USPTO serial 74398046
TRUSTMARK
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 614
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- FOSTER, STEVEN
- 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 TRUSTMARK?
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.
Sherri L. Rohlf
SHERRI L ROHLF SIEGEL, BRILL, GREUPNER & DUFFY, PA1300 WASHINGTON SQ100 WASHINGTON AVE SMINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 003 | hair care products; namely, shampoos, conditioners, spray and sculpting gels; skin care products; namely, moisturizers, toners, skin cleaning lotions and soap, lotions, masques and astringents for cosmetic purposes; color cosmetics; namely, lipstick, eyeshadows, foundation creme, blushes, face powder, personal hygiene products; namely, total body cleaning preparations, toilet water, perfumes, colognes and body oils, massage oils and lotions, skin cremes, lotions and emollients, moisturizing lotions and oils and home hygiene products; namely, all purpose cleaning preparations, dish detergents, fabric cleaning preparations and cleaning preparations for the windows and toilet toilet | 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 5, 1994 | PETD | PETITION TO REVIVE-DENIED | — |
| Jun 8, 1994 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| May 9, 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. |
| Apr 13, 1994 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 12, 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. |
| Sep 16, 1993 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 9, 1993 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |