USPTO serial 74324445
SKIN INITIATIVE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 603
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- FISHER, HANNAH
- 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 SKIN INITIATIVE?
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
W-7570 Baden-Baden, DE
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Mark Harrison
MARK HARRISON SPENCER, FRANK & SCHNEIDER1111 NINETEENTH ST NW STE 300 EWASHINGTON, DC 20036UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 003 | cosmetics and moisturizers; namely, skin moisturizers, hand, face and body lotion, oils and creams, skin creams and lotions | 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 30, 1996 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Oct 30, 1996 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Jul 10, 1996 | EXPA | EX PARTE APPEAL-REFUSAL AFFIRMED | — |
| Dec 6, 1995 | ABN3 | ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Sep 27, 1995 | CNES | EXAMINERS STATEMENT MAILED | — |
| Aug 3, 1995 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Aug 2, 1995 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Mar 17, 1995 | 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. |
| Jan 12, 1995 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 5, 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. |
| Jun 13, 1994 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 27, 1994 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 29, 1993 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 3, 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. |
| Jul 14, 1993 | UNPR | UNRESPONSIVE/DUPLICATE PAPER RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 14, 1993 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 29, 1993 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 15, 1993 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 26, 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. |
| Jan 8, 1993 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 29, 1992 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 16, 1992 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |