Acutis Technology Inc.

This Opinion is Not a
Precedent of the TTAB
Mailed: May 15, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
_____
In re Acutis Technology Inc.
_____
Serial No. 98669016
_____
On Reconsideration
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:
On November 13, 2025, Applicant Acutis Technology Inc. timely filed a request for
reconsideration of the Board’s final decision in this appeal, pursuant to Trademark
Rule 2.144, 37 C.F.R. § 2.144.1
1 11 TTABVUE. Citations in this opinion are to the TTABVUE docket entry number and
electronic page number where the document appears.

Serial No. 98669016
- 2 -
I. Background
On November 11, 2025, in the final decision, the Board affirmed the refusal of
registration on the ground that Applicant’s mark, HOLY HABITS, is merely
descriptive of the goods under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §
1052(e)(1).2 In the decision, the Board noted:
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. … 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.3
In its request for reconsideration, Applicant urges the Board to “(1) accept the
attached Corrected Reply Brief … in place of the reply brief previously filed … and
(2) reconsider its decision in this appeal in light of the corrected, rule-compliant reply
brief.”4 Applicant attached to its request a reformatted reply brief and the original
reply brief.5
2 10 TTABVUE.
3 Id. at 2 n.2.
4 11 TTABVUE 2.
5 Id. at 5 and 15.

Serial No. 98669016
- 3 -
II. Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant explains that “[r]econsideration is appropriate so the Board may
evaluate the merits with a complete, compliant record.”6 Applicant states that “[t]he
corrected brief is identical in substance to the previously filed reply; only
formatting was changed to conform to the rules”7 and further argues that the “Board
has discretion to accept the corrected, compliant brief.”8
III. Analysis
The premise underlying a request for reconsideration is that the Board erred in
reaching its decision, based on record evidence and applicable law. In re Berkeley
Lights, Inc., No. 88895703, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 382, at *2-3. Reconsideration should
be limited to a demonstration that, based on the evidence properly of record and the
applicable law, the Board’s decision is in error and requires appropriate change. Id.,
and TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MANUAL OF PROCEDURE §§ 543 and
1219.01 (2025) and cases cited therein.
Applicant’s argument is essentially that (1) “[t]he Board has exercised its
discretion to consider briefs where formatting defects are cured and page limits are
met”9 and (2) by implication, the Board erred in not considering Applicant’s reply
brief.
6 11 TTABVUE 3.
7 Id. at 2 (emphasis in original).
8 Id. at 3.
9 11 TTABVUE 2, 3.

Serial No. 98669016
- 4 -
In pertinent part, Trademark Rule 2.142(b)(2) provides:
Briefs must meet the requirements prescribed in § 2.126,
except examining attorney submissions need not be filed
through ESTTA. Without prior leave of the Trademark
Trial and Appeal Board, a [main] 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.
And as to that main brief, “[i]f the [main] brief is not filed within the time allowed,
the appeal may be dismissed.” Trademark Rule 2.142(b)(1). Thus, in an appeal,
Applicant’s main brief is mandatory. Unlike main briefs, however, reply briefs are
optional, not mandatory. See Trademark Rule 2.142(b)(1) (“The appellant may file a
reply brief …”) (emphasis added); see also Trademark Rule 2.142(b)(2) (“A reply brief
from the appellant, if any …”) (emphasis added).
Applicant’s main brief was improperly formatted. Trademark Rule 2.126(a)(1). To
avoid dismissal of the appeal under Trademark Rule 2.142(b)(2), the Board exercised
its discretion to accept Applicant’s improperly formatted main brief – because the
main brief is mandatory. Applicant is reminded that the Board already exercised its
discretion once in Applicant’s favor.
Applicant’s reply brief was also formatted improperly. Because reply briefs are not
mandatory, the Board did not consider it under the plain language of Trademark Rule
2.142(b)(2). Therefore, this decision was not error.10 Moreover, although the
reformatted reply brief now appears to meet acceptable page limits, in our mere act
10 In any event, even if we had considered Applicant’s reply brief the result would remain the
same.

Serial No. 98669016
- 5 -
of counting pages, we immediately noted that the reply brief contains a definition
that does not appear to be part of the prosecution record.11 “The record should be
complete prior to the filing of an appeal. Evidence should not be filed with the Board
after the filing of a notice of appeal.” Trademark Rule 2.142(d), 37 C.F.R. § 2.142(d).
Thus, even the “corrected, compliant” reply brief is not, in fact, compliant and
improperly attempts to introduce material not made of record during prosecution. Id.
Having found that Applicant’s request contains no demonstration that the Board’s
decision is in error based on evidence and law, see Berkeley Lights, 2022 TTAB LEXIS
382, at *2-3, Applicant’s request for reconsideration is denied.
11 11 TTABVUE 7.