USPTO serial 74039749
DOUBLE FRUIT
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 601
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- LEETZOW, KAREN
- 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 DOUBLE FRUIT?
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
Longueuil, Quebec, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
ROBERT V VICKERS
TWENTIETH FL TERMINAL TWRCLEVELAND, OH 44113UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 029 | jams and marmalades; fruit compotes | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 7, 1997 | ABN1 | ABANDONMENT - EXPRESS MAILED | — |
| Oct 7, 1997 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 26, 1997 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 16, 1997 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 2, 1997 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 1, 1996 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 12, 1994 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 14, 1994 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 31, 1994 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 25, 1994 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 24, 1994 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 24, 1993 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 24, 1993 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 23, 1993 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 3, 1993 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 19, 1993 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 26, 1993 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 22, 1993 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 10, 1992 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 17, 1992 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 21, 1992 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 16, 1991 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 15, 1991 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 5, 1991 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 3, 1991 | UNPR | UNRESPONSIVE/DUPLICATE PAPER RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 29, 1990 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 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. |
| Aug 29, 1990 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 16, 1990 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |