USPTO serial 75211942
SO NICE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 614
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- RICHARD, JENNIFER
- 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 SO NICE?
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
Surrey, British Columbia, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
DEBRA A HARRISON
DEBRA A HARRISON GREENBERG TRAURIG1300 CONNECTICUT AVE NW STE 1000WASHINGTON, DC 20036UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 029 | soy based food products, namely, milk, yogurt, cheeses, meat patties, whipping cream; spreads, namely, fruit-based spreads, meat-based spreads and vegetable spreads; soy bean based food beverages with flavorings, and with and without carbonation; tofu | ACTIVE | — |
| 030 | soy based food products, namely, milk shakes, cakes, pudding, ice cream, ice cream bars, pies, chocolate mousse, frozen fruit bars, mayonnaise, salad dressings, frozen yogurt, breakfast cereals, breads, muffins, croutons, corn chips, taco chips, tortilla chips, gravy mixes | ACTIVE | — |
| 032 | soy bean based food products, namely, multi-flavored drinks, fruit drinks, carbonated soft drinks | ACTIVE | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 13, 2001 | PETD | PETITION TO REVIVE-DENIED | — |
| Nov 22, 2000 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 24, 2000 | 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. |
| Jan 24, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jan 24, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 18, 1999 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 7, 1998 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 2, 1998 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 12, 1998 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 11, 1998 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jan 14, 1998 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 17, 1997 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 17, 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. |
| Jun 10, 1997 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |