USPTO serial 75065428
Serial No. 75065428
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 614
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- —
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 111 - DOCKET CLERK
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 Serial No. 75065428?
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.
Penny R. Slicer
PENNY R SLICER KOKJER, KIRCHER, BOWMAN & JOHNSON, PC2414 COMMERCE TWR 911 MAINKANSAS CITY, MO 64105UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 021 | containers for food products, namely ice cream | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 23, 1999 | PETD | PETITION TO REVIVE-DENIED | — |
| Feb 23, 1999 | PETD | PETITION TO REVIVE-DENIED | — |
| Feb 23, 1999 | 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. |
| Feb 23, 1999 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 7, 1998 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 7, 1998 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| May 27, 1998 | 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. |
| Apr 17, 1998 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 20, 1997 | UNPR | UNRESPONSIVE/DUPLICATE PAPER RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 14, 1997 | 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 17, 1997 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 13, 1997 | 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. |
| Mar 12, 1997 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jan 22, 1997 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 16, 1996 | 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 2, 1996 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |