Drawing for BEAUTY TOOLS

USPTO serial 74427024

BEAUTY TOOLS

Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group

Status 603
Filing date
Status date
Registration date
Examiner
MCMORROW, JANICE LEE
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 BEAUTY TOOLS?

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.

Arthur D. Gray

ARTHUR D GRAY KENYON & KENYONONE BROADWAYNEW YORK, NY 10004UNITED STATES

Goods and services

ClassDescriptionStatusFirst use
008manicure, pedicure, facial, skin care and haircutting tools, namely tweezers, nail clippers, haircutting scissors, moustache scissors, nose and ear hair scissors, eyelash curlers, eyelash separators, cuticle and hangnail nippers, nail files, nail clippers, artificial nail cutters, callus cutters, callus rasps, whitehead and blackhead removers, nose hair trimmers, cuticle knives, hangnail clippers, and nail scissorsABANDONEDJun 1, 1989

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

DateCodeEventWhat it means
Jun 17, 1997DOCKASSIGNED TO EXAMINER
May 23, 1997DOCKASSIGNED TO EXAMINER
May 20, 1997EXPTEXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED
Feb 20, 1997ABN3ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL
Oct 5, 1996CNESEXAMINERS STATEMENT MAILED
Aug 15, 1996EXPIEX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED
Feb 8, 1996CNFRFINAL REFUSAL MAILEDA 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 17, 1996DOCKASSIGNED TO EXAMINER
Nov 20, 1995CRFACORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE
May 17, 1995CNRTNON-FINAL ACTION MAILEDA 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.
Apr 25, 1995CRFACORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE
Apr 6, 1995CRFACORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE
Oct 4, 1994CNFRFINAL REFUSAL MAILEDA 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.
Aug 19, 1994CRFACORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE
Feb 22, 1994CNRTNON-FINAL ACTION MAILEDA 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.
Dec 13, 1993DOCKASSIGNED TO EXAMINER

Frequently asked questions

Related guidance