USPTO serial 74268195
SENSIBLE TEMPTATIONS
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- QUINN, JULIE CLINTON
- 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 SENSIBLE TEMPTATIONS?
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
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Mark I. Feldman
MARK I FELDMAN RUDNICK & WOLFE203 N LASALLE STCHICAGO, IL 60601UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 029 | garden salads, chef salads, chicken salads, tuna salads, caesar salads, chicken caesar and fruit salads, milk and frozen yogurt shakes | ABANDONED | Jun 24, 1992 |
| 030 | soups; sandwiches; namely, ham sandwiches, turkey sandwiches, chicken salad sandwiches, tuna salad sandwiches, and chicken sandwiches; quiches; chips; crackers; fresh fruit; cookies; brownies; carrot cake; muffins; cheesecakes; coffee; cappuccino; espresso; cafe au lait; cafe mocha; and hot chocolate | ABANDONED | Jun 24, 1992 |
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 31, 1994 | 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. |
| Jan 10, 1994 | CNRU | DISAPPROVAL - AMENDMENT TO USE MAILED | — |
| Oct 20, 1993 | AUPC | AMENDMENT TO USE PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Sep 27, 1993 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 27, 1993 | IUAF | USE AMENDMENT FILED | — |
| Sep 27, 1993 | REIN | REINSTATED | — |
| Sep 27, 1993 | ZZZY | PREVIOUS ACTION COUNT WITHDRAWN | — |
| Jul 13, 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 24, 1992 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |