USPTO serial 76282855
SURESTEP
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 603
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- FRENCH, CURTIS W
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 115 - EXAMINING ATTORNEY ASSIGNED
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 SURESTEP?
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.
Russell W. Pyle
MELANYE K JOHNSON D4062-2E I DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANYDUPONT BLDG 1007 MARKET STWILMINGTON, DE 19898Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 010 | Protective disposable fabric covers for use in cleanrooms and ultra-clean manufacturing operations, namely, shoe covers | ACTIVE | Apr 15, 2001 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 24, 2004 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Nov 24, 2004 | MAB3 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Oct 21, 2004 | ABN3 | ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Oct 21, 2004 | EXFB | EXPARTE APPEAL DISMISSED - FAILURE TO FILE BRIEF | — |
| Jun 18, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 11, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Apr 13, 2004 | GECD | ACTION DENYING REQ FOR RECON E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 6, 2004 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Feb 6, 2004 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Feb 3, 2004 | EXAF | EXPARTE APPEAL RECEIVED AT TTAB | — |
| Jan 26, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 26, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 22, 2004 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 28, 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. |
| Jun 16, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| May 19, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| May 19, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Nov 20, 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. |
| Oct 25, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 24, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Mar 4, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 27, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 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. |
| Aug 28, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |