Drawing for COMFORT PLUS

USPTO serial 75665582

COMFORT PLUS

Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group

Status 603
Filing date
Status date
Registration date
—
Examiner
LOWRY, LEIGH A
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 COMFORT PLUS?

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.

Howard S. Reiter

BARLEY SNYDER SENFT & COHEN LLC BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & COHEN, LLC126 KING STLANCASTER, PA 17602-2893UNITED STATES

Goods and services

ClassDescriptionStatusFirst use
018PRODUCTS FOR HORSES, NAMELY, SADDLE PADS, HORSE BLANKETS, LEG WRAPS FOR PLAYING POLO, MASKS FOR PROTECTING FACE, EYES AND EARS FROM FLIES, LEG PROTECTION, NAMELY LEG QUILTS, SHIPPING BOOTS AND PILLOW WRAPS, AND STANDING WRAPS, NAMELY KNIT BANDAGES, COLD WATER BANDAGES, STANDING BANDAGES AND TURF KNIT BANDAGESACTIVE—

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

DateCodeEventWhat it means
Sep 16, 2003TCCATEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED—
Jun 21, 2002DOCKASSIGNED TO EXAMINER—
Jun 20, 2002ABN3ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL—
Jun 20, 2002EXPTEXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED—
Jun 20, 2002EXFBEXPARTE APPEAL DISMISSED - FAILURE TO FILE BRIEF—
Nov 28, 2001CNCFCONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED—
May 10, 2001DOCKASSIGNED TO EXAMINER—
Mar 22, 2001JURTJURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY—
Mar 15, 2001EXPIEX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED—
Aug 9, 2000CNFRFINAL REFUSAL MAILEDA 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 25, 2000CRFACORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE—
Aug 26, 1999CNRTNON-FINAL ACTION MAILEDA 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.
Aug 20, 1999DOCKASSIGNED TO EXAMINER—

Frequently asked questions

Related guidance