USPTO serial 75682063
GLUE DOCTOR
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- WILLIAMS, IRENE
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 108 - DOCKET CLERK
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 GLUE DOCTOR?
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.
CHRISTEL EMERSON
THE TRIAD STE 2002200 RENAISSANCE BLVDGULPH MILLS, PA 19406Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 040 | custom manufacture of adhesives for flexible packaging | 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.
- Other trademarks owned by Liofol Company
- Other trademarks owned by HENKEL CORPORATION
- Other trademarks owned by HENKEL CORPORATION
- Other trademarks in Class 040
- Similar marks named GLUE DOCTOR
- Prosecution event MAB6 explained
- Recently changed USPTO trademarks
- Recently filed trademarks
- Browse all trademark records
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 24, 2006 | MAB6 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - NO USE STATEMENT FILED | The intent-to-use application was abandoned because no acceptable Statement of Use (or valid extension) was filed before the Notice of Allowance deadline expired. The application is dead unless revived within a limited window. |
| Apr 24, 2006 | ABN6 | ABANDONMENT - NO USE STATEMENT FILED | The intent-to-use application was abandoned because no acceptable Statement of Use (or valid extension) was filed before the Notice of Allowance deadline expired. The application is dead unless revived within a limited window. |
| Aug 22, 2005 | EX1G | SOU EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | — |
| Aug 22, 2005 | EXT1 | SOU EXTENSION 1 FILED | — |
| Aug 22, 2005 | EEXT | SOU TEAS EXTENSION RECEIVED | The applicant requested more time to file a Statement of Use before the Notice of Allowance deadline. Each extension typically adds six months. A limited number of extensions are available for intent-to-use applications not yet in use. |
| Feb 22, 2005 | NOAM | NOA MAILED - SOU REQUIRED FROM APPLICANT | A Notice of Allowance means your intent-to-use application cleared examination and opposition but is not registered yet. You must file a Statement of Use showing the mark in commerce, or request an extension, before the deadline — usually six months from the notice date. |
| Nov 30, 2004 | PUBO | PUBLISHED FOR OPPOSITION | Your mark was published in the USPTO Official Gazette for a 30-day opposition window. During that period, third parties who believe they would be harmed can file an opposition. If no opposition is filed, prosecution usually continues toward registration or a Notice of Allowance. |
| Nov 10, 2004 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Sep 30, 2004 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Sep 30, 2004 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Sep 30, 2004 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Sep 17, 2004 | ZZZX | PREVIOUS ALLOWANCE COUNT WITHDRAWN | — |
| Jul 13, 2004 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| May 27, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| May 27, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 27, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 27, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 30, 2004 | 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 7, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Nov 5, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| May 21, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 8, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 29, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 26, 2002 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| May 24, 2001 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| May 8, 2000 | 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 8, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Aug 30, 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. |
| Aug 24, 1999 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |