USPTO serial 73718553
ROSC
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 601
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- —
- Law office
- FILE REPOSITORY (FRANCONIA)
What this means
This page summarizes the public USPTO record for this serial number, including owners, goods and services, and prosecution history.
Need help with ROSC?
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.
Current trademark owner
Monitor this mark, or talk with CopyMark about this registration.
Not the owner?
File a new U.S. trademark application, or speak with our attorneys.
Owner
SMITHFIELD, DUBLIN, IE
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
JAMES L. KURTZ, ESQUIRE
JAMES N PALIK PENNY & EDMONDS1155 AVE OF THE AMERICASNEW YORK, NY 10036UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 033 | WHISKEY, AND WHISKEY BASED ALCOHOLIC COCKTAIL | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 22, 1990 | ABN1 | ABANDONMENT - EXPRESS MAILED | — |
| Feb 22, 1990 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jan 25, 1990 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 31, 1989 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 28, 1989 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 25, 1989 | CNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT MAILED | — |
| Jul 25, 1989 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 20, 1989 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Apr 8, 1989 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 4, 1989 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 14, 1989 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 7, 1989 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 16, 1989 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 16, 1989 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 9, 1989 | 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 9, 1989 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 23, 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. |
| Jun 6, 1988 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |