USPTO serial 75983056
BLACK HAT
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- MIZELLE HOWARD, DEZMONA JULYE
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 110 - 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 BLACK HAT?
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.
Grace J. Han
SUSAN L HELLER GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP2450 COLORADO AVE STE 400ESANTA MONICA, CA 90404UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 025 | caps, hats, visors | ACTIVE | Jul 29, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 16, 2006 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Jan 4, 2005 | 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. |
| Jan 3, 2005 | 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. |
| Dec 17, 2004 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Sep 23, 2004 | EXFB | EXPARTE APPEAL DISMISSED - FAILURE TO FILE BRIEF | — |
| May 20, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Apr 6, 2004 | GECG | ACTION GRANTING REQ FOR RECON E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 25, 2004 | GECG | ACTION GRANTING REQ FOR RECON E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 23, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Oct 20, 2003 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Oct 8, 2003 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Oct 2, 2003 | EXAF | EXPARTE APPEAL RECEIVED AT TTAB | — |
| Sep 22, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 13, 2003 | GNFR | FINAL REFUSAL E-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 31, 2003 | AUPC | AMENDMENT TO USE PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Dec 13, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 16, 2002 | DPCC | DIVISIONAL PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Sep 25, 2002 | IUAF | USE AMENDMENT FILED | — |
| Sep 25, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 25, 2002 | DRRR | DIVISIONAL REQUEST RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 13, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 13, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 12, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 12, 2002 | 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. |
| Feb 8, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |