USPTO serial 73760572
CHRISTIES
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 603
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- CLARK, ROBERT C
- 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 CHRISTIES?
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
QUISTELLO, MANTOVA, IT
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
JULIUS FISHER
JULIUS FISHER MCAULAY, FISHER, NISSEN & GOLDBERG261 MADISON AVENEW YORK, NY 10016UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 025 | WOMEN'S UNDERWEAR AND LINGERIE, NAMELY - UNDERPANTS, BRASSIERES, GIRDLES OR SUSPENDER BELTS, SLIPS, CORSELETS, STOCKINGS, NIGHTDRESSES; T-SHIRTS AND BLOUSES | ABANDONED | Feb 28, 1983 |
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 29, 1996 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Feb 20, 1996 | ABN3 | ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Feb 20, 1996 | EXPA | EX PARTE APPEAL-REFUSAL AFFIRMED | — |
| Jun 26, 1995 | CNES | EXAMINERS STATEMENT MAILED | — |
| Apr 27, 1995 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 27, 1994 | CNCF | CONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | — |
| Apr 15, 1994 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 30, 1994 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 24, 1994 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 18, 1994 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 23, 1993 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 29, 1993 | REIN | REINSTATED | — |
| Jul 22, 1992 | 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. |
| Dec 9, 1991 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 25, 1991 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Feb 12, 1991 | CNCF | CONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | — |
| Jan 2, 1991 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Jan 2, 1991 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Nov 8, 1990 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 5, 1990 | 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. |
| Sep 25, 1989 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 19, 1989 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 25, 1989 | 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. |
| Jan 3, 1989 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 23, 1988 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 13, 1988 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |