IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Proposed mark PERFECT 10 SKIN functioned as Internet domain name rather than a service mark, (Aug 6, 2025)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

The specimens of use were unacceptable because they failed to show use of PERFECT 10 SKIN in connection with the applicant’s online retail store services featuring skincare products.

In a non-precedential decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) affirmed an examining attorney’s refusal to register the applicant’s proposed mark PERFECT 10 SKIN pursuant to Sections 1 and 45 of the Trademark Act on the ground that the specimens of use failed to show the mark in use in commerce in connection with the applied-for services. The TTAB determined that none of the specimens created the required direct association between the proposed mark and the applicant’s online retail store services featuring skincare products (In re Perfect 10 Skin, LLC, No. 88871731 (T.T.A.B. July 15, 2025)).

Background. Perfect 10 Skin, LLC (applicant) sought to register on the Principal Register the standard character mark PERFECT 10 SKIN (SKIN disclaimed) on the Principal Register for online retail store services featuring skincare products, skincare accessories for cosmetic purposes, cosmetics, color cosmetics, cosmetic accessories in the nature of cosmetic applicators, dermatological products in the nature of brushes for exfoliation, and brushes for cleansing in International Class 35. The examining attorney refused to register the proposed mark under Sections 1 and 45 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 and §1125, on the basis that the specimen of record failed to show the mark in use in commerce in connection with the identified services. After the examining attorney issued a final refusal, the applicant filed a request for reconsideration and submitted three additional substitute specimens, and concurrently appealed to the TTAB. When the examining attorney denied the request for reconsideration, the appeal resumed.

Service mark. Under Section 45 of the Trademark Act, a service mark is used in commerce “when it is used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services.” The TTAB noted that an acceptable specimen of use must show some direct association between offer of services and the mark sought to be registered.

Specimens of use. The specimen of use, which is required by Section 1 of the Trademark Act and Trademark Rule 2.56, 37 C.F.R. § 2.56, must display the applied-for mark and show an association between the mark and the services. The TTAB reviewed all of the specimens of record, along with the applicant’s explanations and arguments.

Facebook® post. The TTAB found that the applicant’s substitute specimen of a screenshot of a Facebook® post from the page Skin Type Solutions did not contain PERFECT 10 SKIN anywhere on the page and it was therefore insufficient to show use of the mark in connection with the applicant’s services.

Corporate status documents. The applicant submitted a screenshot of its information obtained from The Division of Corporations, Department of State, for the State of Florida website. The TTAB found that the corporation status or formation documents of the applicant as an entity operating under the trade name PERFECT 10 SKIN was not an acceptable specimen, because it did not constitute advertising or the sale of the services, and nothing in the screenshot indicated the nature of the services offered by the applicant in any way.

Blog entries and websites. The applicant submitted screenshots of different blog entries from Baumann Cosmetics Dermatology. The TTAB found these specimens did not show a nexus between PERFECT 10 SKIN and the applicant’s identified online retail store services. Rather, based on the applicant’s use, consumers would perceive “Perfect 10 Skin” to refer to a specific skin type that is considered “normal.” The TTAB noted that one of the blog post also contained links to purchase recommended skincare products for anyone with “Number 10 ORNT Skin Types,” but there was no nexus between the nomenclature for a specific skin type and any online retail store services. Rather, consumers would again perceive “Perfect 10 Skin” as describing a type of skin for which the recommended products may be beneficial, or a type of skin that may be result of the use of the products.

The applicant also submitted a screenshot of a third-party website, Trustpilot, which displayed two reviews for “Perfect10skin” and the website perfect10skin.com. The TTAB found this specimen unacceptable because it is not use by the applicant or a party related to the applicant. Further, the applicant does not offer any services on the Trustpilot website, nor does the website show advertisement of any of the applicant’s services. Therefore, this third-party website was insufficient to show use of the applicant’s mark in connection with its applied-for services.

Lastly, the applicant submitted screenshots of archived pages of its website available at perfect10skin.com arguing that it showed use of PERFECT 10 SKIN in connection with its online retail store services as the specimen showed that the domain name is perfect10skin.com, and the website showed a way to sign up to get a discount on one’s first order, bundles of recommended products and individual products with both ranges of prices and specific prices, and photographs of said products. The TTAB noted that the website appears to evidence the applicant’s online retail store services, the only place the applicant uses its proposed mark on the site is as part of the URL or domain name, perfect10skin.com. However, when a mark appears only as part of the URL or Internet address, consumers generally will not recognize it as source-identifying, but instead merely as identifying the Internet location of the website where the services are offered. The TTAB found that as used in this specimen, the term “perfect10skin” functions only as part of an Internet address, and not as an indicator of source of the applicant’s services. Additionally, PERFECT 10 SKIN was not displayed “prominently” on the website, but solely in the address bar displaying the URL for the website, where consumers would look for the Internet address. Further, the TTAB found nothing on the website that would create an association between the domain name and the applicant’s online retail store services.

Thus, neither the blogs nor the website showed use of the mark in a manner that would create an association between PERFECT 10 SKIN and the applied-for services. Therefore, even if considered in conjunction with one another, the specimens did not show use of PERFECT 10 SKIN in connection with the rendering or advertising of online retail store services.

Accordingly, the TTAB concluded that none of the specimens created the required direct association between the PERFECT 10 SKIN mark and the applicant’s online retail store services. Thus, the refusal to register was affirmed.

The Case is Serial No. 88871731.

Judge: Myles, M.

Attorneys: Heidi Tandy (Berger Singerman LLP) for Perfect 10 Skin, LLC. Saima Makhdoom for the USPTO.

Companies: Perfect 10 Skin, LLC

Cases: Trademark USPTO