USPTO serial 73837425
DREAM PUFF
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- DELANEY, ZHALEH SYBIL
- 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 DREAM PUFF?
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
MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
JOSEPH A. BIRCH
BIRCH, STEWART, KALASCH & BIRCH LLPP O BOX 747FALLS CHURCH, VA 22040-0747UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 020 | PILLOWS | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 4, 1996 | 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 15, 1996 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 29, 1995 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 15, 1994 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 14, 1994 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 7, 1994 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 13, 1994 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 3, 1994 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 16, 1993 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 9, 1993 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 28, 1993 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 19, 1993 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 18, 1993 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 4, 1993 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 13, 1992 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 4, 1992 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 28, 1992 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 29, 1992 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 8, 1992 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 29, 1991 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 15, 1991 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 26, 1991 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Mar 14, 1991 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 19, 1990 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 13, 1990 | UNPR | UNRESPONSIVE/DUPLICATE PAPER RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 28, 1990 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 11, 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. |
| Jan 4, 1990 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |