USPTO serial 74039224
RITZ
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- CLARK, ROBERT C
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 101 - EXAMINING ATTORNEY ASSIGNED
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 RITZ?
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.
R. WILLIAM JOHNSTON
R WILLIAM JOHNSTON CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALEPOST OFFICE BOX 7068PASADENA, CA 91109-7068UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 025 | clothing, namely, semi-finished garments marketed to manufacturers and clothing finishers, namely, plain t-shirts, sweats shirts and sweat pants and t-dresses, which are blanks intended for further finishing, namely, imprint of graphic designs, addition of beads, and/or special-effect dyeing such as stone-washing | ACTIVE | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 15, 2008 | MAB2 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - FAILURE TO RESPOND | 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. |
| Oct 15, 2008 | 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. |
| Mar 19, 2008 | 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. |
| Mar 18, 2008 | CNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION WRITTEN | 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. |
| Feb 14, 2008 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Aug 14, 2007 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jan 19, 2007 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jan 19, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Jun 30, 2006 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jun 30, 2006 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Dec 13, 2005 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| May 25, 2005 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Nov 11, 2004 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Sep 12, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Jul 25, 2000 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 10, 1997 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 11, 1997 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 17, 1996 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 9, 1995 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 3, 1994 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 29, 1994 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 26, 1993 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 12, 1993 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 7, 1992 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 17, 1992 | UNPR | UNRESPONSIVE/DUPLICATE PAPER RECEIVED | — |
| Jun 28, 1991 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 21, 1991 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 17, 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. |
| Aug 1, 1990 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |