USPTO serial 76228922
MOZART MINIS
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- MULLEN, MARK
- 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 MOZART MINIS?
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
D-83435 Bad Reichenhall, DE
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Michael J. Bujold
MICHAEL J. BUJOLD DAVIS & BUJOLD, P.L.L.C.112 PLEASANT STREETCONCORD, NH 03301UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 030 | SWEETS, NAMELY, PASTRIES AND CANDIES | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 7, 2008 | 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. |
| Oct 7, 2008 | 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. |
| Mar 11, 2008 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 11, 2008 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 11, 2008 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 11, 2007 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 11, 2007 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 11, 2007 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Sep 10, 2007 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Sep 10, 2007 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 10, 2007 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Aug 2, 2007 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 29, 2007 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 29, 2007 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 2, 2006 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 27, 2006 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 27, 2006 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 26, 2006 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Jun 22, 2006 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 22, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 3, 2006 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 3, 2006 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 3, 2005 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 3, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Nov 2, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Oct 21, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 21, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 3, 2005 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 3, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 31, 2005 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 31, 2005 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 30, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Mar 21, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 21, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 14, 2004 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 14, 2004 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 14, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Mar 29, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 29, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 15, 2004 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Mar 5, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Aug 13, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 10, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 10, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jun 16, 2003 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Dec 10, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 2, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 15, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 15, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jul 17, 2002 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 15, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 9, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 16, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 13, 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. |
| Jun 11, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |