USPTO serial 74284091
MOTHER GOOSE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- BILLINGS, JESSIE W
- 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 MOTHER GOOSE?
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.
Leonard Bloom
LEONARD BLOOM LAW OFFICE OF LEONARD BLOOM401 WASHINGTON AVESTE 905TOWSON, MD 21230Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 008 | tableware; namely, knives, forks, and spoons | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 19, 1996 | ABN0 | ABANDONMENT - INCOMPLETE RESPONSE | — |
| Aug 14, 1996 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 30, 1996 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Feb 6, 1996 | 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 18, 1996 | DPCC | DIVISIONAL PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Dec 4, 1995 | REIN | REINSTATED | — |
| Oct 19, 1995 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 16, 1995 | 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 10, 1995 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 23, 1995 | DRRR | DIVISIONAL REQUEST RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 1, 1994 | 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. |
| Jul 14, 1994 | DPCC | DIVISIONAL PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Jul 14, 1994 | DPCC | DIVISIONAL PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Jul 14, 1994 | DPCC | DIVISIONAL PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| May 2, 1994 | DRRR | DIVISIONAL REQUEST RECEIVED | — |
| May 2, 1994 | DRRR | DIVISIONAL REQUEST RECEIVED | — |
| May 2, 1994 | DRRR | DIVISIONAL REQUEST RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 25, 1993 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 10, 1993 | DPCC | DIVISIONAL PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Dec 7, 1992 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 7, 1992 | DRRR | DIVISIONAL REQUEST RECEIVED | — |
| Nov 12, 1992 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 23, 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. |
| Sep 11, 1992 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 1, 1992 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |