USPTO serial 75982963
#SEX
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- STIGLITZ, SUSAN R
- Law office
- INTENT TO USE UNIT
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 #SEX?
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.
Walter Steimel, Jr.
Walter Steimel, Jr. Loeb & Loeb LLP601 Pennsylvania AvenueSuite 900 SouthWashington, DC 20004Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 042 | TELEPHONE INFORMATION SERVICES FEATURING INFORMATION ON A WIDE VARIETY OF TOPICS OF GENERAL INTEREST TO THE CONSUMING PUBLIC, ALL THROUGH THE PUBLIC SWITCHED TELEPHONE NETWORK, WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS OR THROUGH THE GLOBAL PACKET SWITCHED COMPUTER NETWORK | 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.
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 23, 2013 | CHAN | APPLICANT/CORRESPONDENCE CHANGES (NON-RESPONSIVE) ENTERED | — |
| Sep 23, 2013 | COAR | TEAS CHANGE OF OWNER ADDRESS RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 14, 2010 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Nov 13, 2007 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 1, 2005 | 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. |
| Feb 1, 2005 | 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. |
| Apr 29, 2004 | EX2G | SOU EXTENSION 2 GRANTED | — |
| Apr 26, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Apr 16, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Apr 15, 2004 | EXT2 | SOU EXTENSION 2 FILED | — |
| Nov 13, 2003 | EX1G | SOU EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | — |
| Oct 15, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 10, 2003 | EXT1 | SOU EXTENSION 1 FILED | — |
| Apr 15, 2003 | 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. |
| Jan 21, 2003 | 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. |
| Jan 1, 2003 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Nov 19, 2002 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Oct 5, 2002 | DPCC | DIVISIONAL PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Nov 28, 2001 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Nov 28, 2001 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Oct 25, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 25, 2001 | DRRR | DIVISIONAL REQUEST RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 23, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 4, 2001 | CNCF | CONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | — |
| Jun 4, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 14, 2001 | 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. |
| Jan 16, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 11, 2000 | 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. |
| Jun 1, 2000 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 8, 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. |
| Dec 2, 1999 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 4, 1999 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 25, 1999 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |