USPTO serial 76080842
CAMPO AL SORBO
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- GRAY, CAROLYN
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 111 - 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 CAMPO AL SORBO?
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
Pontassieve (Florence), IT
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Lawrence E. Abelman
LAWRENCE E ABELMAN ABELMAN FRAYNE & SCHWAB666 3RD AVE 10TH FLNEW YORK, NY 10017UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 033 | Wines spirits and liquors | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 12, 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. |
| Jun 12, 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. |
| Nov 14, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Nov 11, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 8, 2005 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Mar 7, 2005 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 7, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 3, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Feb 9, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 9, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 15, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 14, 2004 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 14, 2004 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Aug 23, 2004 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Feb 20, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 29, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Jan 16, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 16, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Nov 25, 2003 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 10, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 14, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 14, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Nov 26, 2002 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 5, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Apr 26, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 4, 2001 | 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 8, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |