USPTO serial 75439223
SUGAM
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 603
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- KING, LINDA M
- 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 SUGAM?
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
Elk Grove Village, IL
Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 029 | Lentils | ACTIVE | — |
| 030 | Pastes,namely, garlic paste, ginger paste, ginger and garlic pastes, green chilli paste; chutneys, namely, corriander chutney, mint chutney, coconut chutney, tamarind chutney, garlic chutney and red pepper chutney; flours, namely, rice flour, corn flour; spices,namely, mustard seeds, fenugreek seeds, nutmeg powder, cloves | ACTIVE | Feb 1, 1998 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 4, 2003 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Oct 29, 2002 | EXPA | EX PARTE APPEAL-REFUSAL AFFIRMED | — |
| Aug 21, 2002 | CNES | EXAMINERS STATEMENT MAILED | — |
| Jun 4, 2002 | EXFB | EXPARTE APPEAL DISMISSED - FAILURE TO FILE BRIEF | — |
| Jan 8, 2002 | CNCF | CONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | — |
| Jan 7, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 14, 2001 | CNCF | CONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | — |
| May 24, 2001 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| May 24, 2001 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Nov 8, 2000 | 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. |
| Feb 9, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 7, 2000 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Dec 2, 1999 | PETL | COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM PETITIONER | — |
| Nov 17, 1999 | PINM | INCOMPLETE PETITION NOTICE MAILED | — |
| Nov 17, 1999 | PINM | INCOMPLETE PETITION NOTICE MAILED | — |
| Sep 2, 1999 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 2, 1999 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Sep 2, 1999 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 30, 1999 | PETD | PETITION TO REVIVE-DENIED | — |
| Apr 14, 1999 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 16, 1999 | 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. |
| Jul 6, 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. |
| Jul 2, 1998 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |