USPTO serial 74168031
ELEGANCE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 603
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- CLARK, ROBERT C
- 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 ELEGANCE?
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.
L. PAUL BURD
L PAUL BURD BURD, BARTZ & GUTENKAUF1300 FOSHAY TWRMINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 027 | home launderable bath rugs in the nature of water absorbent throw rugs, sold only in applicant's department stores | ABANDONED | Mar 17, 1991 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 24, 1995 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 22, 1995 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Sep 8, 1994 | ABN3 | ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Sep 8, 1994 | EXPA | EX PARTE APPEAL-REFUSAL AFFIRMED | — |
| Mar 8, 1994 | CNES | EXAMINERS STATEMENT MAILED | — |
| Nov 8, 1993 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Apr 19, 1993 | CNCF | CONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | — |
| Jan 22, 1993 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 29, 1992 | 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. |
| Jun 8, 1992 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 7, 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. |
| Mar 16, 1992 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 26, 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. |
| Sep 6, 1991 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 5, 1991 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |