USPTO serial 76286385
MANHATTAN CHILD
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- GAYNOR, BARBARA ANNE
- Law office
- INTENT TO USE UNIT
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 MANHATTAN CHILD?
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.
JAMIE NAFZIGER
JAMIE NAFZIGER DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP50 S 6TH ST STE 1500MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-1498UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 028 | Toys, namely, dolls; doll clothes; doll accessories; plush and soft sculpture toys; puppets; infant toys; musical toys; noise-making toys, namely, musical mobiles, music boxes, squeaking toys, and toys containing crinkle paper; toys designed to be attached to car seats, strollers, cribs and high chairs; sock toys and sock puppets; rattles; baby's and children's multiple activity toys; baby rattles incorporating teething rings; crib toys; toy mobiles | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| May 11, 2005 | 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. |
| May 11, 2005 | 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. |
| Aug 18, 2004 | EX3G | SOU EXTENSION 3 GRANTED | — |
| Aug 6, 2004 | EXT3 | SOU EXTENSION 3 FILED | — |
| Aug 6, 2004 | 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. |
| Aug 6, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Feb 8, 2004 | EX2G | SOU EXTENSION 2 GRANTED | — |
| Feb 8, 2004 | EXT2 | SOU EXTENSION 2 FILED | — |
| Feb 8, 2004 | 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. |
| Aug 11, 2003 | EX1G | SOU EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | — |
| Aug 11, 2003 | EXT1 | SOU EXTENSION 1 FILED | — |
| Aug 11, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 18, 2003 | 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. |
| Nov 26, 2002 | 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. |
| Nov 6, 2002 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Sep 20, 2002 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Sep 16, 2002 | CNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT MAILED | — |
| May 21, 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. |
| Mar 27, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 27, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 1, 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. |
| Sep 24, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |