USPTO serial 73710347
LIL UNICO
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- TINGLEY, JOHN
- Law office
- FILE REPOSITORY (FRANCONIA)
What this means
These status codes mean the trademark application is abandoned and no longer pending. Common reasons include missing an Office Action response (600), filing without a valid basis (602), express abandonment by the applicant (604), or failure to respond to an examiner's inquiry (618). Revival may be possible in limited circumstances. If abandonment was unintentional, consult counsel about a petition to revive. Otherwise file a new application if protection is still needed.
Need help with LIL UNICO?
If you own this trademark, we can monitor new filings and help with USPTO deadlines. If you do not, we can file a new U.S. application.
Owner
CONNAUGHT PLACE, HK
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
MARK I. PEROFF, ESQ.
MARK I PEROFF ESQ LIDDY, SULLIVAN, GALWAY, ET AL41 MADISON AVE 40TH FLNEW YORK, NY 10010UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 021 | NON-ELECTRIC CARPET SWEEPER; CLEANING BRUSHES, DUST CLOTHS, AND DUST MOPS; PANS, POTS, TABLEWARE AND OTHER CONTAINERS, NAMELY, GLASSWARE, PORCELAIN AND EARTHENWARE FOR HOUSEHOLD USE; NON-ELECTRIC CLOTHES BRUSHES | ABANDONED | — |
Related trademarks
CopyMark links this record to cited §2(d) serials, the owner's other marks, Nice classes, similar mark names, and recently changed USPTO applications.
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 28, 1991 | ABN2 | ABANDONMENT - FAILURE TO RESPOND OR LATE RESPONSE | The trademark application was abandoned because a required response or document was not filed by the deadline — usually a missed Office Action response. The application is dead unless a petition to revive is granted within a limited time. |
| Feb 8, 1991 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 30, 1990 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 6, 1990 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 5, 1990 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 29, 1989 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 21, 1989 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 18, 1989 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 22, 1988 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 24, 1988 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 26, 1988 | CNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION MAILED | A non-final Office Action means the USPTO examining attorney has raised at least one issue with your trademark application but has not made a final decision. You usually have three months to respond with arguments, amendments, or evidence. Missing the deadline can abandon the application. |
| Apr 19, 1988 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 18, 1988 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 13, 1988 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |