Nine Hims Oppositions in One Day: The New Filings and What Happened in Its Earlier Cases

The September 14 filings target seven HER-formative names. GleanMark reviewed Hims’ earlier opposition record to see how those cases ended.

Source: GleanMark’s September 25, 2026 stored TTAB records. Historical figures cover 11 closed oppositions filed by Hims, Inc. within the January 2019–September 2026 cohort. Scope and sources below.

Hims, Inc. filed nine trademark oppositions on September 14, challenging HER-formative names across health, skincare, supplements and software. Each notice alleges likely confusion with HERS or HIMS & HERS. Those are Hims’ allegations; the reviewed records contain no applicant answers or Board findings on them.

The filings challenge seven wordings across nine applications. Four of the nine proceedings concern applications filed by Majella Cares. And every notice invokes the same 22 registrations, bearing HERS or HIMS & HERS.

Seven names, a repeated argument

The names are HER FIRST, HER FIRST WOMEN’S HEALTH, HER ERA, HER SKIN, CHAPTERS OF HER, HER ESSENTIALS and HELLO HER. Hims repeatedly describes HER as dominant and argues that the added words and missing final “S” do not sufficiently distinguish the names.

The notices reach that position in different ways. Hims cites disclaimers of SKIN, ESSENTIALS and WOMEN’S HEALTH. It calls FIRST laudatory and suggestive, ERA a reference to time, CHAPTERS OF a weak narrative lead-in, and HELLO a greeting without source-identifying significance. These are the comparisons Hims advances.

The registrations Hims emphasizes vary with the products: a HERS skincare registration for the skincare cases; a HIMS & HERS supplement registration and other rights for supplements; telemedicine, referrals and educational services for Majella. HELLO HER’s notice additionally invokes a pending HERS software application, not another issued registration.

What happened in Hims’ earlier cases?

Before the September 14 group, the named-entity cohort contains 16 oppositions: 11 closed and five without a terminal disposition. The closed cases ended in three ways: Hims withdrew six oppositions, applicants withdrew or abandoned three applications, and two cases ended by default.

Three of those 11 have an answer recorded. None has a trial brief recorded in the reviewed dockets.

The closing orders preserve differences that the headline counts alone cannot show:

• Application abandonment produced different dispositions. In HIMS BY SKIMS and HERMD UNIVERSITY, the Board sustained the oppositions after abandonment; the orders say Hims’ written consent was not of record. In HERDOCTOR, the order records abandonment with Hims’ written consent and dismissal of the opposition. SKIMS order, HERMD order, HERDOCTOR order.
• A default notice was not always the ending. HERHYDRATION, 91283057, received one, but its closing order records Hims withdrawing. It is counted among the withdrawals, not the default judgments.
• One order expressly records a settlement. In BY HIM FOR HER, 91253194, the Board records Hims’ withdrawal under the parties’ settlement agreement. The other five Hims withdrawals involved Mixhers applications; those closing orders do not state settlement terms.

The five earlier cases without terminal dispositions stay outside this breakdown, as do the nine new filings. A suspension referring to settlement negotiations in 91302891 and a default notice in 91308311 are not counted as completed settlements or default judgments.

The nine filings, case by case

The table connects each wording to its application, applicant, proceeding and the notice paragraph containing Hims’ comparison. Hover over linked records for a preview.

Scope and sources

We counted distinct proceedings filed January 1, 2019–September 25, 2026 with Hims, Inc. as plaintiff, accepting its recorded capitalization variant: 25 oppositions and one cancellation petition. The opposition total includes the nine September 14 filings. The separate cancellation, 92078925, ended by default and is excluded from the opposition breakdown.

This is not a corporate-group total. We exclude extensions, the separately named Hims & Hers Health, Inc. opposition and the cancellation in which Hims, Inc. is the defendant. Each closed-case category is reconciled to the complete stored closing orders and docket entries. The snapshot reflects GleanMark’s stored records as of September 25. It does not infer settlement terms, reasons for withdrawal, or the merits of the parties’ claims.