USPTO serial 75403705
WHY WOULD ANYONE SAY MCDONALD'S
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 601
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- SAPPENFIELD, ANN
- 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 WHY WOULD ANYONE SAY MCDONALD'S?
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.
MARTIN G RASKIN
MARTIN G RASKIN STEINBERG RASKIN & DAVIDSON PC1140 AVE OF THE AMERICASNEW YORK, NY 10036UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 030 | staple foods, namely, hamburger and cheeseburger sandwiches, biscuits, breakfast combination sandwiches, coffee, cookies, fish sandwiches, chicken sandwiches, ice cream, milkshakes, pancakes, pancake syrup, pies, and pasta, rice or macaroni salad for consumption on or off the premises | ACTIVE | — |
| 042 | restaurant services | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 4, 2002 | ABN1 | ABANDONMENT - EXPRESS MAILED | — |
| Oct 8, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 3, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 3, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jul 5, 2002 | 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 6, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 25, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 24, 2000 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 29, 2000 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 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. |
| Oct 13, 1998 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 22, 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. |
| May 21, 1998 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 7, 1998 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |