USPTO serial 73729746
VINTAGE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 603
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- BYERS, KRISTEN S.
- 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 VINTAGE?
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
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
MARIO A. MARTELLA
MARIO A MARTELLA BEEHLER, PAVITT, SIEGEMUND, ET AL3435 WILSHIRE BLVDSTE 1100LOS ANGELES, CA 90010-1978Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 003 | SHAVING CREAM, CLEANSING SCRUB, AFTER SHAVE LOTION, BODY MOISTURIZER, HAIR REVITALIZER, HAIR NUTRIENT, BODY WASH, BODY LOTION, HAIR SHAMPOO, AND COLOGNE AND FRAGRANCE FOR PERSONAL USE | ABANDONED | Mar 31, 1988 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| May 23, 1990 | ABN3 | ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| May 23, 1990 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| May 23, 1990 | EXFB | EXPARTE APPEAL DISMISSED - FAILURE TO FILE BRIEF | — |
| Mar 7, 1990 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Feb 2, 1990 | CNCF | CONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | — |
| Jun 23, 1989 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | A final Office Action (final refusal) means the examining attorney is maintaining at least one refusal and your options are narrower. You can file a response addressing the refusal, appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or let the application abandon. |
| Mar 13, 1989 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 20, 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. |
| Jul 21, 1988 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |