USPTO serial 73789141
HAMBURGER HALT
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- TAYLOR, CRAIG
- 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 HAMBURGER HALT?
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
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
MICHELL E. RADIN
MICHELL E RADIN MORGAN & FINNEGAN345 PARK AVENEW YORK, NY 10154UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 029 | HAMBURGERS PATTIES, PREPARED MEALS CONSISTING PRIMARILY OF MEAT, FISH OR POULTRY; COOKED VEGETABLES, MILK, POTATO CHIPS; EGGS; MEAT, POULTRY, FISH; DAIRY PRODUCTS EXCLUDING ICE CREAM, ICE MILK AND FROZEN YOGURT; EDIBLE OILS, EDIBLE FATS, SALAD DRESSING, PICKLES | ABANDONED | — |
| 030 | HAMBURGER SANDWICHES, MILK SHAKES, ICE CREAM, ICE MILK, FROZEN YOGURT; PREPARED MEALS CONSISTING PRIMARILY OF PASTA OR RICE | ABANDONED | — |
| 042 | HOTEL, MOTEL, RESTAURANT, CAFE, CAFETERIA, CANTEEN, TAKE AWAY, SNAKE BAR, PUBLIC HOUSE, NIGHT CLUB AND CATERING SERVICES | 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 24, 1993 | 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. |
| Jun 12, 1992 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 15, 1991 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 17, 1991 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 2, 1991 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 1, 1991 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 5, 1990 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 13, 1990 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 20, 1990 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 18, 1990 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 31, 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. |
| May 18, 1989 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |