Drawing for CONCERTO ESPRESSO

USPTO serial 74538329

CONCERTO ESPRESSO

Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group

Status 603
Filing date
Status date
Registration date
—
Examiner
GREENBAUM, CINDY BETH
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 CONCERTO ESPRESSO?

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.

David Wolf

DAVID WOLF WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, PC600 ATLANTIC AVEBOSTON, MA 02210-2211UNITED STATES

Goods and services

ClassDescriptionStatusFirst use
007professional electric espresso-making machines for hotel and restaurant commercial useABANDONEDFeb 14, 1994

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
Mar 31, 1997DOCKASSIGNED TO EXAMINER—
Mar 27, 1997JURTJURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY—
Mar 27, 1997EXPTEXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED—
Dec 6, 1996ABN3ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL—
Dec 6, 1996EXPAEX PARTE APPEAL-REFUSAL AFFIRMED—
Jul 18, 1996CNESEXAMINERS STATEMENT MAILED—
May 21, 1996JURTJURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY—
Feb 8, 1996CNCFCONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED—
Feb 6, 1996DOCKASSIGNED TO EXAMINER—
Feb 1, 1996DOCKASSIGNED TO EXAMINER—
Jan 31, 1996JURTJURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY—
Jan 30, 1996EXPIEX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED—
Nov 22, 1995CRFACORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE—
May 25, 1995CNFRFINAL 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.
Apr 10, 1995CRFACORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE—
Nov 16, 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.
Nov 9, 1994DOCKASSIGNED TO EXAMINER—

Frequently asked questions

Related guidance