USPTO serial 75846949
LIP DEFENSE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- SALEMI, DOMINICK
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 106 - EXAMINING ATTORNEY ASSIGNED
What this means
These status codes mean the trademark application is abandoned and no longer pending. Common reasons include missing an Office Action response (600), filing without a valid basis (602), express abandonment by the applicant (604), or failure to respond to an examiner's inquiry (618). Revival may be possible in limited circumstances. If abandonment was unintentional, consult counsel about a petition to revive. Otherwise file a new application if protection is still needed.
Need help with LIP DEFENSE?
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.
Owner
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
GEORGE J. NETTER
MARNIE WRIGHT BARNHORST ESQ THE TRADEMARK GROUP, APLC1200 PROSPECT ST STE G-100LA JOLLA, CA 92037UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 003 | Cosmetics, namely, sunscreen and sunblock | ACTIVE | Feb 28, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 16, 2006 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| May 19, 2006 | MAB2 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - FAILURE TO RESPOND | 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 19, 2006 | 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. |
| Oct 21, 2005 | GRML | CORRESPONDENCE E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 21, 2005 | CNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION WRITTEN | 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 20, 2005 | ZZZX | PREVIOUS ALLOWANCE COUNT WITHDRAWN | — |
| Oct 7, 2005 | PBCR | WITHDRAWN FROM PUB - OG REVIEW QUERY | — |
| Aug 9, 2005 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Aug 5, 2005 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Aug 2, 2005 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Jul 12, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jul 5, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 5, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 25, 2005 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Nov 17, 2004 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 22, 2004 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jul 20, 2004 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 4, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Nov 29, 2000 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 25, 2000 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 17, 2000 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 25, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 20, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |