USPTO serial 76271497
BAILI
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- JOYNER, CHARLES G
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 111 - DOCKET CLERK
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 BAILI?
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
821 01 Bratislava, RU
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Lawrence E. Abelman
LAWRENCE E ABELMAN C/O ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB666 3RD AVENEW YORK, NY 10017-5621UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 030 | Peanut candy, candy, candy for decorating Christmas trees, chocolate, fondants, candy caramels, pastries, petit fours, pies, almond candy, marzipan, peppermint candy, waffles, gingerbread, sweetmeats, rusks, petit-beurre biscuits, malt biscuits, cereal preparations and cereal based products, namely, processed cereals, breakfast cereals, cereal-derived food bars, cookies and bread, cakes, chewing gum, candy consisting mainly of fruit jellies, and muesli | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 27, 2006 | CHAN | APPLICANT/CORRESPONDENCE CHANGES (NON-RESPONSIVE) ENTERED | — |
| Feb 7, 2006 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 6, 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. |
| Feb 4, 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. |
| Aug 24, 2005 | CHAN | APPLICANT/CORRESPONDENCE CHANGES (NON-RESPONSIVE) ENTERED | — |
| Aug 8, 2005 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jun 29, 2005 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 28, 2005 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 5, 2005 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Sep 7, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 7, 2004 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 30, 2004 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jan 16, 2004 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 9, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 16, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Feb 27, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 18, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 29, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 30, 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. |
| Nov 26, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |