or with other
words, in a manner that could be viewed as, or is expressly identified as, purported
trademark use.87 These include (1) martiderm.com, a page of which is captioned
“Welcome to Skin Coach by MartiDerm” and states that “[w]e present Skin Coach,
MartiDerm’s digital beauty advisor;”88 (2) revieve.com, a page of which is captioned
“Skin Coach” and identifies the product as “your customers’ personal guide on their
journey to their best skin;”89 (3) therapeuticskincoach.com, which describes its owner
Hayley Wood as the “Therapeutic Skin Coach;”90 (4) pinkythemobileskincoach.org,
which identifies “Pinky” as “The Mobile Skin Coach” whose mission is to “help cancer
patients learn to love the skin they’re in, (AGAIN) by providing specialized skincare,
87 The website of The Skin Coach, LLC at theskincoachmesaaz.square offers skin treatments
and products sold under other marks. Id. at TSDR 81-82.
88 August 6, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 20.
89 Id. at TSDR 22.
90 Id. at TSDR 32 (emphasis in original). The website uses “skin coach” generically by asking
the question “What is a therapeutic skin coach?,” which it answers as follows: “Becoming an
educator for skin acceptance and true skin health education was what I was meant to do.
TSC has evolved from offering 1:1 facials to sharing my building blocks of beauty with people
all over the world. Through virtual consultations, online courses + ebooks, and making the
world accessible and inclusive to all.” Applicant made of record a plain copy of the certificate
of registration of Registration No. 5521388 of the standard-character mark THERAPEUTIC
SKIN COACH on the Supplemental Register for an “online blog in the field of skin care, skin
treatments, beauty, health and wellness, and holistic health” in Class 41 and “Facial
services” in Class 44, January 22, 2025 Response to Office Action at TSDR 95, which had
been cited as a Section 2(d) bar to registration in the first Office Action, and noted that the
registration had not been maintained. Id. at TSDR 147-48. The Examining Attorney
subsequently withdrew the refusal based on the cancellation of the registration. February 5,
2025 Office Action at TSDR 2. The “cancelled registration is not evidence of any existing
rights in the mark” THERAPEUTIC SKIN COACH, Virtual Indep. Paralegals, 2019 WL
1453034, at *10 (citing Action Temp. Servs. v. Labor Force, Inc., 870 F.2d 1563, 1566 (Fed.
Cir. 1989)), and the fact that THERAPEUTIC SKIN COACH may not have been considered
generic in 2018 when the Supplemental Register registration issued does not preclude a
finding that THE SKIN COACH is generic now “due to the frequency of [its] use, as
demonstrated above.” Id.

Serial No. 98351505
- 36 -
skincare products, and coaching/counseling for their healing journey,”91 and solicits
contributions of resources “as we build our mobile skincare coach;”92 (4)
theskincoach.club, which asks “Who is the Skin Coach?” and identifies “San Saggu”
as “the SKIN coach;”93 (5) petersburghskincoach.com, which identifies “Melody, the
Petersburgh Skin Coach,” who “coaches you with everyday, easy-to-understand
skincare and meets you where you are;”94 (6) personamedicalspa.com, which offers
The Skin Coach™, which the website states is “[a] fun educational assessment of the
skin with a hands-on recommendation for future skin care” directed to “teens who
want the expertise of a Skin Coach;”95 and (7) urbanskincareclinic.com, which offers
a podcast by “The Skin Coach in Georgia,” Maedeh Samimi.96
One of these websites uses the ™ symbol to claim trademark rights in “The Skin
Coach,”97 while another identifies its owner as “the SKIN coach.” The others could be
viewed as claiming trademark rights in the marks “Skin Coach,” “Therapeutic Skin
Coach,” the “Mobile Skin Coach,” the “Petersburgh Skin Coach,” and “The Skin Coach
91 August 6, 2024 Office Action at TSDR 26.
92 Id. at TSDR 27.
93 Id. at TSDR 37-39 (emphasis in original).
94 Id. at TSDR 24.
95 May 15, 2025 Final Office Action at TSDR 48.
96 Id. at TSDR 74-83.
97 Obviously the “‘[u]se of the letters ‘™’ on a product [or service] does not make unregistrable
matter into a trademark [or service mark].” In re Empire Tech. Dev. LLC, No. 85876688, 2017
WL 3575874, at *12 n.23 (TTAB 2017) (quoting In re Remington Prods., Inc., No. 493829,
1987 WL 124304, at *2 (TTAB 1987)).

Serial No. 98351505
- 37 -
in Georgia.”98 As discussed above, Applicant argues that “[t]rademark-style usage
with modifiers” contributes to the weakness of the Examining Attorney’s case, 9
TTABVUE 6, but where, as here, the record shows some use of the proposed
trademark as such by Applicant and third parties, “our task remains the same: to
determine whether the preponderance of the evidence shows that the proposed
mark’s ‘primary significance’ to the relevant consuming public is to refer to the
product [or service] or to indicate source.” Uman Diagnostics, 2023 WL 2039689, at
*16 (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1064(3)). 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.
d. LEXIS/NEXIS Articles
As noted above, the Examining Attorney made of record multiple stories from the
LEXIS/NEXIS database. Many of them simply show the words “skin” and “coach” in
close proximity,99 or are from publications in countries in which English is spoken,
such as the United Kingdom, Ireland, India, Nigeria, Australia, New Zealand, and
Canada, and are unaccompanied by evidence of their exposure to consumers in the
98 The uses of the “Mobile Skin Coach,” the “Petersburgh Skin Coach,” and “The Skin Coach
in Georgia,” use “skin coach” generically together with other matter that identifies the
particular “Skin Coach.”
99 Almost 40 years ago, the Federal Circuit commented that “[i]t is indeed remarkable to see
the thoroughness with which NEXIS can regurgitate a [term] casually mentioned in the
news.” Merrill Lynch, 828 F.2d at 1571 n.1 (quoting In re Societe Generale Des Eaux Minerales
De Vittel S.A., 824 F.2d 957, 958 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). The same is true of LEXIS/NEXIS today.

Serial No. 98351505
- 38 -
United States, but some stories have probative value because they are directed to
readers in the United States and describe actual or virtual persons who act as a “skin
coach.”
A story on CosmeticsDesign.com discusses a “Bareface AI Skin Coach” that
“offers innovative digital approach to consumer skin experience,” an “individualized
approach to ongoing consumer skin care shopping experiences,” and “a dynamic
personalized digital platform experience” . . . that “focuses on goal setting,
personalized progress tracking, and . . . journey.”100
A story in The Atlanta Voice discusses an esthetician “Laila the Skin Coach,” and
states that “[a]ccording to the skin coach, Black people should look for mineral
sunscreen with zinc and titanium dioxide.”101
A story in Basic Materials & Resources Monitor Worldwide states that Revieve, “a
beauty-technology company, has launched a new digital offering the Revieve Skin
Coach, an AI-powered skincare solution that provides users with a personal guide
on their journey to improving their skin, enabling them to set and achieve personal
skin goals and receive personalized routines that meet their skincare needs” and
“provides users with a step-by-step overview of their skincare journey, allowing them
to achieve skin goals faster by automatically recommending matching . . . products
100 August 20, 2025 Denial of Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 4-5. The Barefaced AI
product is discussed in a number of other stories. The bolded words “Skin Coach” in this
article and the others discussed below represent the Examining Attorney’s search term.
101 Id. at TSDR 6.

Serial No. 98351505
- 39 -
and treatments based on their goals and profile data, such as age, skin type and
location.”102
A story in Pharma & Healthcare Monitor Worldwide states that “BABOR
introduced Skin Coach, a post purchase experience that enhances customer loyalty
and commitment. This . . . setting skin goals, tracking changes in their skin over time,
and delivering relevant content tailored to their needs. By providing expert advice
and dynamic routine recommendations, the BABOR Skin Coach empowers users to
achieve their skincare objectives while capturing valuable data to inform future
strategies.”103
A story on the PR Newswire begins “[t]he world already has exercise coaches,
nutrition coaches, and even life coaches, but what about a skin coach?” and goes on
to discuss that the founder of Rejuvalift Beauty, Dr. Marta Pazos, “is launching her
skincare coaching video series! 15 videos to elevate people’s skincare knowledge every
day!” “Dr. Marta” is quoted as saying that “[i]n today’s world, we commonly have
nutritional coaches, life coaches, and exercise coaches, amongst others,” and that “I
hope we can add a skin coach to that list.”104
A story in American Spa entitled “The Power of Post-Graduate Training in the
Professional Skincare Industry” states that “[e]ducation will ensure guests are in the
best possible hands – a personal skin coach who can cut through the myths of
102 Id. at TSDR 7.
103 Id. at TSDR 8. The BABOR Skin Coach is discussed in many other articles as well.
104 Id. at TSDR 15. “Dr. Marta” is mentioned in another article.

Serial No. 98351505
- 40 -
skincare and provide a personalized progressive skin program that achieves
results.”105
A story in 34th Street Magazine: University of Pennsylvania entitled “Treat
Yourself This Valentine’s Day to These Five Philly Stores” states that “[i]f you aren't
sure what’s right for you and your skin, you can always go with the ‘Skin House
Signature,’ which allows you to consult with a skin coach to find the best products
for your skin.”106
A story in Pharma & Healthcare Monitor Worldwide entitled “Esthetician
Danielle Lima Joins West Empire Plastic Surgery Med Spa Team” quotes Ms. Lima
as stating that she considers herself “as more than an esthetician; Im [sic] more of a
skin coach . . . I coach my clients on their skincare regimen, what products to use,
and how to use them.” The article also states that, like Applicant’s principal Malia,
“Ms. Lima adds that her treatments come from a holistic approach, so she will even
recommend dietary changes that can help improve her clients skin.”107
A story in the ASAPII database entitled “Introducing OKU, the World’s First
Mobile-based Personal Skin Coach to Unlock Your Skin’s True Potential, states that
“mySkin Inc., the company that launched the world’s first unbiased skincare advice
site, mySkin.com is proud to announce the debut of OKU, the world’s first iPhone-
connected device that sees below the skin’s surface to analyze and address its needs.
105 Id. at TSDR 22.
106 Id. at TSDR 23.
107 Id. at TSDR 25. Ms. Lima is similarly quoted in other articles.

Serial No. 98351505
- 41 -
This revolutionary skin scanning device connects to an iPhone and serves as a
personal skin coach, helping develop a customized and effective skin care regimen
for healthy, glowing skin.”108
A story in the Newstex Blogs entitled “Deal of the Day at AZ Skin Rehab” quotes
“Skin Coach Faith,” who “told us she believes in a holistic approach, relieving stress
through techniques that indulge the senses . . . .”109
A press release issued by Skin Authority states that the “free mobile app, My Skin
Authority, takes away the guesswork in selecting the right product or routine. A live,
certified skin coach provides the education and encouragement men need to take
charge of their skin routine and personal image, while seeing results quickly,”110 and
another press release from the company quotes an executive as stating that the
company “created the skin coach model a decade ago because we believe that
healthy skin care should be accessible to everyone” and that “[a] skin care coach takes
away the guesswork that is often associated with skin care. They listen to your needs,
recommend the best products, and hold your hand throughout the entire process.”111
These articles use “skin coach” and variants generically to identified multiple
instructors who provide services falling within the sub-genuses of “professional
coaching services in the field of health and wellness,” “on-line training in the form of
108 Id. at TSDR 27. The OKU device is characterized as a “skin coach,” “Your Personal Skin
Coach,” and “a personal skin coach” in other articles.
109 Id. at TSDR 29.
110 Id. at TSDR 34.
111 Id. at TSDR 46.

Serial No. 98351505
- 42 -
courses, workshops, seminars, and private coaching in the field of health and
wellness,” and “holistic health services” regarding skin care.
e. Applicant’s Arguments Concerning the Definite Article
THE in Its Proposed Mark
Applicant cites a case captioned The Computer Store112 for the proposition that
“‘The Skin Coach’ functions as a distinctive personal brand, further reinforced by the
definite article ‘THE,’ which signals singular source identification.” 6 TTABVUE 6.
The case does not aid Applicant because the Board affirmed a refusal to register THE
COMPUTER STORE for computers and computer book outlet services on the ground
that it was “merely descriptive as applied to the services and, in fact, so highly
descriptive thereof as to constitute an apt or common descriptive name for the
service.” The Computer Store, 1981 WL 40483, at *1. Although the Board spoke in
112 Applicant argues in its appeal brief that this case is “akin to The Medicine Shoppe, 5
USPQ2d 1477 (TTAB 1987) and The Computer Store, 211 USPQ 72 (TTAB 1981).” 6
TTABVUE 6. There is a Board case captioned In re The Computer Store, Inc., 1981 WL 40483
(TTAB 1981), which we discuss below, but we could not locate any Board case captioned “The
Medicine Shoppe” or involving such a mark. The decision reported in the United States
Patents Quarterly at 5 USPQ2d 1477 is a patent interference case. In the portion of
Applicant’s overlong reply brief that we have reviewed, Applicant cites (incompletely) “In re
Career Agents Network, Inc. USPQ2d 2058 (TTAB 2015)” for the proposition that “[p]roviding
information, training, or education relating to a profession is distinct from providing the
professional services themselves.” 9 TTABVUE 5 (emphasis supplied by Applicant). We again
could not locate any such case.
It appears that the preparation of Applicant’s briefs involved the use of AI and that the non-
existent authorities cited as “The Medicine Shoppe” and “In re Career Agents Network, Inc.”
are “hallucinated” cases generated by AI. It is the duty of all parties before the Board to
review and verify the contents of each filing, including those prepared using AI. See generally
“Guidance on Use of Artificial Intelligence-Based Tools in Practice Before the United States
Patent and Trademark Office,” 89 Fed. Reg. 25609 (Apr. 11, 2024) (parties using AI to draft
papers must confirm the accuracy of all facts and citations to case law). Applicant and its
counsel are cautioned that should this practice be repeated in future filings, the Board is
likely to enter sanctions.

Serial No. 98351505
- 43 -
terms of mere descriptiveness, its holding was essentially that the proposed mark
was generic: “[T]he phrase ‘THE COMPUTER STORE’ is the common descriptive
name of the services offered by applicant, wherefore it cannot distinguish such
services as those of any single proprietor.” Id. at *3 (emphasis added). The Board
rejected the applicant’s argument that the definite article THE “converts the merely
descriptive term into a registrable service mark” because “‘[t]he’ in the adjectival
sense indicates ‘uniqueness or pre-eminence’ . . . .” Id. The Board found that “the term
‘The Computer Store’ is merely a term of reference, used to describe the
characteristics of this different type of store, rather than to indicate particular
source,” a conclusion that was “given further support in the fact, conceded by
applicant, that it is not the only user of the phrase.” Id.
The record here similarly shows that Applicant is not the only user of “The Skin
Coach” or “skin coach,” the generic name for a provider 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, in the sub-genuses
regarding skin care. As the Board held in affirming a refusal to register the proposed
mark THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM for legal services on the Supplemental
Register, “it is well settled that adding the definite article ‘the’ to a generic term or
phrase generally does not add any source-indicating significance or otherwise affect
the term’s or phrase’s genericness.” In re Consumer Prot. Firm PLLC, No. 87445801,

Serial No. 98351505
- 44 -
2021 WL 825503, at *9 (TTAB 2021) (citing multiple cases, including The Computer
Store).
f. Summary
As the Federal Circuit instructed in PT Medisafe, 134 F.4th at 1373, we must
consider “the full record” in assessing whether the preponderance of the evidence
establishes that the primary significance of Applicant’s proposed mark THE SKIN
COACH is to refer to skin-care 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 to “Holistic health services” in Class 44.
The record here shows that the proposed mark THE SKIN COACH is a generic
name for the sub-genuses of those services. As discussed above, a “coach” is “one who
instructs or trains.”113 Applicant’s Class 41 services identified as “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” expressly involve “coaching” in the “field of health and
wellness,” which encompasses the sub-genus of skin care. Applicant’s website
specimen supporting registration in both classes identifies its principal Malia as
“your new skin coach,”114 and the third-party websites and LEXIS/NEXIS stories
discussed above show that numerous other “skin coaches” render “coaching” services
113 February 5, 2025 Office Action at TSDR 64 (MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY).
114 January 10, 2024 Application at TSDR 12.

Serial No. 98351505
- 45 -
in the “field of health and wellness” regarding skin care, as well as in the sub-genus
of “holistic health services” regarding skin care. The preponderance of the evidence
shows 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.
C. Applicant’s Arguments Based on Existing Registrations of
COACH-Formative Marks
In a section of Applicant’s appeal brief captioned “Numerous Analogous ‘___
COACH’ Marks Are Registered, Therefore, The Office Should Strive for
Consistent Treatment,” 6 TTABVUE 11 (emphasis supplied by Applicant),
Applicant argues that “[w]hile the USPTO is not bound by prior examining decisions,
longstanding precedent recognizes that prior registrations are relevant and should
be considered to promote consistency in examination and decision-making.” Id. (citing
In re Nett Designs, Inc., 236 F.3d 1339, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001) and Cordua Rests., 823
F.3d at 600). These cases do not stand for the proposition for which Applicant cites
them.
In Nett Designs, the Federal Circuit addressed the third-party registrations in the
record as follows:
Even if some prior registrations had some characteristics
similar to Nett Designs’ application, the PTO’s allowance
of such prior registrations does not bind the Board or this
court. Needless to say, this court encourages the PTO to
achieve a uniform standard for assessing registrability of

Serial No. 98351505
- 46 -
marks. Nonetheless, the Board (and this court in its limited
review) must assess each mark on the record of public
perception submitted with the application. Accordingly,
this court finds little persuasive value in the registrations
that Nett Designs submitted to the examiner or in the list
of registered marks Nett Designs attempted to submit to
the Board.
Nett Designs, 236 F.3d at 1342.
In Cordua Rests., in which the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s finding that
the proposed stylized mark CHURRASCOS was generic for a sub-genus of restaurant
services, the court did not address third-party registrations at all, but rather the
applicant’s own existing registration of CHURRASCOS in standard characters for
restaurant services. The court “note[d] that Cordua’s existing registration of the
CHURRASCOS word mark (the ’321 Registration) does not preclude a finding that
the stylized form of the mark is generic,” Cordua Rests., 823 F.3d at 599, and held on
the page of the decision cited by Applicant that the USPTO
is required to examine all trademark applications for
compliance with each and every eligibility requirement,
including non-genericness, even if the [US]PTO earlier
mistakenly registered a similar or identical mark suffering
the same defect. Thus, whether or not the term
“churrascos” was generic when it was registered, we, like
the Board, must evaluate the evidence in the present
record to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to
establish that it is ineligible.
Id. at 600.
Applicant also argues that “[t]he principle of administrative consistency requires
that similarly situated applicants be treated similarly absent a rational distinction.”
6 TTABVUE 11 (citing In re Int’l Flavors & Fragrances Inc., 183 F.3d 1361, 1368
(Fed. Cir. 1999)). The Int’l Flavors & Fragrances case also does not stand for the

Serial No. 98351505
- 47 -
proposition for which Applicant cites it. On the cited page of the decision, in which
the Federal Circuit affirmed three refusals to register so-called “phantom
trademarks,” the court held that
we agree with the Commissioner that IFF has not been
denied due process or equal protection. IFF was provided a
full opportunity to prosecute its applications and to appeal
the examining attorney’s final rejections to the Board. The
Board fully considered IFF’s arguments and affirmed the
rejection in a detailed written decision setting forth the
reasons for the rejection. More importantly, IFF has not
demonstrated that it has a constitutionally protected
property interest in obtaining federal registration of its
“phantom” marks. There is no constitutionally protected
right to federal registration of any mark. IFF may still use
the marks to identify its goods and IFF still retains all
common law rights associated with trademark use and
ownership. Furthermore, IFF was not denied equal
protection. Each application for trademark registration
must be considered on its own merits. See In re Loew’s
Theatres, Inc. 769 F.2d, 764, 769, 226 USPQ 865, 869 (Fed.
Cir. 1985). The examining attorney and the Board provided
explicit reasons why the three applications were denied
registration, including, among other reasons, the inability
to provide the public with exact notice of the mark’s content
and the difficulty or even impossibility of conducting a
thorough search of IFF’s marks if they were to be granted
registration. Absent any prior PTO policy concerning the
registration of “phantom” marks, IFF cannot demonstrate
that it was discriminated against by the PTO.
Int’l Flavors & Fragrances, 183 F.3d at 1368.
Applicant also cites nine registrations of COACH-formative marks, 6 TTABVUE
11, and argues that they “share the same structure, a field descriptor paired with
‘COACH,’” that “[n]one were found generic; all were held at most descriptive and
capable of distinguishing services,” and that “[r]efusing THE SKIN COACH while
allowing those marks is an arbitrary departure from settled Office practice and

Serial No. 98351505
- 48 -
undermines uniform application of the law.” Id. at 11-12 (emphasis in bold here in
italics in the original) (citing Cordua Rests., 823 F.3d at 600).115
As discussed in Nett Design and Cordua Rests., “[i[t is axiomatic that the Board
must assess each mark on its own facts and record,” and that “the prior decisions and
actions of other trademark examining attorneys in registering other marks are not
binding upon the USPTO or the Board.” Korn Ferry, 2024 WL 3219482, at *5
(quotations and quotation marks omitted). The prior registrations of other COACH-
formative marks for other goods and services have no bearing on whether THE SKIN
COACH is generic for the services identified in this application.116
D. Conclusion
The record as a whole shows that the primary significance of the proposed mark
THE SKIN COACH to the relevant purchasing public is to refer to one who provides
the skin-care sub-genuses of the Class 41 “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,” and
115 In the portion of Applicant’s overlong reply brief that we have considered, Applicant
suggests that it is the duty of the Examining Attorney to explain why each of the COACH-
formative marks is registrable, while Applicant’s mark THE SKIN COACH is not. 9
TTABVUE 10-11. As the relevant Federal Circuit and Board precedents discussed above
make clear, the Examining Attorney is under no such obligation.
116 Applicant’s argument of last resort is its request “that any doubt regarding genericness be
resolved in favor of publication [sic], as required by law and consistent with the principle that
doubts are resolved in the applicant’s favor.” 6 TTABVUE 12 (citing Merrill Lynch, 828 F.2d
1567). In Merrill Lynch, the Federal Circuit held that in genericness cases, the Board must
“resolve reasonable doubt in favor of the applicant,” id. at 1571, but we have no doubt here
that THE SKIN COACH is generic for the referenced services in Classes 41 and 44 in the
application.

Serial No. 98351505
- 49 -
the Class 44 “Holistic health services.” Because Applicant’s proposed mark is a
generic name for one who provides these services, it is ineligible for registration on
the Supplemental Register under Sections 23(c) and 45 of the Trademark Act.
Decision: The refusal to register is affirmed in both Class 41 and Class 44.