USPTO serial 76255911
STEP 1 BRUSH ALONE = 50% CLEAN STEP 2 FLOSS 1+2 = UP TO 70% CLEAN STEP 3 CUSTOM CLEAN 1+2+3 = OPTIMAL GUM CARE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- EDWARDS, ALICIA COLLINS
- Law office
- INTENT TO USE SECTION
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 STEP 1 BRUSH ALONE = 50% CLEAN STEP 2 FLOSS 1+2 = UP TO 70% CLEAN STEP 3 CUSTOM CLEAN 1+2+3 = OPTIMAL GUM CARE?
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.
Charles A. Laff
CHARLES A LAFF MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LL[401 N MICHIGAN AVE STE 1700CHICAGO, IL 60611-4212UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 021 | NON-ELECTRIC INTERDENTAL BRUSHES | 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.
- Other trademarks owned by SUNSTAR AMERICAS, INC.
- Other trademarks owned by John O. Butler Company
- Other trademarks owned by John O. Butler Company
- Other trademarks in Class 021
- Similar marks named STEP 1 BRUSH ALONE = 50% CLEAN STEP 2 FLOSS 1+2 = UP TO 70% CLEAN STEP 3 CUSTOM CLEAN 1+2+3 = OPTIMAL GUM CARE
- Prosecution event MAB6 explained
- Recently changed USPTO trademarks
- Recently filed trademarks
- Browse all trademark records
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 9, 2006 | 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. |
| Jan 9, 2006 | 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. |
| May 4, 2005 | EX1G | SOU EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | — |
| May 4, 2005 | EXT1 | SOU EXTENSION 1 FILED | — |
| May 4, 2005 | EEXT | SOU TEAS EXTENSION RECEIVED | The applicant requested more time to file a Statement of Use before the Notice of Allowance deadline. Each extension typically adds six months. A limited number of extensions are available for intent-to-use applications not yet in use. |
| Nov 9, 2004 | 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. |
| Aug 17, 2004 | 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. |
| Jul 28, 2004 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| May 31, 2004 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| May 17, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 17, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 4, 2003 | 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. |
| Oct 23, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Apr 2, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 21, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 21, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jul 25, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 19, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 14, 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 13, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |