USPTO serial 73835624
OVEJITA
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 603
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- FICKES, JERI J
- 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 OVEJITA?
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.
JOHN J. MCGLEW
JOHN J MCGLEW SCARBOROUGH STATIONMCGLEW AND TUTTLE, PCSCARBOROUGH, NY 10510-0827UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 025 | CLOTHING, NAMELY CHILDREN'S FLANNEL PAJAMAS, SHIRTS, PANTS, DRESSES, AND UNDERWEAR; OVERALLS, CHILDREN'S AND INFANTS OVERALLS, PAJAMAS, UNDERSHORTS, UNDERSHIRTS, PANTIES, CLOTH DIAPERS, CLOTH BIBS, SHEETS, AND UNDERWEAR; SHOES, BOOTS, AND SLIPPERS | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 12, 1994 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Mar 15, 1994 | EXFB | EXPARTE APPEAL DISMISSED - FAILURE TO FILE BRIEF | — |
| Jan 4, 1994 | ABN3 | ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Dec 22, 1992 | PCDE | PETITION TO DIRECTOR DENIED | — |
| Sep 30, 1992 | PCDE | PETITION TO DIRECTOR DENIED | — |
| Feb 28, 1992 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Feb 28, 1992 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Jan 21, 1992 | PCRC | PETITION TO DIRECTOR RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 20, 1991 | CNCF | CONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | — |
| Dec 13, 1991 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 27, 1991 | CNCF | CONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | — |
| Apr 24, 1991 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 30, 1991 | 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. |
| Nov 7, 1990 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 5, 1990 | 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 22, 1990 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 10, 1990 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jan 25, 1990 | 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. |
| Dec 21, 1989 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |