USPTO serial 74453040
POLYMULSION
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- GREENBAUM, CINDY BETH
- 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 POLYMULSION?
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
Huntington Park, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Marvin E. Jacobs
MARVIN E JACOBS KOPPEL & JACOBS2151 ALESSANDRO DR STE 215VENTURA, CA 93001UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 019 | asphalt emulsion for forming a film on roofs and roof repair fabrics and tapes for professional roofers | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 1, 1996 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 30, 1996 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Oct 30, 1996 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Jun 5, 1996 | EXPA | EX PARTE APPEAL-REFUSAL AFFIRMED | — |
| Sep 26, 1995 | CNES | EXAMINERS STATEMENT MAILED | — |
| Aug 3, 1995 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Aug 2, 1995 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| May 25, 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. |
| May 4, 1995 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 7, 1994 | 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. |
| Sep 15, 1994 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 11, 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. |
| Feb 17, 1994 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |