USPTO serial 76278073
BEVERLY HILLS GOURMET FOODS
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- DUBOIS, SUSAN L
- 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 BEVERLY HILLS GOURMET FOODS?
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
Los Angeles, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
DOUGLAS E. WHITE
DOUGLAS E WHITE REGISTERED PATENT ATTORNEY14 CAMINO SOBRANTEORINDA, CA 94563UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 029 | Jams, peanut butter, salad oils, olive oils and cranberry sauce, all sold retail and not to the institutional trade | ACTIVE | — |
| 030 | Spices, salad dressings, candies, chocolate, condiments, namely, mustards and relish, sauces, namely, artichoke sauce, barbecue sauce, cheese sauce, chili sauce, hot sauce, picante sauce, pizza sauce, sloppy joe sauce, soy sauce, spaghetti sauce, tartar sauce, teriyaki sauce and tomato sauce, and mix for making combined noodle and sauce dishes, all sold retail and not to the institutional trade | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 4, 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. |
| Jan 7, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 19, 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. |
| Jun 6, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 6, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 24, 2002 | 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. |
| May 1, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Mar 26, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 7, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Sep 10, 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 24, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |