IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: ‘The Skin Coach‘ mark not permissible for registration, generic name for services, (May 21, 2026)

By Joe Cox, J.D.

A trademark denial was affirmed due to extensive evidence of “skin coach” referring to a sub-genus of persons providing coaching services or online training in health and wellness.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed a ruling that “The Skin Coach” was not suitable for registration because it was a generic sub-genus of the fields of professional coaching or online training in the fields of health and wellness. An examination of numerous Internet pages provided a demonstration of the context of common usage of the term (In re The Skin Coach LLC, No. 98351505 (T.T.A.B. May 11, 2026)).

History of the dispute. The applicant sought to register “Therapeutic Skin Coach” for educational services in the field of health and wellness and holistic health services. Evidence was submitted by the applicant from theskincoach.net. The registration was refused on a finding that the proposed mark was merely descriptive of the described services and appeared to be generic in connection with the goods and/or services identified. The applicant then amended its application to seek registration of “The Skin Coach.”

At that point, the examining attorney refused the amended registration application on the basis that it was a generic name for the services identified. Various web pages using “skin coach” were filed on record by the examining attorney. The applicant filed a request for reconsideration and appealed.

Issues on review. A mark can be deemed not suitable for registration if it refers to the class or category of goods or services on which it is used. The examining attorney had to make a prima facie case that the term is generic for the ruling to be upheld, at which time the burden of proof would then shift to the applicant to rebut that case. The totality of the record was to be considered, and the issue was to be a question of fact, considered under a preponderance of the evidence.

The applicant submitted several dictionary references indicating that “skin coach” as a phrase was not defined in the relevant authorities and thus was a metaphoric or descriptive title and not the name of a class of services. The examining attorney responded with 30 third-party websites utilizing “skin coach” or similar verbiage, as well as separate dictionary definitions of “skin” and “coach” and several LEXIS/NEXIS articles, all of which she argued supported a finding that “skin coach names a category of healthcare and healthcare information services.”

The dictionary evidence from the examining attorney was directed to refute the absence of a singular term for “skin coach” by showing that coach was defined as “one who instructs or trains” while skin is “the external limiting tissue layer of an animal body.”

More significantly, the examining attorney pointed out that the applicant’s own website referenced one worker, Malia, as “your new skin coach and BFF.” Malia further identified herself as a “certified holistic IIN health + nutrition coach” who “has been testing and researching skincare & nutrition for over 25 years now.” The information about Malia, the court noted, used “skin coach” to refer to an instructor who provides professional counseling services in the field of health and wellness.”

Third-party websites were discussed in great detail, with the court concluding that on balance, 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.”

Other articles tilted in a similar direction, and the applicant’s argument that the use of “The” in the requested mark rendered it non-generic similarly did not advance the applicant’s case. The original denial of registration was thus affirmed.

The Case is No. 98351505.

Judge: Larkin, C.

Attorneys: Carmel Imani (Imani Law LLP) for Skin Coach LLC. Janice Mcmorrow for the USPTO.

Companies: Skin Coach LLC

Cases: Trademark TechnologyInternet USPTO