USPTO serial 75071341
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
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.
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.
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
MARC M GORELNIK
MARC M GORELNIK TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW LLPTWO EMBARCADERO CTR 8TH FLSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3834UNITED STATES| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 032 | non-alcoholic beverages, aerated waters, mineral waters, soda waters, table waters, waters, syrups and concentrates used in the manufacture of non-alcoholic beverages; beers | ACTIVE | — |
CopyMark links this record to cited §2(d) serials, the owner's other marks, Nice classes, similar mark names, and recently changed USPTO applications.
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 29, 2007 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Jun 29, 2007 | MAB2 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - FAILURE TO RESPOND | 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. |
| Jun 29, 2007 | 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. |
| Dec 1, 2006 | CNCF | CONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | — |
| Nov 30, 2006 | CNCF | ACTION CONTINUING A FINAL - COMPLETED | — |
| Apr 6, 2006 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Sep 23, 2005 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Mar 5, 2005 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jul 30, 2004 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Aug 6, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Apr 16, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 15, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 9, 1998 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 19, 1998 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Feb 19, 1998 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Dec 1, 1997 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 29, 1997 | 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 14, 1997 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 2, 1996 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 9, 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. |
| Sep 26, 1996 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 24, 1996 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |