USPTO serial 76254868
CONFERENCE FOR FOOD PROTECTION
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- GOODSAID, IRA
- Law office
- FILE REPOSITORY (FRANCONIA)
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 CONFERENCE FOR FOOD PROTECTION?
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.
Edward D. Gilhooly,
EDWARD D GILHOOLY EDWARD D GILHOOLY & ASSOCIATES28 E JACKSON BLVD STE 423CHICAGO, IL 60604-2207UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 035 | identifying problems, formulating recommendation and developing practices to ensure safety in retail food stores, food service, institutions and vending | 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 15, 2003 | 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. |
| Oct 12, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Jun 20, 2003 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Mar 28, 2003 | EXFB | EXPARTE APPEAL DISMISSED - FAILURE TO FILE BRIEF | — |
| Sep 24, 2002 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Sep 20, 2002 | EXAF | EXPARTE APPEAL RECEIVED AT TTAB | — |
| Sep 11, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 11, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 8, 2002 | 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. |
| Dec 3, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 23, 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. |
| Aug 2, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |