Drawing for REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE

USPTO serial 75981450

REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE

Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group

Status 603
Filing date
Status date
Registration date
—
Examiner
SAITO, KIM
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 REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE?

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.

PHILIP FURGANG

STEPHANIE FURGANG ADWAR FURGANG & ADWAR LLP2 CROSFIELD AVE STE 210WEST NYACK, NY 10994UNITED STATES

Goods and services

ClassDescriptionStatusFirst use
041Association services, namely, promoting the interest of advocates for women's reproductive rights; promoting public awareness of women's reproductive rights issuesACTIVE—

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
Mar 9, 2005TCCATEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED—
Mar 8, 2005TCCATEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED—
Jul 12, 2004CFITCASE FILE IN TICRS—
Jun 28, 2004EXPTEXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED—
Jun 28, 2004EXPTEXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED—
Mar 30, 2004EXFBEXPARTE APPEAL DISMISSED - FAILURE TO FILE BRIEF—
Dec 20, 2003ABN3ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL—
Sep 30, 2003RECDACTION DENYING REQ FOR RECON MAILED—
Aug 20, 2003JURTJURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY—
Aug 20, 2003EXPIEX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED—
Aug 11, 2003EXAFEXPARTE APPEAL RECEIVED AT TTAB—
Jan 21, 2003CNCFCONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED—
Dec 20, 2002CRFACORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE—
Dec 20, 2002MAILPAPER RECEIVED—
Nov 29, 2002UNPRUNRESPONSIVE/DUPLICATE PAPER RECEIVED—
Nov 29, 2002MAILPAPER RECEIVED—
Jun 18, 2002CNRTNON-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.
Jan 31, 2002AUPCAMENDMENT TO USE PROCESSING COMPLETE—
Oct 10, 2001DOCKASSIGNED TO EXAMINER—
Oct 6, 2001DPCCDIVISIONAL PROCESSING COMPLETE—
Aug 10, 2001IUAFUSE AMENDMENT FILED—
Aug 10, 2001CRFACORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE—
Aug 10, 2001DRRRDIVISIONAL REQUEST RECEIVED—
Feb 12, 2001CNFRFINAL 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.
Jul 25, 2000CRFACORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE—
Jul 20, 2000CRFACORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE—
Jan 24, 2000CNRTNON-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.
Jan 18, 2000CNEAEXAMINER'S AMENDMENT MAILED—
Dec 10, 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.
Oct 6, 1999DOCKASSIGNED TO EXAMINER—
Oct 4, 1999DOCKASSIGNED TO EXAMINER—

Frequently asked questions

Related guidance