USPTO serial 75329774
THREE IN 1 FAMOUS FOODS
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- BEVERLY, JOSETTE MICHELLE
- 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 THREE IN 1 FAMOUS FOODS?
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
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
MARK D MILLER
MARK D MILLER KIMBLE MACMICHAEL & UPTONFIG GARDEN FINANCIAL CTR5260 N PALM AVE STE 221FRESNO, CA 93704Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 042 | three in 1 famous foods in a unique marketplace, (an elegant food "mall" three in 1 famous foods locations will house 3 and more "mini" restaraunts under it's roof; each restaraunt has it's own name but with common dining areas as the others located in three in 1's locations; three in 1 famous foods will operate under full-blown service locations of5 and up restaraunts or mini "express" locations with 4 and less | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 5, 2001 | 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, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 10, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 22, 2000 | 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. |
| Nov 21, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 21, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 21, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 21, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 21, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 21, 2000 | ZZZY | PREVIOUS ACTION COUNT WITHDRAWN | — |
| Nov 3, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 3, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 11, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 29, 1999 | 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 7, 1999 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 15, 1998 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 8, 1998 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |