TTABlog Test: Is HOLY HABITS Merely Descriptive of Spiritual Growth Management Software?

The USPTO refused to register the mark HOLY HABITS for "Downloadable computer application software for mobile phones, namely, software for spiritual growth management, including tools for habit-building, personal reflection, daily scripture engagement, confession tracking, and personalized recommendations for holiness," deeming the mark merely descriptive of the goods. Applicant Acutis, appearing pro se, argued that a consumer seeing the mark would not know what the goods are, and furthermore that the mark is a double entendre and/or a unitary mark. How do you think this appeal came out? In re Acutis Technology Inc., Serial No. 98669016 (November 13, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Elizabeth K. Brock).

In support of the refusal, Examining Attorney Daniel Brody pointed to applicant's specimen of use, which states that applicant’s mobile application is used for “Catholic habit tracking,” to “track your daily spiritual habits."

As to Acutis's first argument, the Board observed once again that the mark at issue must be considered in the context of the goods, not in the abstract. “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.

As to the double entendre argument, Acutis contended 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." The Board was not impressed. "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." Applicant did not provide any evidence that "potential purchasers confronted with Applicant’s goods would find ambiguity or multiplicity of meanings in Applicant’s mark."

As to the unitary mark argument, Acutis maintained that the mark "evokes a conceptual journey toward sanctity — a rich and layered meaning that is not directly descriptive of what the app does." However, the evidence showed that this meaning of "a conceptual journey toward sanctity" is "precisely how HOLY HABITS is used by third-parties:" to describe “practicing habits showing a devotion to a religion."

In conclusion, the Board found that purchasers of Acutis's goods 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." And so, it affirmed the refusal.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: I confess, at first glance I thought the mark had something to do with religious clothing. Also, I don't understand the Board's response to the unitary mark argument, nor why it would make any difference for the descriptiveness issue if it were a unitary mark.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.