USPTO serial 75350146
TEA
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 603
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- COTTON, AMY PAGE
- 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 TEA?
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.
HERBERT DUBNO
HERBERT DUBNO THE FIRM OF KARL F ROSS PC5676 RIVERDALE AVE BOX 900RIVERDALE (BRONX), NY 10471-0900UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 003 | COSMETICS, NAMELY, NAIL POLISH, NAIL POLISH REMOVER, EYE LINER, MASCARA, EYE SHADOW, LIP PENCIL, LIP LINER, LIPSTICK, FACE POWDER, FACE MAKEUP AND BLUSH | ACTIVE | Aug 26, 1997 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 8, 2001 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Mar 8, 2001 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Sep 29, 2000 | ABN3 | ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Sep 28, 2000 | EXPA | EX PARTE APPEAL-REFUSAL AFFIRMED | — |
| Feb 29, 2000 | CNCF | CONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | — |
| Jan 5, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 6, 1999 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Jul 6, 1999 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Jul 1, 1999 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| May 7, 1999 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 17, 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. |
| Nov 16, 1998 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 21, 1998 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 17, 1998 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 14, 1998 | 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. |
| Apr 29, 1998 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 23, 1998 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |