USPTO serial 74081463
POTATO ROLLS
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 603
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- —
- 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 POTATO ROLLS?
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.
Franklin A. Miles, Jr.
FRANKLIN A MILES JR MCNEES, WALLACE & NURICKP O BOX 1166HARRISBURG, PA 17108-1166UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 030 | baked goods, namely dinner, sandwich, hamburger and hot dog rolls | ABANDONED | May 12, 1966 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 21, 1996 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Mar 18, 1996 | ABN3 | ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Mar 18, 1996 | EXPA | EX PARTE APPEAL-REFUSAL AFFIRMED | — |
| Apr 20, 1995 | CNES | EXAMINERS STATEMENT MAILED | — |
| Jul 22, 1994 | CNCF | CONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | — |
| Mar 15, 1994 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 8, 1993 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Dec 7, 1993 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Sep 13, 1993 | 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 13, 1993 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Jul 7, 1993 | LOPT | LETTER OF PROTEST EVIDENCE FORWARDED | — |
| Jun 24, 1993 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Jan 26, 1993 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Jun 22, 1992 | 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. |
| Feb 11, 1992 | REIN | REINSTATED | — |
| Nov 13, 1991 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 6, 1991 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 29, 1991 | 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. |
| Jul 12, 1991 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 11, 1991 | 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 15, 1990 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 2, 1990 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |