Acutis Technology Inc.

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: November 13, 2025
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Acutis Technology Inc.
_____
Serial No. 98669016
_____
Acutis Technology Inc., pro se.
Matt Einstein, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 115,
Daniel Brody, Managing Attorney.
_____
Before Lykos, Lavache, and Brock,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Brock, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Acutis Technology Inc. (“Applicant”) seeks registration on the Principal Register
of the mark HOLY HABITS (in standard characters) for goods ultimately identified
as “Downloadable computer application software for mobile phones, namely, software
for spiritual growth management, including tools for habit-building, personal

Serial No. 98669016
- 2 -
reflection, daily scripture engagement, confession tracking, and personalized
recommendations for holiness” in International Class 9.1
The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration under Section 2(e)(1) of
the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), on the ground that the mark HOLY
HABITS is merely descriptive of Applicant’s identified goods. When the refusal was
made final, Applicant appealed and requested reconsideration. After the Examining
Attorney denied the request for reconsideration, the appeal was resumed.
Applicant and the Examining Attorney filed briefs.2 For the reasons discussed
below, we affirm the refusal to register Applicant’s mark.
1 Application Serial No. 98669016 was filed on July 26, 2024, based on Applicant’s claim of
first use anywhere and in commerce since at least June 28, 2023, under Section 1(a) of the
Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a).
2 Appeal Brief, 4 TTABVUE; Examining Attorney’s Brief, 6 TTABVUE; Reply Brief, 7
TTABVUE.
Applicant’s main brief and reply brief are improperly formatted because they are each single
spaced. See Trademark Rule 2.126(a)(1), 37 C.F.R. § 2.126(a)(1) (“Text in an electronic
submission must be filed in at least 11-point type and double-spaced.”). “Without prior leave
of the … Board, a brief shall not exceed twenty-five pages in length in its entirety, … A reply
brief from the appellant, if any, shall not exceed ten pages in length in its entirety.”
Trademark Rule 2.142(b)(2). Although Applicant’s main brief is single spaced, we accept it
because it is five pages; if it were properly double spaced, it would fall within the page
limitation. See In re University of Miami, No. 86616382, 2017 TTAB LEXIS 171, at *3 n.2
(Board exercised its discretion to consider applicant’s appeal brief and reply that were not
double-spaced because it appeared that they would fall within the applicable page limits had
they been double-spaced). Applicant’s reply brief, however, is seven pages, single spaced, and
if double spaced, would exceed the ten-page limit. We do not consider it. See In re Thomas,
No. 78334625, 2006 TTAB LEXIS 135, at *3-4 (Board did not consider applicant’s 29-page
main brief).
Citations in this opinion to the briefs and other materials in the case docket refer to
TTABVUE, the Board’s online docketing system. See New Era Cap Co. v. Pro Era, LLC, No.
91216455, 2020 TTAB LEXIS 199, at *1-5 n.1. 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.

Serial No. 98669016
- 3 -
I. Mere Descriptiveness
Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), prohibits registration
of a proposed mark that is merely descriptive of an applicant’s goods unless the mark
has acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f). “A term
is merely descriptive if it immediately conveys knowledge of a quality, feature,
function, or characteristic of the goods … with which it is used.” In re Chamber of
Com. of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal quotation omitted).
Evidence that a term is merely descriptive to the relevant purchasing public “may
be obtained from any competent source, such as dictionaries, newspapers, or
surveys,” In re Bayer AG, 488 F.3d 960, 964 (Fed. Cir. 2007), as well as “labels,
packages, or in advertising material directed to the goods.” In re Abcor Dev. Corp.,
588 F.2d 811, 814 (CCPA 1978). It may also be obtained from websites and
publications, In re N.C. Lottery, 866 F.3d 1363, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2017), including
Applicant’s own website. See, e.g., In re Promo Ink, No. 76541018, 2006 TTAB LEXIS
138, at *7 (examining attorney is “permitted to introduce evidence that applicant’s
own literature supports the descriptive nature of the term.”).
The Examining Attorney submitted dictionary evidence that the term HOLY
means “dedicated or devoted to the service of God, the church, or religion,”3 and noted
that Applicant used the term HABIT in the identification, i.e., “tools for habit-
3 February 5, 2025 Nonfinal Office Action, 4. https:///dictionary.com/browse/holy. Page
references to the application file refer to the online database of the USPTO’s TSDR system.
All citations to documents contained in the TSDR database are to the downloaded .pdf
versions of the documents.

Serial No. 98669016
- 4 -
building,” to identify its goods.4 See, e.g., Monster Energy Co. v. Lo, No. 91225050,
2023 TTAB LEXIS 14, at *47 (term appearing in mark appears in the recitation of
services and is thus descriptive). We further note that the identification of goods
includes a variation of the word HOLY, i.e., “personalized recommendations for
holiness.” (emphasis added). Therefore, the terms HOLY and HABITS are
individually descriptive of the identified goods, which support the user’s religious
practice and habits, i.e., “software for spiritual growth management, including tools
for habit-building, … daily scripture engagement, confession tracking, and
personalized recommendations for holiness.” (emphasis added).
Our inquiry does not end here, however, as Applicant’s mark comprises two terms.
“Where a mark consists of multiple words, the mere combination of descriptive words
does not necessarily create a non-descriptive word or phrase.” In re Zuma Array Ltd.,
No. 79288888, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 281, at *8 (quotation omitted). Therefore, we must
“consider the commercial impression of a mark as a whole …” Real Foods Pty Ltd.
v. FritoLay N. Am., Inc., 906 F.3d 965, 974 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citation omitted;
emphasis in original changed to bold). “If each word instead retains its merely
descriptive significance in relation to the goods, [then] the combination results in a
composite that is itself merely descriptive.” Zuma Array, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 281, at
*8 (quotation omitted); see also DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd.,
4 Id. It is irrelevant that the singular form of HABIT appears in the identification of goods
and the plural HABITS is used in the mark. See In re Cordua Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d 594, 603
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (“While each trademark must always be evaluated individually, pluralization
commonly does not alter the meaning of a mark.”). Additionally, nothing in the record
suggests that HABITS has a different meaning than HABIT. Id.

Serial No. 98669016
- 5 -
695 F.3d 1247, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (we are “required to examine the meaning of
each component individually, and then determine whether the mark as a whole is
merely descriptive.”) (citation omitted).
As evidence that the mark is descriptive as a whole, the Examining Attorney
points to Applicant’s specimen of use. The specimen states that Applicant’s mobile
application is used for “Catholic habit tracking,” and to “track your daily spiritual
habits.”5 Applicant’s HOLY HABITS mark thus “immediately conveys knowledge of
a quality, feature, function, or characteristic of the goods.” Chamber of Com., 675 F.3d
at 1300. Excerpts of the specimen are shown below:
5 July 26, 2024 Application, specimen (emphasis added).

Serial No. 98669016
- 6 -
6
Applicant implicitly requests us to set aside evidence of its own use, and find
instead that its mark is suggestive because “[a] consumer encountering HOLY
HABITS in the [Apple] App Store for the first time — typically with limited context
such as a title, icon, and a few lines of preview text — is not immediately informed of
a specific product function.”7 Instead, Applicant posits, a consumer might think
Applicant’s mobile app is a “devotional or meditation app[,] … religious content
library[, or] … faith-based lifestyle platform.”8 We cannot assess Applicant’s mark in
this “limited context,” as Applicant urges. “Descriptiveness of a mark is not
considered in the abstract. Rather, it is considered in relation to the particular goods
for which registration is sought, the context in which it is being used, and the possible
significance that the term would have to the average purchaser of the goods because
of the manner of its use or intended use.” Bayer, 488 F.3d at 963-64 (citations
omitted). “The question is not whether someone presented with only the mark could
guess what the goods or services are. Rather, the question is whether someone who
knows what the goods or services are will understand the mark to convey information
about them.” DuoProSS, 695 F.3d at 1254 (citation omitted).
6 July 26, 2024 Application, specimen.
7 4 TTABVUE 3 (emphasis removed).
8 Id.

Serial No. 98669016
- 7 -
Next, Applicant appears to argue that the HOLY HABITS mark is a double
entendre, explaining that the mark “may carry multiple connotations, including
references to Catholic religious life (e.g., ‘habit’ as attire)” and “[t]his ambiguity and
multiplicity of meaning reinforce the suggestiveness of the mark.”9 A double entendre
is an “ambiguity of meaning arising from language that lends itself to more than one
interpretation.” In re The Place, Inc., No. 76436826, 2005 TTAB LEXIS 451, at *9
(citing WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY (1993)). A mark that
comprises a double entendre will not be refused registration as merely descriptive if
one of its meanings is not merely descriptive in relation to the goods. In re Leonhardt,
No. 78666879, 2008 TTAB LEXIS 46, at *21 (citing In re Colonial Stores Inc., 394
F.2d 549 (CCPA 1968) (SUGAR & SPICE registrable for bakery products)).
The multiple meanings that make an expression a double entendre must be
readily apparent from the mark itself in the context of the applied-for goods. The
Place, 2005 TTAB LEXIS 451, at *17-18. “If the alleged second meaning of the mark
is apparent to purchasers only after they view the mark in the context of the
applicant’s trade dress, advertising material or other matter separate from the mark
itself, then the mark is not a double entendre.” Id. at *10. Here, Applicant provided
no evidence to suggest that potential purchasers confronted with Applicant’s goods
would find ambiguity or multiplicity of meanings in Applicant’s mark. See, e.g., In re
Yarnell Ice Cream, LLC, No. 86824279, 2019 TTAB LEXIS 208, at *23-24 (SCOOP
not a double entendre for ice cream; applicant made no showing that public likely to
9 Id. at 4.

Serial No. 98669016
- 8 -
perceive term as indicating a news scoop in addition to a serving size); see also In re
NextGen Mgmt., LLC, No. 88098031, 2023 TTAB LEXIS 1, at *5 (quoting Cai v.
Diamond Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Attorney argument is no
substitute for evidence.”) (quotation omitted)).
Last, Applicant argues that its HOLY HABITS mark is unitary.10 A mark is
registrable as suggestive only where the combination of merely descriptive terms
creates a unitary mark, or a mark with a unique, incongruous, or otherwise
nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods. See NextGen, 2023 TTAB LEXIS 1,
at *8. Here, Applicant argues, “the [mark] evokes a conceptual journey toward
sanctity — a rich and layered meaning that is not directly descriptive of what the app
does.”11 This meaning of “a conceptual journey toward sanctity” is precisely how
HOLY HABITS is used by third-parties; the Examining Attorney’s evidence shows
that third-parties use the phrase HOLY HABITS to describe “practicing habits
showing a devotion to a religion.”12 These uses include:
• Book, “Holy Habits: 10 Small Decisions that Lead to a Big Life,” by Noah
Herring, about “followers of Jesus … form[ing] good habits to lead to a
meaningful life,” “[y]our habits with Jesus will keep you free;”13
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 6 TTABVUE 4. To the extent that Applicant is arguing that HOLY HABITS creates yet
another meaning – apart from what is shown in the Examining Attorney’s evidence – that
argument is without evidentiary basis.
13 April 2, 2025 Final Office Action, 11-13.

Serial No. 98669016
- 9 -
• Book, “Holy Habits from the Sacred Heart: Ten Ways to Build Stronger, More
Loving Relationships,” by Emily Jaminet, “identif[ying] ten habits and virtues
… to get closer to Jesus;”14
• “Grounded and Growing” blog post, “Pursuing God through Holy Habits,”
describing “time set aside for prayer and bible study … a habit for so many
years … a holy habit;”15
• Daily planner or journal, “Holy Habits”, enabling purchasers to “structure our
spiritual lives,” including “methods to help you realize your spiritual goals” and
to “become more intentional about spending time with God and developing
positive habits in your life;”16
• “The Daily Grace Co.” blog post, “Forming Holy Habits,” discussing forming
habits as part of religious practice: “is this habit helping or hurting my
holiness,” and “our habits should be God-honoring and not self-fulfilling:”17
The authors, bloggers, and book publishers above are using the phrase HOLY
HABITS to describe “practicing habits showing a devotion to a religion” along the
same lines as Applicant’s mobile application “for spiritual growth management,
including tools for habit-building, personal reflection, daily scripture engagement,
confession tracking, and personalized recommendations for holiness.”
II. Conclusion: Refusal on the Basis of Mere Descriptiveness
The record shows that in connection with Applicant’s goods, purchasers would
recognize HOLY HABITS as immediately conveying knowledge of a quality of
Applicant’s mobile application, as a tool “for spiritual growth management,” as
described in the identification of goods. See In re Guaranteed Rate, No. 87054820,
14 Id. at 14-17.
15 Id. at 18-21.
16 Id. at 22-25.
17 Id. at 26-29.

Serial No. 98669016
- 10 -
2020 TTAB LEXIS 265, at *26-27 (third-party uses of the terms “guaranteed rate,”
“guaranteed mortgage rate,” and “guaranteed interest rate” established that claimed
mark GUARANTEED RATE was descriptive of mortgage-related services).
Decision: The refusal to register Applicant’s mark, HOLY HABITS, on the basis
that the mark is merely descriptive is affirmed.